Ab Imperio, 2/2017 “жид” и “еврей” и многое другое, Oleh WOLOWYNA выпадающее из позитивной па- радигмы переплетенных историй Andrij Makuch and Frank Sysyn групп, еврейская и украинская (Eds.), Contextualizing the Holodo- идентичность которых очевидна mor: The Impact of Thirty Years of для авторов. Ukrainian Famine Studies (Edmon- Хочется надеяться, что книга ton and Toronto: CIUS Press, 2015). “Евреи и украинцы” будет оцене- 126 pp. ISBN: 978-1-894865-43-2. на как важный шаг в направлении к преодолению национальной This volume contains five chap- эксклюзивности исторических ters based on papers presented at нарративов, а ограничения подхо- the conference “Contextualization да Петровского-Штерна и Магочи the Holodomor: A Conference on будут учтены следующими поко- the 80th Anniversary,” held at the лениями историков, которые пой- University of Toronto on Septem- дут по их стопам. Большинство ber 27–28, 2013, and a shorter же рядовых читателей безусловно introductory text by Frank Sysyn выиграет, прочитав эту книгу и that provides a background to the осознав, что история группы, с five chapters. The five papers are: которой они себя соотносят, раз- Olga Andriiewska, “Towards a вивалась в тесном переплетении Decentralized History: The Study с историей группы, которая им of the Holodomor and Ukrainian часто представляется как совер- Historiography”; Andrea Graziosi, шенно отдельная и иная. “The Impact of Holodomor Studies on the Understanding of the USSR”; Francois Thom, “Reflections on Sta- lin and the Holodomor”; Stanislav Kul’chyts’kyi, “The Holodomor of 1932–33: How and Why?”; and Norman M. Naimark, “How the Holodomor Can Be Integrated into Our Understanding of Genocide.” The main contribution of Sysyn’s introductory text, “Thirty Years of Research on the Holodomor: A Balance Sheet,” is a description of the genesis of Robert Conquest’s seminal book The Harvest of Sor- row and a comprehensive list of the 335 Рецензии/Reviews extraordinary number of reviews of peasants’ resistance to collectiviza- the book. Sysyn’s title is somewhat tion and independence aspirations. misleading (in fact, it seems more Kul’chyts’ky, on the other hand, suitable as a title of Olga Andriews- claims that “class-based destruction ka’s contribution, which presents a led to the Holodomor” (P. 89). He very thorough review of scholarly frames his analysis on the genesis work, mostly by historians, on the and intent of the Holodomor squarely Holodomor in the past thirty years). in the context of factors such as In spite of the extraordinary Marxist ideology, the elimination of number of works on the Holodo- private property (of the peasants), mor (more than 20,000 according and the imposition of state control of to Kul’chyts’kyi), there is still little agricultural production. He divides consensus among historians about the 1932–33 famine into two parts: the key factors related to the why of a general famine affecting different the Holodomor and its dynamics. parts of the Soviet Union during most Graziosi, referring to de-kulakiza- of 1932, and famine-terror starting tion, collectivization, and famines in late 1932 through the first part of starting in 1919, states that “‘classes’ 1933. Kul’chyts’kyi argues that this had but a marginal (although certain- second part is the actual Holodomor- ly not non-existent) role on what was genocide. The genocide was caused basically an original, ideologically by Stalin’s “shattering blow,” with inspired, very violent and primitive total confiscation not just of grain state-building attempt” (P. 52). He but all food, and physical blockades claims that there is a strong con- eliminating the possibility of peas- nection between the peasant revolts ants to search for food in Russia or of 1918–20 and resistance to these cities in Ukraine. The result was a events in 1930–31, and posits a tenfold increase in rural mortality in direct relationship between levels Ukraine between January and June of of past resistance and Holodomor 1933, a unique phenomenon among losses in 1932–33 (this connection man-made famines in the twentieth is also mentioned by Andriewska). century. Thom explains Stalin’s Graziosi then links Stalin’s asser- imposition of collectivization and de- tion that “in essence, the national kulakization policies on the Politburo question is a peasant question” with and the Communist apparatus by a the why of the Holodomor. Thus we strategy of dissimulation and decep- have a logical chain: peasant resis- tion, characterized by tactical retreats tance – the nationality question as at critical moments and the identifica- a peasant question – famine-terror tion of Stalin’s personal power with as a means for breaking Ukrainian the power of the Soviet state. 