Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, by Timothy Snyder
Snyder begins his examination of this horrendous time and
place – Central and Eastern Europe crushed by and between Stalin and Hitler –
with the Soviet famines, and especially the famines in Ukraine; the same
Ukraine with some of the most fertile soil in all of Europe.
There was famine in the cities:
People in the cities of Soviet
Ukraine were afraid of losing their place in breadlines and they were afraid of
starving to death.
There was famine in the countryside:
…the Ukrainian countryside was
dying. City dwellers could not fail to
notice the destitution of peasants who, contrary to all seeming logic, left the
fields in search of food.
Why famines? Stalin took
the grain; he required the grain to be collected: “it is imperative to export
without fail immediately.” Stalin
required the grain to export, to generate funds necessary to quickly transform
the Soviet Union via purchases of products and weapons from the west.
Snyder offers many anecdotal stories – long bread lines;
thousands of starving children being sent to beg; women on the farms beaten, stripped,
and raped by party activists; cannibalization.
The mass starvation of 1933 was the
result of Stalin’s first Five-Year Plan, implemented between 1928 and
1932. In those years, Stalin had taken
control of the heights of the communist party, forced through a policy of
industrialization and collectivization, and emerged as the frightful father of
a beaten population. He transformed the
market into the plan, farmers into slaves, and the wastes of Siberia and
Kazakhstan into a chain of concentration camps.
The farmer didn’t go along with this transformation easily:
“He was bound to resist a policy designed to relieve him of his land and his
freedom.” The first targets were the
“kulaks,” who were to be “liquidated as a class.”
Who were the “kulaks”?
Kulaks…were a category of
relatively affluent farmers in the later Russian Empire, Soviet Russia, and
early Soviet Union. The word kulak originally referred to independent farmers
in the Russian Empire who emerged from the peasantry and became wealthy
following the Stolypin reform, which began in 1906. The label of kulak was
broadened in 1918 to include any peasant who resisted handing over their grain
to detachments from Moscow. During
1929-1933, Stalin's leadership of the total campaign to collectivize the
peasantry meant that "peasants with a couple of cows or five or six acres
more than their neighbors" were being labeled "kulaks".
That is the sanitary definition; according to Snyder “In
practice, the state decided who was a kulak and who was not.”
Things started small:
The police were to deport
prosperous farmers, who had the most to lose from collectivization. In January 1930 the politburo authorized the
state police to screen the peasant population of the entire Soviet Union.
For each locality, a group of three people – made up of a
member of the state police, a local party leader, and a state prosecutor – were
empowered to decide the fate of each peasant brought before them.
Although the Soviet Union had laws
and courts, these were now ignored in favor of the simple decision of three
individuals. Some thirty thousand Soviet
citizens would be executed after sentencing by the troikas.
Those not executed would end up in concentration camps,
“special settlements”:
The special settlements were new
villages purpose-built by the inmates themselves, after they were dropped on
the empty steppe or taiga.
Some three-hundred-thousand Ukrainians, along with over a
million Soviet kulaks from other republics, were deported to these “special
settlements” during this time.
By 1931, such punishment was combined with forced labor into
a single system, known as the Gulag – a system eventually to include “476 camp
complexes, to which some eighteen million people would be sentenced, of whom
between a million and a half and three million would die during their periods
of incarceration.”
One of the first touted “successes” of this forced labor
system was the Belomor, a canal between the White Sea and the Baltic Sea. The White Sea
Canal was opened in August 1933:
The canal was constructed by forced
labour of gulag inmates. During its construction by a total of 126,000 workers,
about 12,000 died, according to the official records, while historian Anne
Applebaum's estimate is 25,000 deaths.
The canal was dug using simple hand tools – hand tools in
the frozen netherworld of the northernmost reaches of the Soviet Union. The canal never proved to be of significant
use, beyond its use as propaganda – demonstrating the “success” of the Soviet
system to the outside world.
