Anti-Fascist
13th November 2003, 16:06
To him who subscribes to this myth, I say:
You are assuming too many things. You are assuming that
Stalin, a mere individual, had such power. You are assuming that
Stalin commited such a terrible crime. There is no motivation for
Stalin to commit such a crime. If it were a "genocide" against the
Ukrainian people, we would not expect the famine to spread
beyond the Mangolian border, as it did. If it were such a terrible
famine, we would expect people to have noticed it. On the
contrary, we have not a single photograph of the famine,
despite hundreds of foreign reporters being in the region at the
time - reporters who report that there was no famine!
To him who believes in this myth, I do inquire:
Why was the famine the worst in only those regions in which
the Kulaks resisted the most? You know, those regions in which
the Kulaks killed farm animals, destroyed grain deliveries,
destroyed collectives. killed government officials, etc. How do you
explain this?
How do you explain the follow quotation from the reactionary Mr.
Issac Mazepa, leader of the Ukrainian Nationalist Movement, in
1934?
"At first there were disturbances in the kolkhosi [collective farms]
or else the Communist officials and their agents were killed, but
later a system of passive resistance was favored which aimed at
the systematic frustation of the Bolsheviks' plans for the sowing
and gathering of the harvest. . . . The catastrophe of 1932 was
the hardest blow that Soviet Ukraine had to face since the famine
of 1921-1922. The autumn and spring sowing campaigns both
failed. Whole tracts were left unsown, in addition when the crop
was being gathered. . . . In many areas, especially in the south,
20, 40 and even 50 per cent was left in the fields, and was either
not collected at all or was ruined in the threshing."
How does this fit into your mode?
How do you explain the peasants' enthusiasm for collectivisation?
How do you explain the fact that the peasants were allowed to
leave the collectives whenever they wanted to, and in fact did
just that at some points? How does this fit?
How do you explain the fact that in 1935 the Kulaks leaving the
colonies in fact outnumbered the Kulaks who arrived by
approximately 300,000; When collectivisation was done, they
all returned to their homes.
How do you explain the fact that, according to the Soviet Archives,
appriximately 300,000 people died between 1930 and 1940 in
the special Kulak colinies; how do you explain that this figure,
although correct, includes all causes, including -- it is true --
old age, disease, injury, etc. In point of fact, all the Soviet
Archives really says is that the government refused to send food
to six Kulak villages for their sabataging of the grain deliveries.
And six Kulak villages does not translate into millions of people.
How do you explain the fact that the 1.8 million Kulaks who were
deported to other areas to facilitate collectivisation were
subsequently permitted to return to their former homes when
collectisation was done in each region, and did just that? (Those
1.8 million people were neither arrested nor detained; they were
only placed in other special collectives.)
It must be borne in mind that at that time there was massive
upheavel which surpassed even that of the revolution of 1917! So
yes, sometimes the local officials carried out excesses; but is it
that surprising? Are you surprised? I certainly am not. It is not at
all surprising that those same peasants who had been liberated
from three hundred years of brutal oppression and exploitation by
the Kulaks would take their revenge upon the Kulaks, and
sometimes punish even those Kulaks who might have been
innocent. Accordingly, in 1931, Stalin had initiated a thorough
investigation of those Kulaks that had been deported; it was then
determined that at most 70,000 families of those 330,000 were
deported wrongly; they were therefore freed by 1932. And yes, it
is true, thousands of deaths did occur owing to the very long
journey with inefficient means of transportation and the local
authorities' detestation of the Kulaks, which is very unfortunate
indeed. However, this issue was carefully addressed by Stalin
when he ordered the local officials to treat the Kulaks with far
more respect and to protect their rights and provide better
transportation for them. And we must not forget that this was at
about the same time, 1930, that the epidemics had broken out
(consequently the deportees were moved elsewhere).
It is interested to note that we do have one person who
claimed to have witnessed the famine. He was called "Thomas
Walker". Let us examine "Thomas Walker".
Here are some interesting experpts from Challenge-Desafio,
newspaper of the Progressive Labor Party, February 25, 1987:
"In 1935 * * * "Thomas Walker" published a five-part story on the
famine in * * * newspapers owned by the fanatical
anti-Communist and pro-fascist tycoon William Randolph Hearst.