336 Ab Imperio, 2/2017 Both Andriewska and Graziosi cited by both authors.1 However, the point out the scarcity of knowledge data on peasant rebellions presented about the social and cultural long- by Viola and Graziosi are too gen- term effects of the Holodomor, eral, as they apply to large regions in such as the psychological individual Russia and Ukraine as a whole. Re- and collective effects of starvation, cent research on peasant rebellions resulting in changes in moral and in particular localities in Ukraine is ethical consciousness, passivity, promising, but more research at the lack of self-respect, and so forth. regional (oblast) and district (raion) Andriewska discusses the rupture level is needed to adequately verify produced by the Holodomor in the this hypothesis.2 history of Ukraine, with the “end Three conclusions about the cur- of a set of social structures, institu- rent state of Holodomor research tions and social practices associated can be drawn from the chapters with Cossack history and culture of discussed above: there is an acute Ukraine” (P. 39). Both authors call need for close collaboration between for the development of “history from historians and demographers; com- below” in Holodomor studies. parative studies of the effects of the The correlation between peasant 1932–33 famine in different parts resistance and Holodomor-related of the Soviet Union are still insuf- fatalities, proposed by Graziosi, ficient, especially those comparing suggests another research question. the situation in different regions of There is a need for research on his- Ukraine and the Russian Federation; torical memory and the documenta- it is necessary to synthesize the large tion of rebellions in specific areas as amount of knowledge accumulated a factor that might have provoked so far. targeted repressions, which resulted The first problem (a lack of col- in increased Holodomor death toll in laboration between historians and those areas (a point also mentioned demographers) becomes evident in by Andriewska). This hypothesis is rather misleading assertions by the based on the seminal research by authors, such as Andriewska’s claim: Viola and Graziosi on peasant rebel- “As virtually every demographer lions and some anecdotal documents and historian who has considered

1 Andrea Graziosi. The Great Soviet Peasant War: Bolsheviks and Peasants, 1917–33. Cambridge, 1996; Lynn Viola. Peasant Rebels under Stalin: Collectivization and the Culture of Peasant Resistance. New York, 1996. 2 See R. Krutsik. Narodna vіina, 1917–1932: Putіvnik do ekspozitsії. Kyiv, 2011; V. Patriliak. Opіr Ukraїns’kogo selianstva sotsіal’no-ekonomіchnim zakhodam radians’koї vladi u 1927–1933 rr./ Avtoreferat diss... k.i.i. Kyiv, 2012. 337 Рецензии/Reviews this question [estimates of Holodo- comparative scale of deaths caused mor losses] has noted, however, a by the Holodomor by regions, sug- precise figure cannot be established gesting that “without more research because of serious problems with on migration patterns, resettlement Soviet census materials, especially policies and local history in the late the 1937 and 1939 data” (P. 24). 1920s and early 1930s, however, it is To accurately estimate the numbers far too early to arrive at any defini- of Holodomor victims, a proper tive conclusions” (P. 25). It is neces- demographic analysis requires not sary to point out that demogrphers only accurate census data but also have produced detailed estimates complete vital statistics (on births of losses by regions and a compre- and deaths), as well as information hensive analysis of migrations,5 and on migrations. The Soviet censuses Hennadii Yefimenko has studied the of the late 1930s have been properly resettlement of peasants from Russia studied by historical demographers, and Belarus in 1933–34 to selected so historians of the Holodomor can villages in Ukraine decimated by rely on their findings without strug- the famine.6 gling to sort out those “serious prob- Approaches to the subject by lems” themselves.3 In fact, modern historians and demographers exhibit demographic analysis allows us to serious methodological differences produce a fairly precise estimate as well as discrepancies between of the direct victims of Holodomor the conclusions based on archival at 3.9 million (plus or minus 5 per- documents and those made after cent).4 quantitative analysis of data. These Likewise, Andriewska presents differences lead to occasional misun- some “preliminary results” on the derstandings on behalf of historians,

