How Joseph Stalin Starved Millions in the Ukrainian Famine

2021-08-0220:416924www.history.com

Cruel efforts under Stalin to impose collectivism and tamp down Ukrainian nationalism left an estimated 3.9 million dead.

At the height of the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine under Joseph Stalin, starving people roamed the countryside, desperate for something, anything to eat. In the village of Stavyshche, a young peasant boy watched as the wanderers dug into empty gardens with their bare hands. Many were so emaciated, he recalled, that their bodies began to swell and stink from the extreme lack of nutrients.

"You could see them walking about, just walking and walking, and one would drop, and then another, and so on it went," he said many years later, in a case history collected in the late 1980s by a Congressional commission. In the cemetery outside the village hospital, overwhelmed doctors carried the bodies on stretchers and tossed them into an enormous pit.

The Holodomor's Death Toll

The Ukrainian famine—known as the Holodomor, a combination of the Ukrainian words for “starvation” and “to inflict death”—by one estimate claimed the lives of 3.9 million people, about 13 percent of the population. And, unlike other famines in history caused by blight or drought, this was caused when a dictator wanted both to replace Ukraine’s small farms with state-run collectives and punish independence-minded Ukrainians who posed a threat to his totalitarian authority.

“The Ukrainian famine was a clear case of a man-made famine,” explains Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts University and author of the 2018 book, Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine. He describes it as “a hybrid…of a famine caused by calamitous social-economic policies and one aimed at a particular population for repression or punishment.”

In those days, Ukraine—a Texas-sized nation along the Black Sea to the west of Russia—was a part of the Soviet Union, then ruled by Stalin. In 1929, as part of his plan to rapidly create a totally communist economy, Stalin had imposed collectivization, which replaced individually owned and operated farms with big state-run collectives. Ukraine’s small, mostly subsistence farmers resisted giving up their land and livelihoods.

Ukrainian Famine

Grain confiscated from a family derided as "kulaks" in the village of Udachoye in Ukraine. 

Sovfoto/UIG/Getty Images

Resistant Farmers Labeled as 'Kulaks'

In response, the Soviet regime derided the resisters as kulaks—well-to-do peasants, who in Soviet ideology were considered enemies of the state. Soviet officials drove these peasants off their farms by force and Stalin’s secret police further made plans to deport 50,000 Ukrainian farm families to Siberia, historian Anne Applebaum writes in her 2017 book, Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine.

“Stalin appears to have been motivated by the goal of transforming the Ukrainian nation into his idea of a modern, proletarian, socialist nation, even if this entailed the physical destruction of broad sections of its population,” says Trevor Erlacher, an historian and author specializing in modern Ukraine and an academic advisor at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Russian, East European, & Eurasian Studies.

Collectivization in Ukraine didn’t go very well. By the fall of 1932—around the time that Stalin’s wife, Nadezhda Sergeevna Alliluyeva, who reportedly objected to his collectivization policy, committed suicide—it became apparent that Ukraine’s grain harvest was going to be miss Soviet planners’ target by 60 percent. There still might have been enough food for Ukrainian peasants to get by, but, as Applebaum writes, Stalin then ordered what little they had be confiscated as punishment for not meeting quotas.

“The famine of 1932-33 stemmed from later decisions made by the Stalinist government, after it became clear that the 1929 plan had not gone as well as hoped for, causing a food crisis and hunger,” explains Stephen Norris, a professor of Russian history at Miami University in Ohio. Norris says a December 1932 document called, “On the Procurement of Grain in Ukraine, the North Caucasus, and the Western Oblast,” directed party cadres to extract more grain from regions that had not met their quotas. It further called for the arrest of collective farm chiefs who resisted and of party members who did not fulfill the new quotas. 

An armed man guards emergency supply grain during the Ukrainian famine of early 1930s. 

An armed man guards emergency supply grain during the Ukrainian famine of early 1930s. 

Sovfoto/UIG/Getty Images

Decrees Targeted Ukrainian 'Saboteurs'

Meanwhile, Stalin, according to Applebaum, already had arrested tens of thousands of Ukrainian teachers and intellectuals and removed Ukrainian-language books from schools and libraries. She writes that the Soviet leader used the grain shortfall as an excuse for even more intense anti-Ukrainian repression. As Norris notes, the 1932 decree “targeted Ukrainian ‘saboteurs,’ ordered local officials to stop using the Ukrainian language in their correspondence, and cracked down on Ukrainian cultural policies that had been developed in the 1920s.”

