The “Holodomor” and the Film “Bitter Harvest” are Fascist Lies

FRONTLINENEWSLOGO-2


by GROVER FURR
CROSSPOST WITH COUNTERPUNCH


(Author’s note: In this article I rely heavily on the evidence cited in the research of Mark Tauger of West Virginia University. Tauger has spent his professional life studying Russian and Soviet famines and agriculture. He is a world authority on these subjects, and is cordially disliked by Ukrainian nationalists and anticommunists generally because his research explodes their falsehoods. )

The Ukrainian nationalist film “Bitter Harvest” propagates lies invented by Ukrainian nationalists. In his review Louis Proyect propagates these lies.

Proyect cites Jeff Coplon’s 1988 Village Voice article “In Search of a Soviet Holocaust: A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right.” In it Coplon shows that the leading “mainstream” anticommunist Western experts on Soviet history rejected any notion of a deliberate famine aimed at Ukrainians. They still reject it. Proyect fails to mention this fact.

There was a very serious famine in the USSR, including (but not limited to) the Ukrainian SSR, in 1932-33. But there has never been any evidence of a “Holodomor” or “deliberate famine,” and there is none today.

The “Holodomor” fiction was invented in by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators who found havens in Western Europe, Canada, and the USA after the war. An early account is Yurij Chumatskij, Why Is One Holocaust Worth More Than Others? published in Australia in 1986 by “Veterans of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army” this work is an extended attack on “Jews” for being too pro-communist.

Proyect’s review perpetuates the following falsehoods about the Soviet collectivization of agriculture and the famine of 1932-33:

* That in the main the peasants resisted collectivization because it was a “second serfdom.”

* That the famine was caused by forced collectivization. In reality the famine had environmental causes.

* That “Stalin” – the Soviet leadership – deliberately created the famine.

* That it was aimed at destroying Ukrainian nationalism.

* That “Stalin” (the Soviet government) “stopped the policy of “Ukrainization,” the promotion of a policy to encourage Ukrainian language and culture.

None of these claims are true. None are supported by evidence. They are simply asserted by Ukrainian nationalist sources for the purpose of ideological justification of their alliance with the Nazis and participation in the Jewish Holocaust, the genocide of Ukrainian Poles (the Volhynian massacres of 1943-44) and the murder of Jews, communists, and many Ukrainian peasants after the war.

Their ultimate purpose is to equate communism with Nazism (communism is outlawed in today’s “democratic Ukraine”); the USSR with Nazi Germany; and Stalin with Hitler.


Collectivization of Agriculture – The Reality

Russia and Ukraine had suffered serious famines every few years for more than a millennium. A famine accompanied the 1917 revolution, growing more serious in 1918-1920. Another serious famine, misnamed the “Volga famine,” struck from 1920-21. There were famines in 1924 and again in 1928-29, this last especially severe in the Ukrainian SSR. All these famines had environmental causes. The medieval strip-farming method of peasant agriculture made efficient agriculture impossible and famines inevitable.

Soviet leaders, Stalin among them, decided that the only solution was to reorganize agriculture on the basis of large factory-type farms like some in the American Midwest, which were deliberately adopted as models. When sovkhozy  or “Soviet farms” appeared to work well the Soviet leadership made the decision to collectivize agriculture.

Contrary to anticommunist propaganda, most peasants accepted collectivization. Resistance was modest; acts of outright rebellion rare. By 1932 Soviet agriculture, including in the Ukrainian SSR, was largely collectivized.

In 1932 Soviet agriculture was hit with a combination of environmental catastrophes: drought in some areas; too much rain in others; attacks of rust and smut (fungal diseases); and infestations of insects and mice. Weeding was neglected as peasants grew weaker, further reducing production.

The reaction of the Soviet government changed as the scope of the crop failure became clearer during the Fall and Winter of 1932. Believing at first that mismanagement and sabotage were leading causes of a poor harvest, the government removed many Party and collective farm leaders (there is no evidence that any were “executed” like Mykola in the film.) In early February 1933 the Soviet government began to provide massive grain aid to famine areas.

The Soviet government also organized raids on peasant farms to confiscate excess grain in order to feed the cities, which did not produce their own food. Also, to curb profiteering; in a famine grain could be resold for inflated prices. Under famine conditions a  free market in grain could not be permitted unless the poor were to be left to starve, as had been the practice under the Tsars.

The Soviet government organized political departments (politotdely) to help peasants in agricultural work. Tauger concludes: “The fact that the 1933 harvest was so much larger than those of 1931-1932 means that the politotdely around the country similarly helped farms work better.” (Modernization, 100)

The good harvest of 1933 was brought in by a considerably smaller population, since many had died during the famine, others were sick or weakened, and still others had fled to other regions or to the cities. This reflects the fact that the famine was caused not by collectivization, government interference, or peasant resistance but by environmental causes no longer present in 1933.