3 When the 1937 census materials became available in the 1990s, demographers made a careful evaluation of these data and came to the conclusion that they were, in general, quite accurate. (See: M. Tolts. Repressіrovannaіa perepіs’ // Rodіna. 1989. No. 11. Pp. 56–61; A. Volkov. Perepis’ naseleniia 1937 goda: vymysly i pravda // Ekspress-informat- siia. Seriia “Istoriia statistiki”. Vol. 3–5. No. 2. Moscow, 1990. Pp. 6-63; F. D. Lіvshіts. Perepis’ naseleniia 1937 goda // Demgrafіcheskіe protsessy v SSSR. Moscow, 1990. Pp. 174–207.) As was suspected long ago, the 1939 census was deliberately falsified, which became the topic of extensive analysis in O. Rudnytskyi, N. Levchuk, O. Wolowyna, P. Shevchuk and Alla Kovbasiuk. Demography of a Man-Made Human Catastrophe: The Case of Massive Famine in Ukraine 1932–1933 // Canadian Studies in Population. 2015. Vol. 42. No. 1–2. Pp. 53–80. 4 Ibid. P. 68. 5 Ibid. 6 Hennadii Yefimenko. Pereselennia ta deportatsіia v postgolodomornі roki (1933–1936): Poraionnii zrіz, http://gis.huri.harvard.edu/images/pdf/Relocation-1933-1936.pdf. 338 Ab Imperio, 2/2017 such as the following statement by vest, while the Central-Black Andriewska: “Stephen Wheatcroft Earth oblasts, the Middle … recently challenged the notion Volga krai, the Lower Volga that there was a correlation between krai, and the North Caucasus blacklisting villages and mortality krai altogether delivered a based on raion (district) data. With- total of 7,356,000 tons (Davis out reliable data and local history and Wheatcroft 470). Neither at the village level, however, it is during the NEP years nor in premature to dismiss the significance the pre-revolutionary period or outcome of ‘blacklisting’” (P. 27). had Ukraine ever produced From a demographer’s perspective, as much grain as the four this is a problematic conclusion. highly productive agricul- First, Wheatcroft relied on crude tural regions of European mortality rates by districts, which Russia taken together. And if we superimpose the state measure total mortality, whereas grain delivery statistics onto the effect of blacklisting can be Lynne Viola’s regional sta- meaningfully assessed using only tistics of peasant uprisings in Holodomor-related losses. Second, 1930 (4,098 in the Ukrainian very few districts were blacklisted SSR and a total of 4,214 in entirely (it was mostly villages or the four Russian regions), individual collective farms). Thus, a then it becomes clear that proper verification of this hypothesis the Kremlin was using the requires a careful analysis of the grain procurements as an blacklisting data to determine the instrument for punishing the validity of associating a blacklisted rebellious Ukrainian peas- village or collective farm with the ants (Pp. 109–110). death toll in the whole district. The evidence Kul’chyts’kyi Similarly, Kul’chyts’kyi made an presents does not seem to support important statement but undermined this conclusion. While the amount of it by the chosen line of argumenta- grain demanded from Ukraine seems tion: to be excessive, the total number of The levels of state grain requisitions throughout the peasant uprisings, as reported by regions were set arbitrarily, Viola, was lower in Ukraine than in and we will not be able to the four Russian regions. However, substantiate with documents if we apply a common demographic why Ukraine was forced to technique, that is, standardizing the give the state 7,675,000 tons number of uprisings by the respec- of grain from the 1930 har- tive rural population, we have 165 339 Рецензии/Reviews uprisings per 1,000,000 rural popula- phers, even though Russian (and tion in Ukraine and 151 in the four some Ukrainian) historians have Russian regions. This more accurate consistently claimed that “the fam- measure of