Beware all ye communists who enter here. Bourgeois conceptions of balance, bias, and knowledge reside beyond this point.

This is a review of the “Debunking Anti-Communism” Masterpost from /r/communism. The goal in writing this is to ascertain whether or not his ‘masterpost’ actually gives us enough reason to reject the alleged myths. I am not going to try and solve historiography which is hotly debated in academia. Instead, I am going to try and show why the way this masterpost presents its sources is problematic, and that biggest strength is that it establishes the need to read widely in order to develop a fair and balanced account of history.

At this point I am not sure if I am going to do the whole source, or just a few points. This post will only be about the first myth, which relates to Holodomor. I will only use the sources presented in the masterpost. The reason for this is because if this was the only resource you had ever seen on Soviet history you wouldn’t know about any other sources. My goal is to discern, if these were the only sources I had access to, would it be reasonable to accept that Holodomor was a natural famine?

The first point I would like to raise is that this ‘masterpost’ presents a large number of sources without explicitly extracting what claims they are making, just as the HBDR did. This resource, however, does better than the HBDR in this regard. First of all, its headers are less ambiguous than the HBDR which had names like ‘Human Biodiversity General’ while this one has large headers such as ‘The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe’ which, while still vague, are supplemented by sub-headings which detail alleged myths, such as ‘The Soviet Union Manufactured a Famine in Ukraine.’ Moreover, rather than present a deductive argument based on a series of tangentially related claims as the HBDR did (Ethnic background is the most significant determinant of differences in bone marrow, Differences in bone marrow are hereditary, Differences in intelligence are hereditary, therefore, Ethnic background is the most significant determinant of differences in intelligence) a cursory glance seems to indicate the masterpost presents sources which directly make the claims specifically made in the section (ie. It will present four sources which directly claim that the famine in the Ukraine was not manufactured by Soviets).

The lack of an evaluation of the sources presented makes this resource very difficult to analyse from a lay-perspective. In fact, these sources being presented as they are is extremely problematic, as it does not offer any opposing arguments. This is fine for academics, but this is not itself an academic resource, and given that it is sourced back to Facebook it is reasonable to assume many of its readers are not academics. As such, I would use the tools I would use to evaluate these sources, as if I was evaluating them for an academic essay. This means I will read introductions, look for citations, reviews, and reputation. It also means that if a source doesn’t meet my criteria I will not read the source.

Whether or not a source should stand on its own is a different debate, here, I am contending with the reality that I am not dedicating my life to Soviet study, and so will probably never have time to treat every source on its own. Even if I read them all it is unlikely I will follow up their sources, investigate dubious claims and generally gain as good an evaluation as an academic reviewer would.

SECTION 1: THE SOVIET UNION AND EASTERN EUROPE

ANTI-COMMUNIST MYTH NUMBER 1: THE SOVIET UNION MANUFACTURED A FAMINE IN UKRAINE

Full disclosure: I am of the position that the Holodomor famine occurred, and that it was exacerbated through Soviet incompetence, and probably apathy, however, it was by no means intentional. I do not consider the Soviet’s blameless for the famine, however, I do not consider the Soviet impact on the Holodomor Famine to be an argument against communism in and of itself. I do not consider myself an expert on this issue, and my view is probably influenced by over-exposure to left-wing sources.

Four sources are presented for this claim:

RESOURCE 1: Fraud, Famine, and Fascism by Douglas Tottle http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/tottlefraud.pdf

RESOURCE 2: "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933" by Mark Tauger http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20%27The%201932%20Harvest%20and%20the%20Famine%20of%201933,%20SR%2091.pdf

RESOURCE 3: Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931–1933 by Mark Tauger http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Natural%20Disaster%20and%20Human%20Actions.pdf

RESOURCE 4: The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933 by Davies and Wheatcroft http://libgen.in/get.php?md5=32DAA2871728468189A57E0233492A3A

The first thing I would like to talk about is the nature of the sources themselves. A cursory examination makes it seem as though these are reasonable resources. The first, Fraud, Famine, and Fascism, does not come from an academic source, however, it is well sourced, and contains an extensive bibliography. The notes contain both primary and (often academic) secondary sources. The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933 is from a peer-reviewed journal, and the historian is employed at a reputable, if not elite, school. Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine comes from the same author, and is also academic, published by these guys. The final source, * The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture* is also written by historians at reputable universities. Davies is professor emeritus of Soviet Economic Studies at the University of Birmingham, while Wheatcroft is a professor of history at the University of Melbourne, and a fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences.