Collectivization of agriculture was a true reform, a breakthrough in revolutionizing Soviet agriculture. There were still years of poor harvests — the climate of the USSR did not change. But, thanks to collectivization, there was only one more devastating famine in the USSR, that of 1946-1947. The most recent student of this famine, Stephen Wheatcroft, concludes that this famine was caused by environmental conditions and by the disruptions of the war.


Proyect’s False Claims

Proyect uncritically repeats the self-serving Ukrainian fascist version of history without qualification.

* There was no “Stalinist killing machine.”

* Committed Party officials were not “purged and executed.”

* “Millions of Ukrainians” were not “forced into state farms and collectives.” Tauger concludes that most peasants accepted the collective farms and worked well in them.

* Proyect accepts the Ukrainian nationalist claim of “3-5 million premature deaths.”  This is false.

Some Ukrainian nationalists cite figures of 7-10 million, in order to equal or surpass the six million of the Jewish Holocaust (cf. Chumatskij’s title “Why Is One Holocaust Worth More Than Others?”). The term “Holodomor” itself (“holod” = “hunger”, “mor” from Polish “mord” = “murder,” Ukrainian “morduvati” = “to murder) was deliberately coined to sound similar to “Holocaust.”

The latest scholarly study of famine deaths is 2.6 million (Jacques Vallin, France Meslé, Serguei Adamets, and Serhii Pirozhkov, “A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s,” Population Studies 56, 3 (2002): 249–64).

* Jeff Coplon is not a “Canadian trade unionist” but a New-York based journalist and writer, The late Douglas Tottle’s book Fraud, Famine and Fascism, a reasonable response to Robert Conquest’s fraudulent Harvest of Sorrow, was written (as was Conquest’s book) before the flood of primary sources from former Soviet archives released since the end of the USSR in 1991 and so is seriously out of date.

* Walter Duranty’s statement about “omelets” and “eggs” was not said “in defense of Stalin” as Proyect claims but in criticism of Soviet government policy:

But — to put it brutally — you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, and the Bolshevist leaders are just as indifferent to the casualties that may be involved in their drive toward socialization as any General during the World War who ordered a costly attack in order to show his superiors that he and his division possessed the proper soldierly spirit. In fact, the Bolsheviki are more indifferent because they are animated by fanatical conviction. (The New York Times March 31, 1933)

Evidently Proyect simply copied this canard from some Ukrainian nationalist source. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

* Andrea Graziosi, whom Proyect quotes, is not a scholar of Soviet agriculture or the 1932-33 famine but an ideological anticommunist who assents to any and all anti-Soviet falsehoods. The article Proyect quotes is from Harvard Ukrainian Studies, a journal devoid of objective research, financed and edited by Ukrainian nationalists.

* Proyect refers to “two secret decrees” of December 1932 by the Soviet Politburo that he has clearly not read. These stopped “Ukrainization” outside the Ukrainian SSR.  Within the Ukrainian SSR “Ukrainization” continued unabated. It did not “come to an end” as Proyect claims.

* Proyect cites no evidence of a Soviet “policy of physically destroying the Ukrainian nation, especially its intelligentsia” because there was no such policy.


A Triumph of Socialism

The Soviet collectivization of agriculture is one of the greatest feats of social reform of the 20th century, if not the greatest of all, ranking with the “Green Revolution,” “miracle rice,” and the water-control undertakings in China and the USA. If Nobel Prizes were awarded for communist achievements, Soviet collectivization would be a top contender.

The historical truth about the Soviet Union is unpalatable not only to Nazi collaborators but to anticommunists of all stripes. Many who consider themselves to be on the Left, such as Social-Democrats and Trotskyists, repeat the lies of the overt fascists and the openly pro-capitalist writers. Objective scholars of Soviet history like Tauger, determined to tell the truth even when that truth is unpopular, are far too rare and often drowned out by the chorus of anticommunist falsifiers.


Sources: Mark Tauger’s research, especially “Modernization in Soviet Agriculture” (2006); “Stalin, Soviet Agriculture, and Collectivization” (2006); and “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation.” (2005), all available on the Internet. More of Tauger’s articles are available at this page: https://www.newcoldwar.org/archive-of-writings-of-professor-mark-tauger-on-the-famine-scourges-of-the-early-years-of-the-soviet-union/

See also Chapter I of my book Blood Lies; The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False (New York: Red Star Press, 2013), at http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/furr_bloodliesch1.pdf

On the 1946-47 famine see Stephen G. Wheatcroft, “The Soviet Famine of 1946–1947, the Weather and Human Agency in Historical Perspective.” Europe-Asia Studies, 64:6, 987-1005.

