Pedro

The word bedlam comes from the mental asylum Bedlam in merry old England. Alas Bedlam was not a merry place but a mad house. Back in the 18th and 19th century it was an entertainment for people to go to the mad house and poke sticks through the bars to watch the reaction of the poor inmates. Oh it was so much fun. Total Science, you are the 21st century version of this diversion. I mention this not because you will benefit from it but to help clarify the mind of those who aren't familiar with your kind of sadism. Another word for this behavior is 'spoiler'. A spoiler is the guy that walks down the street 'keying' cars simply because he can. (You've done that haven't you?) You need help 'total science' and since I say this I will take responsibility for my remarks. And by that I mean 'response ability'. Would you be willing to sit down with me and Dr. Phil and talk this out? This is a real offer. e-mail me off line. I know your pain.

vid

Well, in fact, I would object to "engineered holocaust", as people would understand it without further explanation. You surely cannot equate it with Nazi holocaust, where exterminating people was main objective. This wasn't such case (even though staunch anti-communists love to say so). Stalin did not want to kill ukrainian farmers - that would be plainly stupid from any point of view.

In summer 1928 during NEP, farmers did not sell enough surplus grain to state, they wanted to keep it until spring, when prices are higher. There were two main ideas how to solve this in Soviet government. "Rightists" led by Bukharin wanted to rise price of grain. "Centrists" (who turned out to be extreme leftists), represented by Stalin, wanted to requisition the grain by force. After lot of political fighting, Stalin line eventually won (even though most of population and communists would prefer Bukharin).

So they solve problem by requisitioning grain by force. However, this has upset farmers, so the situation repeated next year with even worse conditions. Some farmers decided to only plant as much as they need for themselves, and not to have any surplus grain. And that's where the problem started - because Stalin's line decided to yet again to solve this by force, this time taking away from little grain peasants meant for themselves.

Keep in mind that until now no one talked about collectivization, it was still just discussion about how to overcome problems of NEP. But the situation gradated more next year. After previous year, more and more peasants only planted as much food as they would need themself, and many didn't plow their fields at all in protest. There was desperate lack of food, and this crisis needed a drastical solution. Either the gov would make some major step towards peasants, or it had to force them into collectivization (peasants in collectives no longer can decide how much they plow, they have to obey). At this time, Stalin already had become the major political power in country, and of course Stalin chose the latter (effectively making him trotskiist).

This has naturally upset peasants even more, they protested more, and they produced less food. If Stalin wanted to succumb them into collectives, only way to do it was by force. He started major repressions by NKVD, and also the infamous deportations. For these we really can blame him. Situation especially worsened in 1931 and 1932, when there was a nasty drought. By that time, most of cattle had died from lack of food, and soviet industry couldn't make up for them by tractors yet. Peasants were still protesting, and this time they (and also peasants who already entered collectives) also didn't have cattle nor tractors to effectively plow fields. Many most successful peasants (kulaks) were deported to far east. That resulted in major shortage of food in 1933 in areas where peasants were still revolting (even though the drought didn't repeat this year). Peasants simply haven't produced enough food for all.

If Stalin wanted to keep cities and army fed, he yet again again had to take food by force. And he took the little food peasants had for themselves - surely he would rather feed industry in the city and army, than revolting peasants. Thus, peasants were left without food. Note that contrary to popular claims, russian foreign trade with food dropped greatly (IIRC to 1/4 of previous year, that already was bad), but some trade of course had to be left in order to buy tractors to replace the dead cattle, so that same situation won't repeat next year again.

This terrible famine stopped all peasant protests, everyone finally entered collectives, industry was slowly making more and more tractors, and situation calmed down in following years. Except the war years, this was AFAIK the last famine Russia experienced for some many decades years - probably a record in Russian list of famines.

We can blame Stalin for trying to solve NEP by force, that gradated situation so badly he had to start collectivization. We can blame Stalin for doing the collectivization by extreme measures (deportations, NKVD terror), but it is debatable whether it could have been done in other way. We can blame him for taking such political actions that eventually resulted in country-wide famine (as has happened to virtully every previous leader of Russia).

What we can not blame him is that he has done that on purpose, with aim to create famine. We cannot blame him for withholding surplus grain from peasants. Even after reading couple of studies about 1933 famine, I have yet to see some bit of evidence supporting any of these claims. He tried to solve agriculture problems by force, graduating into even worse problems and eventually famine, that forced people to succumb to collectivization.

Charlson

Hmmm...for some reason this also reminded me of the Irish Potato Famine...but I have no idea if that was 'engineered' by the state officials though...

urtel

or THE GREAT INDIAN FAMINE 1943-44, but guess we not have 1 man we can accuse for millions of lifes here, or that is not fancy in some cases...

What i will like to hear is opinion about J.Stalin from some Russian here , anyone?

Iolo

If it hadn't been Stalin it would have been somebody else. As Isaac Deutscher shows, the attack by eighteen different capitalist armies destroyed the Russian working class, and the European revolution failed. The Party was forced by the conditions of civil war to destroy in turn the other parties and all the groups with contacts amongst the enemies of the Revolution, to eliminate democratic centralism and more and more to concentrate power in one pair of hands. Almost all of that was totally inevitable.