Death rates in the Gulag were high, but eventually the death
rates in the Ukrainian countryside would match these. Farms were collectivized by force, of course,
as the typical farmer did not yet fully comprehend the glories to be brought
via this Marxist dream:
Threatening deportation, [local
party activists] coerced peasants into signing away their claims to land and
joining the collective farm. The state
police intervened with force, often deadly force, when necessary….By the middle
of March 1930, seventy-one percent of the arable land in the Soviet Union had
been, at least in principle, attached to collective farms.
Rural Ukraine was, at the time, still relatively
religious. Many understood “the contract
with the collective farm as a pact with the devil. Some believed that Satan had come to earth in
human form as a party activist…”
With few guns and poor organization, resistance in place was
difficult if not impossible; many chose to resist with their feet…
…walking westward, across the
frontier into neighboring Poland. Whole
villages followed their example, taking up church banners, or crosses, or
sometimes just black flags tied to sticks, and marching westward toward the
border. Thousands of them reached
Poland….
Polish officials interviewed the refugees; they sent spies
the other way in order to encourage a Ukrainian revolt. From Stalin’s viewpoint, Poland was the
western part of an international capitalist encirclement – with Japan serving
as the eastern.
Further complication was to be found in Soviet Central Asia,
especially in largely Muslim and nomadic Soviet Kazakhstan. These nomads were forced to settle down, and
they didn’t agree – many riding into bordering China. Stalin feared these nomads as agents of
Japan, the dominant foreign power when it came to internal conflicts in China.
Collectivization was not going as planned during this first
five-year plan. Instead of bringing
order, it brought destabilization to the borderlands, and suffering everywhere
else. Stalin then decided to place
strict border restrictions, deported those that he felt brought internal risk
(e.g. Soviet Poles), and focused on “socialism in one country.” In 1930, Stalin even beat a tactical retreat
from collectivization, in order to buy breathing room for an even more complete
implementation in the coming year.
Given time to think, Stalin and the
politburo found more effective means to subordinate the peasantry to the
state. In the countryside the following
year, Soviet policy proceeded with much greater deftness. In 1931, collectivization would come because
peasants would no longer see a choice.
The farmer was taxed so extensively that he saw
collectivization as the only refuge.
Collective farms were authorized to take the seed-grain from independent
farmers. Fearing the Gulag, farmers
understood it was better to suffer at home than die in Siberia – they acquiesced
to the collectivization scheme.
Stalin was effective the second time, as he now firmly
succeeded in collectivizing the farms.
He went on to set quotas, quotas for harvest that were difficult or
impossible to meet and that left nothing for the farmer’s own needs. Every failure was blamed on theft by the
farmer – if threatened sufficiently, he would give up his storehouse. Eventually he would give up his seed-grain. His future was fully mortgaged, yet the
quotas would not be diminished.
The starvations were inevitable; Ukrainian party members
wrote directly to Stalin: “How can we construct the socialist economy when we
are all doomed to death by hunger?”
And they were most certainly doomed:
In June 1932 the head of the party
in the Kharkiv region wrote to Kosior that starvation had been reported in
every district….”Collective farm members go into the fields and disappear. After a few days their corpses are found…”
The blame was placed everywhere but upon the policies behind
the starvation; a betrayal by members of the Ukrainian communist party, theft
by the farmers, laziness, etc.
Raids and decrees could not create
food where there was none…The problem was starvation and death. Grain targets were not met because
collectivization had failed, the harvest of autumn 1932 was poor, and
requisition targets were too high.
Stalin convinced himself that the starvation was a plot
directed against him personally! It was
disloyalty of the Ukrainian communists, and this disloyalty was in service of
Polish espionage. But by January 1932,
the Soviets and Poles initialed a non-aggression pact; Poland, knowing of the
famines, did not publicize this fact – out of respect to the treaty. Stalin used this opportunity to further
strengthen his hold on the eastern borderlands.
Socialism, he claimed, just like
capitalism, needed laws to protect property.
The state would be strengthened if all agricultural production was
declared to be state property, any unauthorized collection of food deemed
theft, and such theft made punishable by immediate execution…The simple possession
of food was presumptive evidence of a crime.
