Soviet Famine Analysis, Essay Example

Expounds and argues for Davies and Wheatcroft’s theory that the famine in the Soviet Union (1930’s) was due to governmental policies that were unintentional victims of “unfavorable natural conditions and policies aimed at other goals” (823). The authors set up their argument under the premise of governmental structural factors such as industrializing a country at too quick a speed  (war left the country deplete of natural resources and thus seeking out a mass influx of wheat and grains left the countryside fallow for upcoming harvest years) lead to further unanticipated government expenses in the form of farm equipment to maintain mass harvests during boon years (823-824). Ellman’s argument rests solely on Davies and Wheatcroft’s theories and empirical research. As such, the argument becomes one-dimensional and is left wanting in other research regards. While the research expounds upon the peasantry of the time, Davies and Wheatcroft don’t go into detail about certain aspects of their argument. This is shown in the fact that both authors ambiguously mention undereducated policy makers, that had no background or working knowledge in agriculture and thus their decisions left the country vulnerable to the famine witnessed in 1931 and 1932. Lack of thorough information leaves the paper unexamined.

Good points to make about relying on Davies and Wheatcroft is that they do go into detail with their statistics. Ellman, however, argues that these details are left incomplete (824). One document that Ellman states is missing to back up the argument for intentional starvation, or unintentional starvation is, “no document has been found in which Stalin explicitly orders starvation” (824). This leaves any argument wanting for lack of information (government documents). Furthermore, because of this lack of information from government documents is rampant in this time period, Ellman must defer to Stalin’s personal correspondence in order to extrapolate certain information that relate to his argument.

Relying on the correspondence between Stalin and Sholokov may further complicate any argument for or against intended starvation practices as the correspondences are biased in nature. Depending on personal letters as a veritable form of research and information is suspect. These letters, however, reveal an interesting fact: Stalin states that people were purposefully starving others (824). Tying this together, Ellman is using Davies and Wheatcroft, and later Mucchielli (as cited by Forges and Baumeister), as well as Stalin to come to a conclusion about his argument: that is, propaganda leads to belief in the need for starvation (obliquely) in order to come to the conclusion of starvation happening because of instigators from the other side of the war (Germany propels Soviet Union’s starvation: or the mirroring effect in which “a propaganda technique in which perpetrators of certain actions ascribe those actions to their enemies and see their own actions as self-defence”) (825).

In light of these research terms and allusions, it seems that Ellman is arguing for Stalin’s effect propaganda throughout the course of these famines. This is supported in Ellman’s reference to Stalin’s speech/decree on 17 November 1938 in which foreign infiltrators into social ranks were arrested. The arrested peoples were counted as enemies of the state (for muddling information about the starvations). Ellman’s reference to this suggests that he has a bias for Stalin’s knowledge of what was happening in his own land, and either his apathy, strategy, or lack of command decision on these issues lead to a cataclysmic collapse of the agricultural framework of the country during those years. In either case, Stalin’s involvement was a known involvement. What is more strongly of note in determining Ellman’s persuasions about this issue is this sentence that reads, “They [Davies and Wheatcroft] characterize Stalin’s policies in Kazakhstan as ‘in essence criminal acts.’ They also quote a writer who referred to the famine in Ukraine as ‘genocide’” (827) as well as this one, “Stalin may also have intended to deliver a left hook of starvation in their villages” (831). Use of such a harsh word is telling to the author’s predilections on this topic: genocide occurs when a dictator knows about a problem and enforces it.

Reading about the intent by which Stalin treated his citizens and neighboring “friends” (aka Ukraine) was an eye opener. Seeing the intent Stalin used, the harsh rebuke of humanitarian proclivities and the way he almost used the famine as a benefit to do away with more unpopular races during this time certainly made me dislike Stalin and his policies more. It’s strange and grotesque to think that people benefit from the war by using it as a scapegoat by which they may acquire the things they want, use propaganda to do the things they want, then blame any repercussions from their actions on the war. It’s a coward’s way out despite the strategy behind it.

Works Cited

Ellman, Michael. “The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1934.” Europe-Asia Studies 57.6. (September 2005). 823-841. Print.