Once all power is in one pair of hands, all kinds of idiocies occur, like the grotesque mess that was made of collectivisation. Under dictatorship all the good girls and boys want to please massah. and all the nasties know how to get those who stand in their way. To put this stuff down to somebody's personality disorders in childish: Stalin, brought up to be a priest, was just the man for 'Socialism in one Country'. Everyone knew it was bullshit, but there were huge benefits in it for the sorts of scumbag who comes to the top in any society. What's the point of blame: go and do thou otherwise - like not allowing armed intervention in other people's countries.

Anna James

I really like your post, it's very clear and balanced. I'm not Russian, Bulgarian though, with a Stalinist background...for what it's worth..
My personal opinion about the 1933 Ukrainian Famine is that it wasn't a genocide in the dictionary sense of the word - "deliberate and systematic destruction ....of human beings", but in the same time it was a quite successful weapon in the destruction of the human spirit. I would use the word "blackmail", which would work in Bulgarian and I think, Russian, but the meaning of the word in English is kind of bleak, more connected with the use of material possession in Bulgarian it works both on material and psychological level. Sure, Stalin didn't mean to kill the Ukrainian peasants, he only wanted to show them who is the boss, and this escalated because they had quite a spirit and put up a good fight. Now, what do you call this is question of personal philosophy, and anyone interprets it in his or her own way.
In some way Stalin couldn't give up and let the Ukrainians have a leverage, because this would defy the political philosophy he was devoted to, and I honestly believe that no so much his personal ambition, but his belief that the fate of the political construction that was being fortified under him was so important, that he couldn't take chances with some human lives, which in the light of the Russian psychology is nothing /I call it Russian not as ethnic characteristic, but as a psychological one, and if you doubt that this exist, just read General Jukov's memoirs, the Russian military man is indifferent about the amount of his soldiers' lives he is going to sacrifice to an degree which is not understandable for any Westerner, that's why the Russians lost easy, IMHO, 20 million in the WW2/. So, for Stalin how many will die was a matter of no relevance at all, the important thing was to secure Ukraine for the cause of the Russian might. He simply didn't have a choice, nor he had scruples to agonize over, this wasn't an issue at all.
Can you call this "genocide" then? He was simply viewing it as the commonplace sacrifice everyone should do for the cause, if you don't want to do it, we will make you do it...
Was it a genocide for the people who died? I think so, they died in appalling numbers, just because they wanted to have a little bit of personal choice.
I certainly don't think Stalin was evil, or were taking any pleasure in his signing whatever will condemn people lives and happiness to destruction, he was just doing his job.
Krushchov mentioned how many times Stalin, when slightly drunk would start talking that he will die and the big powers will "strangle Russia like so many chickens", or kittens...and one of his assertion was that "Russia outgrew it's wooden shoes" /the meaning is that Russia is not a child anymore to the Western Powers/. Does those statements strike you as the ramblings of an ambition-crazed person? No, his soul was shivering, IMHO, that he will go away and the created with so many efforts construction will fall apart...
In some way, we are the builders of our own prisons, and after so much done, we cannot stop, the prison is doing whatever is to preserve itself through our hands...
I you can see, I'm heavily influenced by Hannah Arendt. I read a bunch of stuff about how the "bright future" came out to be the bleakest prison /which is a very personal quest for me/, and her "The Origins of the Totalitarianism" explains to me the behavior of people like Stalin, /and Stalin/ the best of all.
By the way, my grandparents were big Stalinists. Very loving people,...very devoted to kids, grandkids, but the most to the... "Idea".

Anna James

I don't know about the first - can anyone play Abraham /as in Abraham and Isaak/? Khruschov wouldn't be able to pull it together, he was just too humane for that, IMHO. I can't think about any Russian leader after Stalin, who could do Yalta, and Potsdam...and so matter of factly walk over his part of the bargain /I mean this part that stipulated that the East-European countries will be allowed free elections/, Brejnev had no imagination, no persuative power...
The second would be nice...never work with humans. No blame, just life...

Edward

The "natural disaster" excuse to cover up the 1933 Famine-Genocide does not hold water. It was not caused by some natural calamity or crop failure:

1. The 1931 harvest was 18.3 million tons of grain.
2. The 1932 harvest was 14.6 million tons of grain.
3. The 1933 harvest was 22.3 million tons of grain.
4. The 1934 harvest was 12.3 million tons of grain.

In 1934 during the poorest harvest - a mere 12.3 - there was no massive famine because Stalin reduced the grain requisition quotas and even released grain from existing "state stockpiles" to feed the population.
The highest death rates were in the grain growing provinces of Poltava, Dnipropetrovsk, Kirovohrad and Odessa: usually 20-25%, although higher in many villages.

Anna James

Thank you for the numbers!
Yes, he reduced the "requisition quotas and even released grain" because the people were already broken, the weapon did it's work, so who wants to lose his slaves after being broken?
I read some Georgian slaveowner's remarks in exchange of info how better to brake one's slaves, reminds me of the topic.
I suspect whoever survived was quite grateful for what they got...if something is unforgivable for me, I believe this is...to turn people in ...frightened animals. Unfortunately I can't find the correct word for "genocide over the humanness of the human being".

vid

Anna James: Thanks, and I agree with everything you wrote.

Edward: I don't think anyone here tried to blame natural disaster solely, at most only as factor that made things worse.