When Stalin’s crop collectors went out into the countryside, according to a 1988 U.S. Congressional commission report, they used long wooden poles with metal points to poke the dirt floors of peasants’ homes and probe the ground around them, in case they’d buried stores of grain to avoid detection. Peasants accused of being food hoarders typically were sent off to prison, though sometimes the collectors didn’t wait to inflict punishment. Two boys who were caught hiding fish and frogs they’d caught, for example, were taken to the village soviet, where they were beaten, and then dragged into a field with their hands tied and mouths and noses gagged, where they were left to suffocate.

As the famine worsened, many tried to flee in search of places with more food. Some died by the roadside, while others were thwarted by the secret police and the regime’s system of internal passports. Ukrainian peasants resorted to desperate methods in an effort to stay alive, according to the Congressional commission’s report. They killed and ate pets and consumed flowers, leaves, tree bark and roots. One woman who found some dried beans was so hungry that she ate them on the spot without cooking them, and reportedly died when they expanded in her stomach.

“The policies adopted by Stalin and his deputies in response to the famine after it had begun to grip the Ukrainian countryside constitute the most significant evidence that the famine was intentional,” Erlacher says. “Local citizens and officials pleaded for relief from the state. Waves of refugees fled the villages in search of food in the cities and beyond the borders of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.” The regime’s response, he says, was to take measures that worsened their plight.

By the summer of 1933, some of the collective farms had only a third of their households left, and prisons and labor camps were jammed to capacity. With hardly anyone left to raise crops, Stalin’s regime resettled Russian peasants from other parts of the Soviet Union in Ukraine to cope with the labor shortage. Faced with the prospect of an even wider food catastrophe, Stalin’s regime in the fall of 1933 started easing off collections.

A string of carts with bread confiscated from peasants, circa 1932. 

A string of carts with bread confiscated from peasants, circa 1932. 

Sovfoto/UIG/Getty Images

Russian Government Denies Famine Was 'Genocide'

The Russian government that replaced the Soviet Union has acknowledged that famine took place in Ukraine, but denied it was genocide. Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” In April 2008, Russia's lower house of Parliament passed a resolution stating that “There is no historical proof that the famine was organized along ethnic lines.” Nevertheless, at least 16 countries have recognized the Holodomor, and most recently, the U.S. Senate, in a 2018 resolution, affirmed the findings of the 1988 commission that Stalin had committed genocide.

Ultimately, although Stalin’s policies resulted in the deaths of millions, it failed to crush Ukrainian aspirations for autonomy, and in the long run, they may actually have backfired. “Famine often achieves a socio-economic or military purpose, such as transferring land possession or clearing an area of population, since most flee rather than die,” famine historian de Waal says. “But politically and ideologically it is more often counterproductive for its perpetrators. As in the case of Ukraine it generated so much hatred and resentment that it solidified Ukrainian nationalism.”

Eventually, when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine finally became an independent nation—and the Holodomor remains a painful part of Ukrainians’ common identity. 


Read the original article

Comments

  • By pew_pew_ 2021-08-039:342 reply

    Well, the article misses just a couple of things: 1) First and foremost, the famine was USSR-wide and hit both RSFSR and Kazakhstan, the latter one had even worse population consequences. 2) When it became apparent that there is not enough grain, USSR started rapidly importing it and giving out - still in a brutal city-favouring way, but it was not a deliberate politics of starvation. 3) The whole story started due to western nations banning gold trade with the USSR, forcing it to gamble on grain yields to buy equipment for industrialisation

    The famine still was a terrible mistake, but trying to paint it as deliberate killing is unfair -- it is more akin to great depression (typical forced move to the city and machine agriculture). Except it didn't last 10 years and they tried to fix it as soon as it happened.

    • By emergie 2021-08-0312:19

      Well, the article also fails to mention that the Soviet Union exported food products during this famine. People starved because of confiscation of goods and mandatory food contingents.

      Ukraine has one of the most fertile soil on the planet and has had developed agrarian culture. Creating a famine in such place requires malice.

    • By daoman 2021-08-0314:401 reply

      Those points are not true 1. People in Ukraine were literally eating each other. Where in Russia was it happening? In Moscow? No. St Petersburg? No. Novgorod? No. 2. Not a starvation politic you say? Everyone knew about the famine, soldiers were expropriating grain from weak and hungry people, the communists saw it with their own eyes, and still proceeded. It was an explicit punishment for not fully supporting Soviet Government. 3. The grain was in fact exported during the famine, this fact is undisputable as there are records in the countries that were buying that grain. There are no records of BUYING grain by the USSR at that period.

      And the last point you make is completely ridiculous: "well, it wasn't happening for 10 years, so it's just an innocent mistake" - it was happening for 2 years and 3.5 million people died in Ukraine. How about that for a mistake? If 1000 died and they stopped it, I would agree. Or maybe 10000. Ok, 100,000 hungry deaths you cannot ignore, but 3.5 million people?! It was intentional and it was a genocide of Ukrainians.