One problem, particularly with the first source, might be bias. The fact that two of the four writers across the sources are employed by universities in Soviet specialty positions, and one other is employed in a History department, would indicate that this is not too much of an issue. Tottle, on the other hand, has written about little else, and evidence seems to suggest his book, Fraud, Famine, and Fascism is mostly promoted by socialist/communist institutions.¹ I could not find any academic reviews of this book, and I do not have the time, nor the expertise, to write a review now. I would be inclined to suggest that this book is biased, and should not be used as a source on its own. Given this issue on bias I would like to stress that for somebody who has not read any texts on the Holodomor this does not present the best introductory text and it is problematic that it is first on the list.

Now, I don’t claim to be able to solve the disputes surrounding the historiography of Holodomor in a Reddit post; that would be absurd. If I could do that I would be writing it for a journal or more likely a book. What I do claim to be able to say, however, is whether or not we should consider the claims contained by this resource as reasonable. Given that there is such significant dispute, which ranges from whether a famine occurred, to whether or not it was man-made, to whether or not it constituted a genocide, it is probably worth taking these sources seriously. By no means am I claiming them to be correct, however, if you have not read these sources it would be reasonable to describe your position on the Holodomor as biased. Maybe not ‘mythical’, but certainly biased.

As such, I would suggest reading these texts, and analysing them yourself if you want to actually have a developed opinion on the topic. If you have read nothing about the Holodomor, you should read these, but also read books and articles offering opposing perspectives, and perhaps read some of them first. If you already know about the Holodomor, or have read enough to form what you see as a justified view, you should probably supplement what you already know with these texts. Even if you read them and disagree with them it is important to consider these perspectives in order to form a fair, balanced view of the subject.

So, that’s everything to be said about the nature of the sources, but what about their contents?

I would like to look at four arguments presented in these texts:

1. Evidence used to show the Holodomor is often times doctored, either by fascists or by the U.S.S.R Tottle: chapters 1 and 2

Tauger, 1991: “This interpretation...overlooks inconsistencies between official grain harvest statistics...and the evidence of the famine, as well as indications from other sources that these records may be unreliable” p. 70

1. The argument that the Holodomor was Soviet-caused, or a genocide, is the result of Ukrainian nationalist, fascist, and anti-communist cold war views.

Tottle: The entire book, except for part 2 really. This claim is interwoven throughout the text, looking at how specific groups attempted to do this.

1. The main argument that high grain procurements under collectivization caused the famine is not supported by the evidence

Tauger, 2001: The table showing grain procurements is on page 1.

1. The Holodomor was not a genocide, and was likely not motivated by Soviet hostility, due to the variety of people affected.

Tauger, 2001: First makes this claim on page 1

This is not the entirety of what is included within these texts. They also seek to establish other factors which caused Holodomor. I am only interested in whether or not this source gives us reason to debunk anti-communist myths, and while the ability to offer up an alternate interpretation certainly adds to the argument it is not something upon which the argument requires. One must first show that the original interpretation is flawed before you can argue for a new interpretation.

The first of these four points is argued by Tollet, who argues that many of the photographs used as evidence for the Holodomor were fascist hoaxes. We must be careful to note, however, that just because some evidence is fabricated does not mean that all evidence is fabricated. While this does establish that certain views about the Holodomor may be ‘mythical’ it does not show that all views about it were. In short; this does not show that there was no famine, just that claims about the famine are often exaggerated. It should as a reminder that, particularly when looking at issues as polarising as this, we should always be careful to note potential bias of our sources, and should investigate every claim thoroughly.

Tauger argues that the numbers used to justify the high grain production of 1832 were fabricated by the Soviets. Again, this should serve us as a reminder to analyse our sources. I do find this claim slightly problematic, as Tauger accepts the Soviet reports for grain procurements and uses these to justify his argument that grain procurements were actually lower in 1832 than in other years. Further investigation of Tauger’s work, and the sources he used, would be necessary to understand how he arrived at his numbers, and why he uses them. Such an investigation is, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this write up.

The second of these points is central to Tollet’s book. MY biggest criticism of this is that, while the most ardent detractors of the Holodomor may be Ukrainian nationalists, and fascists this view is also supported by several academic historians. Given this, should we also reject those denying that Holodomor was man-made because they are communist? It seems there is probably more correlation in the second instance than in the first. While I personally agree that fascist and Ukrainian nationalist, not to mention Cold War, propaganda has exaggerated the extent of Holodomor I would not use this as one of my central arguments because that opens me up to the exact same criticism.

I have already responded to the third point in my discussion of Tauger in relation to the first point.

The fourth point is established by Tauger. Tauger argues that the famine affected a variety of groups, including military personal, and that the government distributed most of its food in order to alleviate this problem. This seems problematic, however, as, if the famine was affecting everyone is it not possible that Ukrainians were somehow last on the list for food, and thus disproportionally affected by it?