black-horizontal

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP CLICK HERE 
 Grover Furr is a brave English professor at Montclair State University who has almost single–handedly—and out simple decency and sheer necessity due to the scarcity of true scholars in the field of counter-Western disinformation— pushed back against the mountain of lies disseminated by the West to smear the name of Stalin, the Soviet Union and the idea of communism itself.  The West’s multitude of apologists for capitalism and imperialism naturally despise him; some of the most rabidly partisan in the defense of capitalism, like leftist apostate David Horowitz, have made it their life mission to persecute and black list Furr every way they can, counting on the enormous apparatus of anti-communist disinformation that permeates US culture, and, naturally, its intel agencies, as natural allies in this sordid task.  The Wikipedia page devoted to Furr is obviously controlled by such dark forces, and cannot be relied on to give a balanced appraisal of Prof. Furr’s work. 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey



black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  
horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal

If YOU don't share this, who will? Break the system's disinformation machine. Share!
  •  
  • 61
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    61
    Shares

4 thoughts on “The “Holodomor” and the Film “Bitter Harvest” are Fascist Lies

  1. HEAR ! HEAR! Its frightening and bizarre how much cultural influence the Ukrainian fascist/nationalist diaspora have within in the US -“sphere of influence” in the west.This turd seems to be headed directly to DVD (there is no real interest for this crap in sodom-on-the Atlantic. More Skin Beyonce Woot! Woot !Woot!) which is likely what the plan was to begin with .Another fine film from CIA studios.

  2. Excellent article. I must say he intrigued me, so far hes telling 100% truth.

    We could use more articles from this author!

  3. Grover Furr writes: “The “Holodomor” fiction was invented in by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators who found havens in Western Europe, Canada, and the USA after the war.”

    Now as a scholar, he will no doubt have no objection, but be grateful, that I bring in some needed rigorous precision as to who “invented” the Ukrainian genocide. The conception that the famine as part of a “genocide against the Ukrainian nation” actually belonged to the Polish-Jewish legal scholar Raphael Lemkin, the inventor of the term and the conception of “genocide”, and the father of the UN Genocide Convention of 1948. Lemkin presented his ideas in New York, in 1953, at a public lecture entitled “Soviet genocide in Ukraine”. The aim of the genocide was to destroy the Ukrainian nation as such and it began with the destruction of the Ukrainian national elites — the intelligentsia, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, the rural leadership (kulaks, teachers, priests). So, if anyone is to be credited with “inventing” the Ukrainian genocide, it must be a Polish Jew and not a Ukrainian nationalist.

    Grover Furr has not done his own research but relies on another historian, presumably better qualified than Grover Furr, Mark Tauger, in whose knowledge he confides : “Tauger concludes: “The fact that the 1933 harvest was so much larger than those of 1931-1932 means that the politotdely around the country similarly helped farms work better.” And yet we have testimony to the contrary by an anarcho-socialist journalist, by the name of Harry Lang, who with his wife Lucy Robins Lang, visited the Soviet Union in the Fall of 1933 and brought out very different testimony. Lang published a series of his reports in the Yiddish-language Forward (1933-34). Several of these reports have been translated into English and I would urge Furr and Tauger to become familiar with them. They give a very different, and a much truer picture than that painted by Furr/Tauger: https://www.academia.edu/30709281/Harry_Lang_on_Ukraine_Fall_1933.pdf

  4. I think that Mr Furr’s review is very quite biased, and seems to me to reflect more the materials that are posted on the Stalin Societies web page. Having lived and studied in Soviet Ukraine, I did notice that there are some small inaccuracies in the film which are mainly ethnographic in nature (such as the unmarried girl not having a braid, or the fact that they consider Kyiv the capital when up till January 1934 it was Kharkiv), but it is a film which tries to capture the zeitgeist of a major national tragedy. The fact that the Ukrainian government has set a day for marking this tragedy and also has built a museum and commemorative ground in Kyiv also attests to the fact that Ukrainians have been touched by this tragedy.

    The fact that the Russian administration continues to deny or manipulate the information is nothing new. It continues to do this with its numerous denials of Russian troops in Crimea or Donbas, or its statements regarding post–soviet made arms (700 tanks etc) that were apparently found in mine shafts, or last week denial of a letter that Yanukovych had penned inviting Russian troops into Ukraine, which they had forgotten that they had previously passed on a copy to the UN. Basing a review on Russian and Soviet misinformation and distortions does little for your credibility

    P.S. The Mykola character was modelled on Mykola Skrypnyk a friend of Lenin, and an active proponent of Ukrainianisation, the head the people’s commissariat (equivalent to Prime minister) who did commit suicide on July 7, 1933 (but maybe you knew this?).

Comments are closed.