The law came into force on 7 August 1932.
Hundreds of watchtowers were constructed, in order to keep
watch over this newly-created state property: food. Individual and collective farms that failed to
meet requisition targets were denied access to products from the rest of the
economy. A new troika was established,
to hasten the sentencing and execution of party activists and peasants who were
(supposedly) responsible for sabotage. Starvation
was seen as resistance – saboteurs’ hatred of socialism led them to
intentionally allow their families to starve.
More deportations.
According to Stalin, stories of the famine in Ukraine were a
“fairy tale.” He refused aid from
outside – no aid was needed when there was no starvation.
In the waning weeks of 1932, facing
no external security threat and no challenge from within, with no conceivable
justification except to prove the inevitability of his rule, Stalin chose to
kill millions of people in Soviet Ukraine.
He shifted to a position of pure malice, where the Ukrainian peasant was
somehow the aggressor and he, Stalin, the victim.
During this time, Stalin initiated several crucial policies applied
primarily toward, and in some cases exclusively toward, Soviet Ukraine:
·
19 November 1932: peasants in Ukraine were
required to return grain advances that they had previously earned by meeting
requisition targets.
·
20 November 1932: meat penalties were
introduced; if grain requisitions could not be met, a special tax was to be
paid in meat. Cattle and swine were now
lost.
·
28 November 1932: the “black list” was introduced;
collective farms that failed to meet their quotas were charged a penalty of
fifteen times the quota.
·
5 December 1932: Stalin’s handpicked security
chief for Ukraine, Vsevolod Balytskyi, presented the idea that the famine was a
plot of Ukrainian nationalists – exiles connected to Poland. Anyone who failed to do his part was,
therefore, a traitor to the state. This
was applied retroactively, to anyone who supported earlier Soviet policies
intended to develop a Ukrainian state.
Charges were fabricated; those who aided in the defense against the
charges were then also charged.
·
21 December 1932: one-third of the remaining
grain collections due by January 1933 throughout the entire Soviet Union were
to be collected from Ukraine – with its already starving population. According to Snyder, “…a death sentence for
about three million people…grain could not be collected from an already
starving population without the most horrific of consequences.”
·
First weeks of 1933: with starvation raging
through Ukraine, Stalin closed the borders of the republic such that the
starving couldn’t flee, and closed the cities such that the starving couldn’t beg. As of 14 January, citizens were required to
carry internal passports. The sale of
long distance tickets to peasants was banned.
There was nothing left to requisition. There was no way out. The results were inevitable:
In Soviet Ukraine in early 1933,
the communist party activists who collected the grain left a deathly quiet
behind them…Ukraine had gone mute.
Peasants had killed their livestock
(or lost it to the state), they had killed their chickens, they had killed
their cats and their dogs. They had
scared the birds away by hunting them…people died alone, families died alone,
whole villages died alone…the alienation of all from all.
Starvation led not to rebellion but
to amorality, to crime, to indifference, to madness, to paralysis, and finally
to death.
In the face of starvation, some
families divided, parents turning against children, and children against one
another. As the state police, the OGPU,
found itself obliged to record, in Soviet Ukraine “families kill their weakest
members, usually children, and use the meat for eating.”
At least 2,505 people were
sentenced for cannibalism in 1932 and 1933 in Ukraine, though the actual number
of cases was certainly much greater.
People in Ukraine never considered
cannibalism to be acceptable. Even at the
height of the famine, villagers were outraged to find cannibals in their midst,
so much so that they were spontaneously beaten or even burned to death.
Dead in bed, dead in a stove, dead in the marketplace, dying
at the rate of more than ten thousand per day.
Children turned against parents – the eyes and ears of the
party inside the home, occupying the watchtowers, reporting on their parents.
The dead from famine numbered in the millions – Stalin’s own
demographers concluded that the 1937 census for the Soviet Union found eight
million fewer people than projected. Stalin
had the responsible demographers executed.