In short, my biggest criticism of this view is that it still leaves us with questions. By not presenting academic sources in favour of the view that Holodomor was caused by the Soviet government it makes itself seem more biased. Given that the arguments against the prevailing view on the Holodomor are not themselves watertight making a coherent argument either way requires intense investigation of evidence from both sides. Because this source does not present evidence from both sides I would not recommend forming your view on the Holodomor from it alone. Supplementing these sources with other sources will allow you to have a deeper understanding of the evidence, and the circumstances surrounding Holodomor.

My biggest problem with this source is its lack of contesting sources. This is why I think presenting sources in a list form as this (and the HBDR) does it problematic. If the compiler of this resource actually spent the time to write a short introductory essay on the topic they could have also included references to contesting sources. It would make for a much more balanced account, and someone looking to learn would actually have a fair chance to make up their mind on the issue. As it stands, by presenting no contesting sources, by not contextualising the sources it does present within the wider historiography, it makes it seem as though the compiler thinks you wouldn’t be convinced if you saw contesting evidence.

Unfortunately, the link for book number four is dead. Luckily, because it is academic, reviews exist, so I will give a summary of this book based on four reviews:

Review by: Andrea Graziosi, Slavic Review, Vol. 67, No. 3 (Fall, 2008), pp. 774-775

Review by: Paul Gregory. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 78, No. 2, June 2006

Review by: Carol Scott Leonard. Europe-Asia Studies Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 155-156

Review by: David Moon. The English Historical Review, Vol. 120, No. 487 (Jun., 2005), pp. 798-800

These reviews are largely positive, however, they do problematize the book.

“Definitive work on Soviet agriculture in the key period 1931-1933” - Gregory

“This is an important, solid, useful, yet flawed book” - Graziosi, p.773

One criticism that is raised is that it is ‘history from above,’ or focuses too much on the state’s view, than on the view of the peasants affected.

”Its protagonists are the regime's upper cadres, and the story...is almost always reconstructed through their eyes.” Graziosi p.773

One thing I would like to note is that it seems from the reviews that the book does blame Holodomor on the Soviet government, however, it ascertains that the intent was not to cause a famine, but to aid Soviet industrialization:

“Davies and Wheatcroft find abundant eviidence of rigid ideological decision making and tragic mistakes but no record of the use of famine as a deliberate policy” Leonard - p.155

“Taken in its entirety, Years of Hunger is an indictment of Soviet agricultural policy, although the authors appear to subscribe to the view that an ambitious industrialization program would not have been possible had agriculture not first been brought under firm administrative control” - Gregory

“They prove the majority of victims could have been saved” - Graziosi, p.773

”the authors not occasions when the Party leadership took decisions that. at least partly and in the short term, mayy have benefited the rural population” Moon, p.799

From the reviews this source seems like the best presented in the ‘masterpost.’ In fact, this source actually counteracts many of my earlier claims about the masterpost. It is clearly not written from a place of bias or ideology. Unlike the first book, which focuses too much on other people’s construction of the Holodomor it investigates the event itself. Its use of Soviet archives which other books on the topic didn’t have access to also mean it provides a convincing case.

That being said, this book is fourth in the list, and the link is dead. I have found it on Amazon, but whether a Facebook communists would spend money to justify their beliefs remains to be seen. When I was 19 people in my local ISO thought I was weird because I actually bought pamphlets, and I don’t know if I would have gone so far as to buy a book. I get that this is hardly a definitive argument against the ‘masterpost’ however I think “Your best source is your least accessible” is a fair criticism. This also brings us back to the problem of the ‘list’ masterpost. If you wrote a short, introductory essay you could have explained the claims made by this book and sourced it, so that people who can’t access it could still know what its claims are.

Given the inclusion of this source, I would actually say that the resource does give us reason to accept that Holodomor was not man-made, provided you read sources not presented in the masterpost as well. The biggest issue with the masterpost is its presentation, which does not allow for claims to be easily extracted. It also does not allow for the presentation of counter claims, which indicates a substantial amount of bias. Because of these two issues, if one only has access to the first three sources then they would not have enough justification that the Holodomor was not man made, however, with the fourth source this changes, provided you read sources from outside the masterpost too.

Overall, I think these problems are big enough to refer to this source as ‘bad history.’ This is mostly just an issue with presentation, however, and not an issue with the actual content of the source.

Notes:

1. Even though this book is only endorsed by socialist/communist institutions it is still an important book, and recognised by non-communists. The Wikipedia page on ‘Denial of the Holodomor’ references it, and Tottle was invited to speak at a non-judicial International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine, , however, this event was put on by Ukranian Nationalists, so unsurprisingly Tottle did not attend. This does show, however, that Tottle’s book is one of the more important books on Holodomor denial.