the number of uprisings is ine was not a uniquely Ukrainian more consistent with Kulchytskyi’s experience, but rather a ‘common conclusion. Still, it remains unclear tragedy shared by all the people of whether the scale of peasant upris- the former Soviet Union’” (P. 33). ings became a factor determining the As some preliminary research on apparently excessive level of state the 1932–33 famine in comparative grain requisitions in Ukraine. perspective has shown, only three The second problem highlighted Soviet republics – Kazakhstan, by the book (the lack of comparative Ukraine, and Russia – were signifi- studies of the 1932–33 famine in cantly affected by that famine. Other different parts of the Soviet Union) republics experienced relatively can be illustrated by Andriewska’s small or practically no increase in claim that Holodomor in Ukraine mortality. According to preliminary was “paralleled only in the ethnically estimates of losses in seventeen Rus- Ukrainian Kuban region of the North sian regions by a group of U.S. and Caucasus” (P. 23). Meanwhile, Ukrainian demographers, only in the the severety of famine in some Krasnodar region, the North Cau- regions of the Russian Federation casus region, and the Lower Volga in the fall of 1932 and in 1933 is region (specifically, in the Saratov also mentioned in Graziosi’s and area and in the Volga German Au- Kulchytskyi’s chapters of the book. tonomous Republic) were the death Furthermore, a fair amount of re- tolls as high as in some regions of search has been done on the famine Ukraine. Comparative analyses of in Kazakhstan and some regions losses in different regions of Ukraine of Russia, especially in the Kuban and Russia suggest that we may need region of the Northern Caucasus. to rethink some of our notions about At the same time, no comprehensive the Holodomor.7 comparative analysis of the effects Finally, the third problem that of the 1932–33 famine in differ- becomes obvious after reading the ent regions of Ukraine and Russia book (the need for synthesis of the has been done by either Ukrainian accumulated knowledge about the or Russian historians or demogra- Holodomor) reveals itself through a

7 О. Rudnytskyi, N. Levchuk, O. Wolowyna, and P. Shevchuk. 1932–34 Famine Losses within the Context of the Soviet Union // Declan Curran, Lubomyr Luciuk, Andrew G. Newby (Eds.). Famines in European Economic History: The Last Great European Famines Reconsidered. New York, 2015. Pp. 192–222. 340 Ab Imperio, 2/2017 confusing multiplicity of the exist- Анна КУДИНОВА ing explanatory paradigms. Some of these may or may not contradict Andrea Graziosi, Lubomyr A. each other or be applicable only Hajda, and Halyna Hryn (Eds.), to particular cases, with certain After the Holodomor: The Endur- methodological reservations. A ing Impact of the Great Famine on systematic review of the state of the Ukraine [Harvard Ukrainian Re- field is necessary. Such a review search Institute Publications] (Cam- must clarify contradictions and test bridge, MA: Harvard University hypotheses with empirical evidence, Press, 2013). 322 pp. ISBN: 978-1- and then organize all the results in 932650-04-4. a coherent model (or models) us- Голодомор 1932–1933 гг. в ing certain conceptual frameworks. УССР стал одной из самых тра- Such a synthesis will provide a гических и страниц в истории clearer roadmap for future Holodo- украинцев. Точное количество его mor research, which can be achieved жертв ученые не могут установить only through an interdisciplinary до сих пор, что порождает все но- collaboration of historians and de- вые и новые научные дискуссии mographers, combining qualitative как среди украинских, так и ино- analysis with statistical multivariate странных исследователей. Почти в techniques. каждой украинской семье сегодня есть родственники, погибшие в 1932–1933 гг. С 2008 года в Укра- ине на государственном уровне отмечается День памяти жертв голодоморов в последнюю суб- боту ноября. Каждый гражданин Украины считает своим долгом за- жечь свечу, чтобы помянуть жертв Голодомора. Возвращение Голодо- мора в общественное сознание и публичную политику тесно связа- но с процессом научного изучения голода и его причин, которое, как свидетельствует рецензируемый сборник, выходит за рамки одной национальной историографии. Составители рецензируемого сборника Андреа Грациози (Andrea 341