REVIEW The Holodomor of 1932-33 Papers from the 75th-Anniversary Conference on the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide HARRIMAN University of Toronto, November 1, 2007 THE November 2008 HARRIMAN REVIEW Volume 16, Number 2 November 2008 The Holodomor of 1932-33 Papers from the 75th-Anniversary Conference on the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (University of Alberta) Petro Jacyk Program for the Study of Ukraine (Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, University of Toronto) Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Centre, Toronto University of Toronto, November 1, 2007 Andrij Makuch, Guest Editor Frank E. Sysyn Preface 1 Mykola Riabchuk Holodomor: The Politics of Memory and Political Infi ghting in Contemporary Ukraine 3 Liudmyla Grynevych The Present State of Ukrainian Historiography on the Holodomor and Prospects for Its Development 10 Hennadii Boriak Holodomor Archives and Sources: The State of the Art 21 Iryna Matiash Archives in Russia on the Famine in Ukraine 36 Cover: “Earth” (Zemlia) by Bohdan Pevny, reproduced by permission of the Patriarch Mstyslav I Ukrainian Museum of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA. The Harriman Review is published quarterly by the Harriman Institute, Columbia University. Copyright © 2008 by the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. All rights reserved. Harriman Institute 420 West 118th Street, MC 3345, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027 Preface hen, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the diaspora has played a significant role in this process, the Ukrainian government has played an ever greater role by Ukrainian diaspora communities in the West sponsoring official commemorations of the Holodomor initiated plans to commemorate the fiftieth and raising the issue of its recognition as a genocide by anniversary of the Great Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33, W foreign governments and international organizations. they encountered not only a lack of awareness among Although the number of Holodomor scholars in North the general public, but also a dearth of scholarship on the America and Europe is still not great, a substantial body of Famine. Although Sovietology was a privileged field of literature has emerged, expressing varying viewpoints on research in North America and Western Europe and the the classification, origins, dimensions, and consequences study of the Soviet Union of the 1920s and 1930s was at of that great tragedy. Here too, however, the major change that time being transferred from the discipline of Soviet to the study of the Famine has come with the opening up politics to that of Soviet history, very little scholarly of archives, the gathering of eyewitness testimonies, and work had been devoted to the Famine. Indeed one of the the publication of research in Ukraine and other areas of most prominent scholars on Soviet agriculture and the the former Soviet Union. peasantry, R.W. Davies, commented that most Western In planning a scholarly conference for Toronto, accounts of Soviet development had treated the famine an organizing committee consisting of members of the of 1932-33 as a secondary event, though he believed it Toronto office of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian should occupy a central place in the history of the Soviet Studies at the University of Alberta, the Petro Jacyk Union.1 Such neglect of the Famine to a considerable Program for the Study of Ukraine at the University of degree explains the tremendous resonance in 1986-87 Toronto's Centre for European, Russian and Eurasian in scholarly publications and the mass media of Robert Studies, and the Ukrainian Canadian Research and Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization Documentation Centre in Toronto decided to concentrate and the Terror-Famine, which had come out of the on highlighting the contribution of Ukrainian scholars in Famine research project at the Ukrainian Research amassing source materials and conducting research on Institute at Harvard University.2 the Famine as well as on the role of the Holodomor as a One of the reasons so little attention had been de­ public issue in Ukraine. The co-operation of the Toronto voted to the Famine was that up until the late 1980s the Branch of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Soviet Union denied any major famine had occurred in Buduchnist Credit Union Foundation made organizing 1932-33 and denounced all those who saw the Soviet the conference possible. authorities as culpable for the Famine. Only under the The committee was pleased that a number of influence of glasnost in the late 1980s did discussions eminent scholars from Ukraine were able to speak of the Famine appear in the press, and only in August at “The Holodomor of 1932-33: A 75th-Anniversary 1990 was an international symposium devoted to this is­ Conference on the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide” on sue held in Kyiv, Ukraine's capital. The collapse of the Thursday, November 1, 2007. The session also benefited Soviet Union and the establishment of a Ukrainian state greatly from the contributions of the North American