Accompanying the series were photographs, supposedly of
starving Ukrainian peasants. * * * In March 1935, Louis Fischer, *
* * a reporter for The Nation, expressed some doubts about
"Walker's" photos: "Mr. Walker's photographs could easily date
back to the Volga famine in 1921. Many of them might have been
taken outside the Soviet Union. They were taken at different
seasons of the year . . . One picture includes trees or shrubs
with large leaves. Such leaves could not have grown by the "late
spring" of Mr. Walker's alleged visit. Other photographs show
winter and early fall backgrounds. Here is the Journal [Hearst's
New York City newspaper] of the twenty-seventh. A starving,
bloated boy of fifteen calmly poses naked for Mr. Walker. The next
minute, in the same village, Mr. Walker photographs a man who is
obviously suffering from the cold despite his thick sheepskin
overcoat. The weather that spring must have been as unreliable
as Mr. Walker to allow nude poses one moment and require furs
the next."
" * * * By July 1935 "Thomas Walker" was in a New York City jail,
under arrest as Robert Green, an escaped convict from Colorado,
where he was returned to serve out his sentence. Green admitted
his photos were frauds, not taken in the Ukraine nor by himself.
This was reported in all the New York City newspapers. The Daily
Worker . . . ran two detailed series about "Walker"/Green and
some other phony accounts of the famine from July-20, 1935."
Even so, how can we blame Stalin, a mere individual, for every
mistake? The Soviet people - undet the leadership of Stalin - were
attempting something which had NEVER been attmpted in history
- collectivisation. As Bob Avakian said:
"To bring about socialist collectivization together with socialist
industrialization and transform the Soviet Union from a relatively
backward to an advanced country economically -- all of which was
accomplished in the two decades between the end of the civil war
in Russia and WW2 -- was a great achievement of the Soviet
working class and people under the leadership of Stalin. And it
had much to do with the Soviet Union's ability to defeat the Nazi
invaders in WW2, another great achievement of the Soviet people
carried out under Stalin's leadership.
"All the same time, in giving leadership to an unprecedented task
of such tremendous proportions--the socialization, transformation
and rapid development of the economy of such a large and
complex country as the Soviet Union under the conditions where it
was the only socialist state in the world still dominated by
imperialism -- Stalin did make certain errors. To a significant
degree this is explainable by the very fact that there was no
historical precedent for this task, no previous experience (and
previous errors) to learn from. On the other hand, as Mao summed
up, certain of Stalin's errors, including in the sphere of political
economy, economic policy and socialist construction, arose
because and to the extent that Stalin failed to thoroughly apply
materialist dialectics to solving problems, including many genuinely
new problems that did arise." (Mao Tsetung's Immortal
Contributions, pp. 89-90)
You are assuming too many things. You are assuming that
Stalin, a mere individual, had such power. You are assuming that
Stalin commited such a terrible crime. There is no motivation for
Stalin to commit such a crime. If it were a "genocide" against the
Ukrainian people, we would not expect the famine to spread
beyond the Mangolian border, as it did. If it were such a terrible
famine, we would expect people to have noticed it. On the
contrary, we have not a single photograph of the famine,
despite hundreds of foreign reporters being in the region at the
time - reporters who report that there was no famine!
To him who believes in this myth, I do inquire:
Why was the famine the worst in only those regions in which
the Kulaks resisted the most? You know, those regions in which
the Kulaks killed farm animals, destroyed grain deliveries,
destroyed collectives. killed government officials, etc. How do you
explain this?
How do you explain the follow quotation from the reactionary Mr.
Issac Mazepa, leader of the Ukrainian Nationalist Movement, in
1934?
"At first there were disturbances in the kolkhosi [collective farms]
or else the Communist officials and their agents were killed, but
later a system of passive resistance was favored which aimed at
the systematic frustation of the Bolsheviks' plans for the sowing
and gathering of the harvest. . . . The catastrophe of 1932 was
the hardest blow that Soviet Ukraine had to face since the famine
of 1921-1922. The autumn and spring sowing campaigns both
failed. Whole tracts were left unsown, in addition when the crop
was being gathered. . . . In many areas, especially in the south,
20, 40 and even 50 per cent was left in the fields, and was either
not collected at all or was ruined in the threshing."
How does this fit into your mode?
How do you explain the peasants' enthusiasm for collectivisation?
How do you explain the fact that the peasants were allowed to
leave the collectives whenever they wanted to, and in fact did
just that at some points? How does this fit?
How do you explain the fact that in 1935 the Kulaks leaving the
colonies in fact outnumbered the Kulaks who arrived by
approximately 300,000; When collectivisation was done, they
all returned to their homes.
How do you explain the fact that, according to the Soviet Archives,
appriximately 300,000 people died between 1930 and 1940 in
the special Kulak colinies; how do you explain that this figure,
although correct, includes all causes, including -- it is true --
old age, disease, injury, etc. In point of fact, all the Soviet
Archives really says is that the government refused to send food
to six Kulak villages for their sabataging of the grain deliveries.
