The prevailing view among Russian historians, in contrast, is that this was an ‘organised famine’, caused by Stalin and his entourage as part of the war against the peasantry throughout the USSR. The outstanding historian of the Russian peasantry, the late Viktor Danilov, together with his colleague Zelenin, in an article in a major historical journal ‘written on the 70th anniversary of the general tragedy of the peasantry’, put this view forcefully.10 They claimed that in 1932–33 there was ‘a kind of chain of mutually connected and mutually dependent Stalin actions (fully or not fully conscious) to organise the “great famine” ’. Thus the law of August 7, 1932, imposing the death penalty for the theft of kolkhoz grain, was followed on November 27 by Stalin’s declaration that those peasants who ‘supported the sabotage of the grain collections’ should be answered with a ‘crushing blow’; then on December 27 internal passports were introduced, designed to prevent peasants moving to the towns, and on January 22, 1933, an infamous directive banned the movement of peasants from Ukraine and the North Caucasus to other areas.11 Western commentators and historians long debated whether the famine was man-made. They differ in their assessments of the extent to which Soviet policy was responsible for the famine and the extent to which Terror was consciously used by the state. In response to the first edition of our book Robert Conquest, the most widely cited advocate of the view that the famine was man-made, has clarified his position on this matter and has clearly stated that although he thinks that the famine was caused by the Bolsheviks, who engaged in criminally terroristic measures, he nevertheless does not think that it was consciously intended (see note 145 on page 441 below).12 Danilov and Zelenin concurred that Stalin did not want or anticipate a famine, but they characterised it as an ‘organised famine’, while also describing Stalin’s actions as being ‘fully or not fully conscious’. We think that this is a misleading way of looking at the problem. We do not think it appropriate to describe the unintended consequences of a policy as ‘organised’ by the policy-makers. Russian historians sometimes call the famine ‘rukotvornyi’ – man-made – on the grounds that it was ultimately a result of the forcible collectivisation of agriculture, and that is more defensible. But in our opinion they and Conquest underestimate the role of climate and other natural causes in producing the bad harvests of 1931 and 1932, and are mistaken in believing that the 1932 harvest was an average harvest rather than a poor one. The two successive bad harvests in 1931 and 1932, partly resulting from the previous policies of the Soviet leadership, meant that by the spring of 1932 there was an absolute shortage of grain, which became more severe in the ensuing twelve months. This was a central feature of a general crisis in 1932–33. The Soviet leaders were faced with major problems throughout the economy, which led to another chain of ‘mutually connected and mutually dependent Stalin actions’, parallel with that described by Danilov and Zelenin.

First, the Japanese aggressive policy towards the Soviet Union, culminating in the invasion of Manchuria in September 1931, led to the Soviet decision to increase defence preparation. Secondly, the world economic crisis involved a major turn of the terms of trade against Soviet agricultural and other exports. In 1931 imports greatly exceeded exports, and the foreign debt increased by 50 per cent in that single year. Thirdly, the food shortage in the towns, serious since 1929, grew much worse under the impact of the flood of labour into industry in 1931.

There was no easy way to cope with these developments, and the Politburo had to modify greatly its original aims. The defence plans launched in the autumn of 1931 had to be cut back halfway through 1932, and remained in a reduced form in spite of the advent of Hitler to power in January 1933. Imports for the industrialisation programme had also to be cut drastically in 1932 and 1933, affecting such major projects as the Chelyabinsk tractor factory. And additional grain for the towns was not available. As early as the spring of 1932 the Soviet authorities planned not to increase the state grain collections from the 1932 harvest, and eventually they were able to procure only 18.5 million tons as compared with the 22.8 million tons obtained from the 1931 harvest. Rations in the towns were drastically cut back, and in the winter and spring of 1932–33 many townspeople were starving. For the first time since the early 1920s, in 1933 the number employed in the non-agriculture sector was reduced, including the number employed in industry and on the railways, and investment was reduced for the first time since the early 1920s. The crisis had forced Stalin and the Politburo to retreat ignominiously. Stalin’s clarion call of February 1931 to close the gap between the USSR and the advanced countries within ten years, ‘or they will do us in’, could not now be honoured. These were desperate and brutal men trying to cope with a crisis, not organisers of a deliberate famine.13

However, as we conclude on the last page of our text, ‘we do not at all exempt Stalin from responsibility for the famine’. Historians will continue to debate whether dekulakisation and the forcible collectivisation of agriculture were ‘necessary’. We ourselves take the view that a policy of rapid industrialisation aimed at establishing modern heavy and defence industries was incompatible with the New Economic Policy of the 1920s, with its mixed economy and the market relationship with the peasantry. It required a move towards much greater central control of the economy in general and of agriculture in particular. But it is also certain that contemporary critics of Stalin’s policy such as Syrtsov were justified.14 The version of rapid industrialisation adopted by Stalin and the Politburo involved the excessive use of force against its real and imagined opponents, particularly in the countryside. It was far too optimistic both about the possible rate of industrial growth, and about the agricultural progress which would immediately follow from collectivisation. It assumed that collective agriculture would thrive even though horses had not been supplemented by tractors on a major scale. Moreover, it was taken for granted that the grain harvest would increase annually, while in fact natural conditions in the Soviet Union made periodic poor harvests inevitable. The good harvest of 1930 led to the decisions to export substantial amounts of grain in 1931 and 1932. The Soviet leaders also assumed that the wholesale socialisation of livestock farming would lead to the rapid growth of meat and dairy production. These policies failed, and the Soviet leaders attributed the failure not to their own lack of realism but to the machinations of enemies. Peasant resistance was blamed on the kulaks, and the increased use of force on a large scale almost completely replaced attempts at persuasion. Largely through their own fault, the Politburo had led the economy into an impasse. By the time the famine was looming over the country at the end of 1932, only an appeal for foreign assistance through grain imports would have stood any chance of avoiding famine. The Politburo did not even contemplate the public admission of failure which this would entail.