have radically changed the environment in which the academics who served as discussants. Mykola Riabchuk Holodomor (Extermination by Hunger), as the Ukrainian (Ukrainian Centre for Cultural Studies, Kyiv) spoke on Famine has been increasingly referred to both in Ukraine “The Famine in Contemporary Ukrainian Politics and and abroad, is commemorated and studied. Society,” followed by a commentary by Dominique In the twenty-five years that have passed since the Arel (Chair of Ukrainian Studies, University of Ottawa). fiftieth anniversary commemorations of the Ukrainian Liudmyla Grynevych (Institute of the History of Ukraine, Famine, the level of international public awareness of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) presented a tragedy has increased dramatically. While the Ukrainian paper on “The Present State of Ukrainian Historiography on the Holodomor and Prospects for Its Development,” 1. See his review of Harvest ofSorrow in Detente, nos. 9-10 (1987): 44-5. with Terry Martin (Harvard University) commenting. 2. See Frank Sysyn, “The Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33: The Hennadii Boriak (then at the State Committee on Archives Role of the Ukrainian Diaspora in Research and Public Discus­ of Ukraine, now at the Institute of History of Ukraine, sion,” in Studies in Comparative Genocide, ed. Levon Chorbajian National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) spoke on and George Shirinian (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999), 190-93, 208-13. “Holodomor Archives and Sources: The State of the Art.” Iryna Matiash (Ukrainian Research Institute of Archival “Visualizing the Holodomor: The Ukrainian Famine- Affairs and Document Studies) delivered a paper on Genocide of 1932-1933 on Film” on December 2, 2008. “Archives in Russia on the Famine in Ukraine.” Lynne The Program is grateful to Andrij Makuch of the Toronto Viola (University of Toronto) commented on the latter office of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies two presentations. A webcast of the entire conference for serving as guest editor of this special issue, and to and the lively interchange there between Ukrainian Ronald Meyer, editor of the Harriman Review, for his and North American scholars and the academics and expeditious editing of the issue. members of the public present can be viewed at <http:// hosting.epresence.tv/munk/archives/2007_nov1_ 633295348322877500/?archiveID=32>. Frank E. Sysyn The Ukrainian presenters have kindly revised University of Alberta their papers for publication in the Harriman Review. and Ukrainian Studies Program, Harriman Institute This special issue constitutes one component of the commemoration of the Holodomor by the Ukrainian Studies Program at the Harriman Institute. The Ukrainian Studies Program is also sponsoring the conference Holodomor: The Politics of Memory and Political Infighting in Contemporary Ukraine Mykola Riabchuk Introduction is still a battlefield, where two different national projects The Politics of Memory in a Divided Country compete for dominance, drawing their discursive and In the past five years, the issue of the Holodomor, symbolic resources from various aspects of colonial and that is, the man-made Famine of 1932-33, has occupied anti-colonial legacies. a much more prominent position in Ukrainian politics The main hypothesis underlying my paper is that and society than it was ever accorded during the 1990s, the official politics of memory in Ukraine have been as let alone in the previous decades when the issue was ef­ ambiguous and inconsistent as the politics of officialdom fectively silenced by the Soviet authorities, and any ref­ in general, both domestically and internationally. This erences to Holodomor were criminalized. For example, ambiguity stems from the hybrid nature of the post-So­ twelve years after independence and fifteen years since viet regime that emerged from the compromise between Gorbachov's glasnost, only 75 percent of respondents in the former ideological rivals (“national democrats” and a 2003 national survey confirmed their awareness of the “sovereign communists”), but also reflects the hybrid event, while 13 percent confessed that they knew noth­ and highly ambivalent nature of Ukrainian postcolonial ing about the Famine, and 12 percent declined to express and post-totalitarian society. Since 1991, official politics, their opinion.1 Three years later, in September 2006, including the politics of memory, had been mastermind­ as many as 94 percent of respondents confirmed their ed in such a way so as to not only exploit the societal awareness of the event, even though a substantial num­ ambivalence inherited from the past, but also to preserve ber of them (12 percent) considered that the Famine was and effectively intensify it for the future. The practical mainly caused by natural phenomena.2 The main divide, manifestations of such a policy under Kuchma are con­ however, shifted from a rather crude ideological contro­ sidered in the first part of my paper, where I discuss the versy over Holodomor recognition versus Holodomor vacillation of Ukrainian authorities over the Holodomor denial towards a more sophisticated controversy over in­ issue.