Grain harvests for Russia/USSR

[Attrition]

I saw some of his stuff on the interweb recently and downloaded it. I haven't read much but I get the impression that communism was the least of the Ukranian populations' worries. I'm not sure but I fear that 1970's modernisation theory may be sneaking back into my analysis.

[Chinaski1917]

I get the impression that communism was the least of the Ukranian populations' worries

I can't get what you are writing. Communism is a stateless society , no communism in Ukraine or CCCP at all. Please clarify what you mean.

[Attrition]

Stalin gets damned for the Ukranian famine because of collectivisation and refusing to believe that there was a food shortage i.e. the famine was artificial and due to economic dogma and prejudice against Ukranians. My suggestion is that drought (a periodical phenomenon in the chernozem area) and the usual reluctance of central government (whatever its facade) to accept contradiction, did far more to exacerbate a poor harvest than ideology. What strikes me about the Ukranian famine (not being an expert) is its generic quality rather than the opportunity to use it as a stick to beat lefties.

[Art]

And may I ask why this happened ? Was it maybe (a naive question) due to all-out collectivization pursued by Stalin who wanted to collectivize all peasants in a mere 4-5 years while up to 1929 only 1% had joined kolkhozs ?

I would say it was mostly a consequense of the industrialization. The growth of non-agricultural population followed from the first five-year plan without connection to the level of living standart in rural areas. Industrialization was a conscious policy, of course. However, the actual growth was much faster than planned, the five-year plan contemplated the urban population reaching 32,5 millions by 1932, in fact it was 39-40 (different estimates) millions. The same is true for eployment outside agriculture. So the non-agricultural population far exceeded the planned level, while the grain harvest not only didn't increase, but even declined in 1931-32. That was the reason why grain collections became such an acute problem in that period.
It's worth to note that migration to urban areas affected mainly the problem of distribution of grain, not the problem of availability. Men working in agriculture needed food as much as those working in industry. The difference was that the first recieved it directly as a result of their work, while the latter - through redistribution.

[Chinaski1917]

I would say it was mostly a consequense of the industrialization.

Thats a neutral comment. It was all driven out of proportions by mister Joe by his first-five year plan.

[Attrition]

What similarities are there between industrialisation in the USSR, the Tsarist regime and other countries which have industrialised? I would have thought that there are quite a few.

[Art]

It goes on more How Stalin was convinced and sent members to prode for hidden grain, how starving Ukrainians who collected at train stations trying to emigrate where chased away by guards and forbidden to leave

Internal migration was barred not only for Ukrainians and not only from Ukraine. The original directive of 22 January 1933 banned migration from Ukraine and North Caucasus, later the Lower Volga region was also included. It' worth to add that these were not the only regions which suffered from the famine. For example, in the Central Black-Earth region of the RSFSR the registered number of deaths in 1933 was 360 thousands as compared with about 200 thousands in 1932 or 1934, so a 80% increase occured. The numbers are from "Demographic history of Russia" by Andreev, Darskiy and Kharkova.

[Chinaski1917]

Let's repeat it wasn't an Ukrainian genocide. PERIOD.

Stalin had responsibility but not an intention.

The ADK figures are outdated and biased according to S.Wheatcroft.

[Attrition]

Internal migration restrictions? Are they a latterday version of indentures?

[bf109 emil]

Stalin had responsibility but not an intention.

yes so being responsible, knowing their where millions dieing from starvation, enforcing the collectivization, which was placed at a far higher percent then other area's, silencing the press as to any wrong doings, not allowing relief for families, allowing 2 million ton to be exported when fellow countrymen starve, confiscating any breads or goods being brought back into the Ukraine, tell foreign press/humanitarian reports the famine was staged by enemies of the USSR, having peasants lie to media that they did infact have hidden grain stores!!!!

maybe not was his intention, but his knowing, acting upon, knowledge leaves little doubt that the responsibilities Stalin had could have and would have prevented the starving of million had he acted...This is the same logic that one might place upon Holland saying Germany had a responsibility to the Dutch, but they never intended them to starve...or the millions of Russian POW's and jews saying it was never the intention to starve them as we (Third Reich) had only a responsibility to them...

[Chinaski1917]

Stalin had could have and would have prevented the starving of million had he acted...

This is 100% TRUE but so is the case for Britain in the Irish and Bengali Famine and it still doesn't make it legally speaking a genocide.

This is the same logic that one might place upon Holland saying Germany had a responsibility to the Dutch, but they never intended them to starve..

Something irrelevant. I'm aware about the Dutch famine but the Greek one under Axis forces was severely more harsh. There are estimates of up to 300.000 losses. The Dutch famine never reached a 6digit number. (Just for the record.)

[bf109 emil]

This is 100% TRUE

so if Stalin could have acted and had chosen to act millions would have not starved...call it what one may...the fact that Stalin had the power to eliminate the deaths of millions from starving and his non-action resulting in these deaths whole handily, regardless of the title history places upon this or other events in the past...knowing he could have prevented these deaths, not to another country, nor while dictating or having colonial powers over another country...but his sole action of refusing aid, controlling propaganda of famine as being fictitious...DID and without a doubt cause the deaths of millions regardless how it might be viewed or written within Soviet archives...

[Chinaski1917]

but his sole action of refusing aid

He didn't actually refuse aid. He gave too little too late. But he did give aid.

[Attrition]

The point is that Stalin was a generic tyrant doing what tyrants do to get what they want, like Peel and Lord John Russell.

[Chinaski1917]

He was a bonapartist dictator hailing from a workers state. Quite different from the ones you have in mind. And he actually became a dictator by the early 30s not from 1922.

like Peel and Lord John Russell

Peel ? I only know one Peel . And that's dj John Peel.