      • By pew_pew_ 2021-08-048:08

        1. Volga? 2. I can agree with that, which I pointed out by mentioning that cities (with industrial population) were favored. 3. It is true, but the exports were curtailed in an attempt to combat the famine. I made the mistake before freshening up on soviet foreign trade, which basically consisted of grain only. I can see why they exported it even during the famine -- without selling grain there would be no fuel, no spare parts, the whole economy would halt.

        I didn't say that was an 'innocent mistake' -- mistakes can still be brutal and criminal, yet if it was a deliberate genocide of Ukrainians, tell me, why did 2 to 3 millions of Russians and the same amount of Kasakhs died?

        And the point about comparison with the great depression is not about time, but about damage control -- in the case of great depression they did none, due to ideological reasons, while in the soviet case they did, although limited it.

        It was more of a bureaucracy/management problem combined with Stalin's disregard of life: administration was trying to get the ridicilous KPIs (while manufacturing illicit statistics) at the cost of the people at hand.

  • By MrBingley 2021-08-0222:364 reply

    Recently I've been reading Vasily Grossman's A Writer At War, which is a collection of his journals from the Eastern Front, and the depths of Stalin's brutality are staggering. In the Battle of Stalingrad he forbade that any citizens flee the city since he thought it would motivate the troops, and special battalions were set up behind the front line to shoot any who retreated. In the battle itself Soviet snipers targeted the German water carriers, and so the Germans bribed children with food to fetch water for them, who were promptly shot since any collaboration with the enemy was punished with death.

    • By pram 2021-08-030:59

      Stalin also sent the NKVD to the Spanish Civil War to mostly root out “trotskyites and anarchists” from the Republican side(!) rather than against the Falange.

      This is what disillusioned leftists who saw it first hand (like George Orwell) with the USSR

    • By DamnYuppie 2021-08-030:12

      I think that was part of his order 227. Which is basically death to anyone who retreats as well as punishment to their family back home.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227

    • By MikeUt 2021-08-030:101 reply

      Odd. None of those details were included in the Enemy at the Gates movie, and it specifically focused on snipers.

      • By jo6gwb 2021-08-030:421 reply

        Enemy at the gates shows the Russians shooting their own retreating soldiers.

        See 2:30 of following clip https://youtu.be/L8fWp-i-BGA

        • By MikeUt 2021-08-030:551 reply

          I was referring more to barring civilians from leaving the city, and shooting at children.

          • By mrDmrTmrJ 2021-08-031:323 reply

            There's a long and terrible tradition of western media refusing to expose Stalin's crimes:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

            • By fithisux 2021-08-035:15

              Unsubstantiated claim. He is used as a negative advertisement of Soviet era.

              If you read carefull the trial in Nuernberg, Germany was not punished at all and they were worse.

              For me he showd disrespect for his comrades. The battle of Kursk had much more casualties that it needed to be. The same happens for the war in total. He was completely incapable to be a leader. Useless and he did not care for his country. He also demonized communism and was in reality a dictator that pulled the right strings to become leader of a party (exactly what happens with leaders usually). He was also a racist and mass exterminated people. If he was different may the bloodshed of WWII would be prevented.

              But the same was Pinochet and the western media covered all his crimes.

            • By thescriptkiddie 2021-08-033:461 reply

              ??????

              There's a long and terrible tradition of western media regarding Stalin as literally worse than Hitler.

              • By mrDmrTmrJ 2021-08-034:131 reply

                FYI:

                "For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law."

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

                • By redis_mlc 2021-08-036:06

                  FYI:

                  Godwin's Law applies to ad hominem attacks, not to historical commentary.

                  Don't you feel silly now?

            • By antifa 2021-08-035:272 reply

              I'm not sure what you mean by this, the crimes of Stalin are probably over exposed in Western media, if anything. There's no shortage of people eager to inform you that Stalin killed people, even if it's completely off topic!

              • By alentist 2021-08-152:53

                Why do you think they are "over exposed"? What do you claim is the "correct" level of exposure?

              • By lukami 2021-08-0317:45

                Would you say the same thing about the crimes of Hitler?

    • By fithisux 2021-08-035:08

      They were determined to not surrender. This is not brutal. The enemy was killing kids and babies just because. It was a very right decision and should be thanked by all free people for their sacrifice.

  • By MaxDPS 2021-08-036:501 reply

    If anyone is interested in learning more about this, I’d recommend the book “The Bloodlands”. It talks about the atrocities Stalin and Hitler did leading up to WW2.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6572270-bloodlands

    • By Arrath 2021-08-0312:37

      Seconded. This is a great, if very depressing, book.

HackerNews