And six Kulak villages does not translate into millions of people.
How do you explain the fact that the 1.8 million Kulaks who were
deported to other areas to facilitate collectivisation were
subsequently permitted to return to their former homes when
collectisation was done in each region, and did just that? (Those
1.8 million people were neither arrested nor detained; they were
only placed in other special collectives.)
It must be borne in mind that at that time there was massive
upheavel which surpassed even that of the revolution of 1917! So
yes, sometimes the local officials carried out excesses; but is it
that surprising? Are you surprised? I certainly am not. It is not at
all surprising that those same peasants who had been liberated
from three hundred years of brutal oppression and exploitation by
the Kulaks would take their revenge upon the Kulaks, and
sometimes punish even those Kulaks who might have been
innocent. Accordingly, in 1931, Stalin had initiated a thorough
investigation of those Kulaks that had been deported; it was then
determined that at most 70,000 families of those 330,000 were
deported wrongly; they were therefore freed by 1932. And yes, it
is true, thousands of deaths did occur owing to the very long
journey with inefficient means of transportation and the local
authorities' detestation of the Kulaks, which is very unfortunate
indeed. However, this issue was carefully addressed by Stalin
when he ordered the local officials to treat the Kulaks with far
more respect and to protect their rights and provide better
transportation for them. And we must not forget that this was at
about the same time, 1930, that the epidemics had broken out
(consequently the deportees were moved elsewhere).
It is interested to note that we do have one person who
claimed to have witnessed the famine. He was called "Thomas
Walker". Let us examine "Thomas Walker".
Here are some interesting experpts from Challenge-Desafio,
newspaper of the Progressive Labor Party, February 25, 1987:
"In 1935 * * * "Thomas Walker" published a five-part story on the
famine in * * * newspapers owned by the fanatical
anti-Communist and pro-fascist tycoon William Randolph Hearst.
Accompanying the series were photographs, supposedly of
starving Ukrainian peasants. * * * In March 1935, Louis Fischer, *
* * a reporter for The Nation, expressed some doubts about
"Walker's" photos: "Mr. Walker's photographs could easily date
back to the Volga famine in 1921. Many of them might have been
taken outside the Soviet Union. They were taken at different
seasons of the year . . . One picture includes trees or shrubs
with large leaves. Such leaves could not have grown by the "late
spring" of Mr. Walker's alleged visit. Other photographs show
winter and early fall backgrounds. Here is the Journal [Hearst's
New York City newspaper] of the twenty-seventh. A starving,
bloated boy of fifteen calmly poses naked for Mr. Walker. The next
minute, in the same village, Mr. Walker photographs a man who is
obviously suffering from the cold despite his thick sheepskin
overcoat. The weather that spring must have been as unreliable
as Mr. Walker to allow nude poses one moment and require furs
the next."
" * * * By July 1935 "Thomas Walker" was in a New York City jail,
under arrest as Robert Green, an escaped convict from Colorado,
where he was returned to serve out his sentence. Green admitted
his photos were frauds, not taken in the Ukraine nor by himself.
This was reported in all the New York City newspapers. The Daily
Worker . . . ran two detailed series about "Walker"/Green and
some other phony accounts of the famine from July-20, 1935."
Even so, how can we blame Stalin, a mere individual, for every
mistake? The Soviet people - undet the leadership of Stalin - were
attempting something which had NEVER been attmpted in history
- collectivisation. As Bob Avakian said:
"To bring about socialist collectivization together with socialist
industrialization and transform the Soviet Union from a relatively
backward to an advanced country economically -- all of which was
accomplished in the two decades between the end of the civil war
in Russia and WW2 -- was a great achievement of the Soviet
working class and people under the leadership of Stalin. And it
had much to do with the Soviet Union's ability to defeat the Nazi
invaders in WW2, another great achievement of the Soviet people
carried out under Stalin's leadership.
"All the same time, in giving leadership to an unprecedented task
of such tremendous proportions--the socialization, transformation
and rapid development of the economy of such a large and
complex country as the Soviet Union under the conditions where it
was the only socialist state in the world still dominated by
imperialism -- Stalin did make certain errors. To a significant
degree this is explainable by the very fact that there was no
historical precedent for this task, no previous experience (and
previous errors) to learn from. On the other hand, as Mao summed
up, certain of Stalin's errors, including in the sphere of political
economy, economic policy and socialist construction, arose
because and to the extent that Stalin failed to thoroughly apply
materialist dialectics to solving problems, including many genuinely
new problems that did arise." (Mao Tsetung's Immortal
Contributions, pp. 89-90)