Perhaps 5.5 million died from starvation, with something close to half
of these from Ukraine. Some estimates
are lower, some higher.
The facts of the famines were disputed. Walter Duranty, Pulitzer Prize winning
reporter for the New York Times, did
his best to undermine any factual reports coming out of the Soviet Union on
this topic – this despite knowing that millions had starved to death, shading
it because he thought that the starvation served a higher purpose.
By 1933, the story was known outside of the Soviet
Union. Five million Ukrainians lived in
Poland, and they petitioned the Polish government – yet even they did not know
of the extent until May 1933. In the
autumn of 1933 they reached Franklin Roosevelt directly, but he was too busy
being the first president to diplomatically recognize the Soviet Union; just
one step in allying
with this monster Stalin over the
coming decade.
The
Holodomor: death by hunger. A few say
it never happened, or that it was not a result of deliberate policy. Some call it genocide, others mass murder
against Ukrainian and other peasants; whatever you call it, the result was millions
deliberately crushed by Stalin in order to reach his revolutionary desires.
This concludes Snyder’s examination of the famine. Next, the terror.
What is NOT known about the Holodomor is that Stalin used the $$$ from these Harvests that the Soviets stole from the Ukrainians to repay their Yankee Banksters! The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was mainly sponsored by the likes of Jacob Schiff (who invested at least $20 Million in the mid 1910s worth about 1/2 Billion USD today) et al.
ReplyDeleteYeah, as per usual conspicuously absent is the name whitewashed out of history. "The usual suspects"
Delete(AKA)
The Jewish Bolsheviks
Excellent post. There are many variations of property theft in history, the Soviet collectivization program perhaps the most heinous of them all. It's interesting that the collectivization goal for Stalin was to raise revenue, through the export markets, to fund his nationalistic policy. Secondarily, of course, was to use starvation as a punishment tool if the Ukrainians didn't tow the Russian line. Compare and contrast this property theft with the "land reform executions" of the North Vietnam regime between 1953-1956. Large landowners and rich peasants were publicly denounced as landlords (địa chủ), and their land distributed to poor and middle peasants, particularly to those with ties to the Communist Party. In some cases there were mass slaughters of landlords. For Stalin, the Ukrainian breadbasket was an ATM machine. For Ho Chi Minh, land confiscation was an attack on the principle of private property and capital accumulation. The taproot goal of both policies being the consolidation of political power.
ReplyDeleteThis article certainly required special glasses to read.
ReplyDeleteBy read I mean read between the lines of "communists" "party activists" "state police" "troikas" "politburo" etc., etc., etc. Every key group named, except one.
And of course, then as with now the one missing is the same as it always is. The FORBIDDEN NAME of the REAL demons behind this mass murder beyond comprehension.
The Jewish Bolsheviks!!
Maybe I just missed it, eh?
This might take a little brain power to comprehend. Please take your time:
DeleteOne of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
"communists" "party activists" "state police" "troikas" "politburo" "Bolsheviks"
“JEWS”
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!
If you guess the right answer, you win; big bonus points if you can explain why!
Clever response.
DeleteI came to your site after reading this at LewRockwell. It's by far the best about all this I've ever seen, and you managed to get it all on this one page! Kudos!
Dean
DeleteThank you - on both points!
Yer quite welcome. Small wonder that commenter hides behind his moniker "Anonymous".
DeleteAnyway I'm re-posting this to my No-Ruler.net and will try to make "Read More" point to the comments. Keep up your good works!
One statement in particular stood out to me:
ReplyDelete"Collectivization was not going as planned..." Imagine that!
When dealing with collectivists/parasites of various persuasions, I often employ a variation of the creatio ex nihilo argument to show the logical absurdity of their position:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) Wealth began to exist.
3) Therefore, wealth must have a cause.
Of course, more often than not, the dialog typically degenerates into nothing more than special pleading, but, I don't cut them any slack and refuse to capitulate. And, since they are no friend of logic, it usually ends in their denial of logic to "prove" their "logic". Good times! Lol!
Larry