LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (04/11/99)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Great Famine was genocide

Dear Editor:

David Marples is, in relative terms, acquainted with matters concerning Ukraine, so you can imagine my astonishment reading his "The Great Famine: a reassessment" (December 27, 1998).

In his discussion of the reason for the Famine, Dr. Marples searches vainly for the "exact cause" of the Famine, for "what caused it precisely." It's almost as if only one thing will do: that stark document, black and white, signed in triplicate by Stalin and detailing that he intends to starve Ukrainians to death. (Parallels to the Nazi murder of Jews come to mind. That that was Nazi policy is unquestioned, though no document has been required to establish it.)

The most glaringly obvious reason - that millions of innocent souls were killed because someone wanted them dead - gets lost in a maze of ethereal speculation.

Thus, the rather shocking component of Dr. Marples' piece: surveying the "scholarly debate," he poses "whether Stalin had turned on Ukrainians specifically, peasants in general, or whether he decided to sacrifice the villages in order to feed the cities." Saying at the outset that "no definitive answer has emerged thus far," Dr. Marples nonetheless himself concludes that "there was no long-term plan against Ukraine as a region of the USSR." Among his reasons are "excessive grain requisitions," "failure to pay farmers" and shortage of farm machinery. Genocide - the conclusion of the U.S. Famine Commission - is rejected.

Were all this but a function of an over-energized state grain requisition program, where lies the motivation for leaving grain-producing in Russia (with the exceptions noted below) untouched, but decimating the population of such non-grain (sugar beet) producing regions in Ukraine as Vinnytsia Oblast? How do you explain the forced removal from tens of thousands of households of every last shred of food on the table, rotten cabbage buried under the floor boards, a crust of grain in the cupboard; children's mouths being pried open and half-chewed bread removed; the destruction of ovens to prevent the baking of bread if any cup of flour is inadvertently overlooked in the assault on Ukrainians; party "activists" sent in from Russia to probe in yards with steel rods to find hidden food?

Dr. Marples' second reason, the fact that farmers were not paid, is simply tragicomical. How can anyone who is familiar with what was going on at the time even conceive of the remotest possibility of that? It's like saying that the reason the farmers starved is because they didn't get food.

And his third reason, that there weren't enough tractors, begs the question. What would be their purpose? More grain production? But it was forcibly removed!

Dr. Marples thus moves imperceptibly (but one hopes, unwittingly) from "cause" and slips into inert "explanations" for the Famine. He merely discusses mechanisms for its implementation, but the true "cause," the purpose, of the Famine was to kill. Thus, by saying that "Stalin was nonetheless prepared to sacrifice Ukrainian farmers in order to fulfill his quotas of grain," Dr. Marples moves dangerously close to the excuses we have become used to from apologists when the fact of the Famine can no longer be dodged. Simply give a reason for it. Any reason will do - as along as it's not that Stalin intended to kill. Disinfect the motivation. Divert the focus by giving another reason, and you forever entangle the discussion.

For the uninitiated, the subliminal message of Dr. Marples' overview comes close to: Ukrainian deaths were simply the unfortunate, but unintended, by-product of other state activity - in this case, collecting grain to fuel the economic plan, to export for hard currency, etc., etc.

The undisputed facts are: The Russian-Ukrainian border was closed and viciously enforced. The Kharkiv area starved to death. Belgorod, a few thousand meters across the Russian border, did not. Dr. Marples passes ever so lightly over the internal passport system, introduced on the eve of the Famine's onset, intending to guarantee human filler for a vast graveyard.

And he should know better than to cite the existence of Famine outside of Ukraine, in the North Caucasus and the Kuban and Don regions, as supportive of his view that the Famine wasn't focused on Ukraine. In a sense he is accurate - but misleading.

The Famine was not so much focused on Ukraine as it was focused on Ukrainians, whose ethnographic territory extended precisely to those regions outside of the borders of Ukraine cited by Dr. Marples. And that is also why not all parts of Ukraine suffered the same. Large urban centers, inhabited largely by Russians and Jews, were largely spared the devastation; thoroughly Ukrainian villages were obliterated.

Ironically, in his "conclusion" Dr. Marples finally does seem to come around a bit, writing: "Those who fed the country were not permitted to feed themselves. Grain could rot in barns rather than be used to make bread to feed ravenous families." So, then, simply fulfilling grain quotas was not the point of the "requisition program," after all. Stripping the countryside bare of anything edible so that people would starve and then keeping them away from the food, that was the point. When that happens, and when 3 million children die in agony, and additionally their parents with them, we call it murder. And murder does not occur by accident. "We will turn the bony hand of famine against the kulak," was the party's clarion call.

The very fact that today there is still a "scholarly debate" about the "causes" of the Famine says a lot about the wretched persistence of selective morality toward the cataclysms of this century. And it is precisely the introduction - and breeding - of that kind of selectivity, of "several schools of thought" about the Famine, that guarantees the extirpation of morality. There's always the "other side" of the story, "let's not be biased, now," etc.

Thus, it's not Dr. Marples' overview of the fraudulent "debate" that disappoints. The disappointment is his contributing to the life-support system for that debate by articulating his own view that there are any number of "explanations" other than one. And the fact that it all rises to the level of "scholarly" debate as opposed to easily dismissed rantings of acknowledged crazies, is what makes Dr. Marples' piece so pernicious. This time, his writing does him no credit.

Victor Rud
Ridgewood, N.J.

Let's encourage learning Ukrainian

Dear Editor:

In essence, I agree with Myron Kuropas' article, "The language question, all over again" (March 7). However, I question the general tone and ultimately the message that the article conveys to our younger generation - our children.

It stands to reason that any Ukrainian (speaking or non-speaking) willing to contribute to any Ukrainian-related cause is an integral, vital member of our community. It would be ludicrous and absolutely counterproductive to exclude any Ukrainian from community life or to demand proficiency in Ukrainian when the situation obviously does not require it. Speaking the language of your forefathers is not an all-inclusive definition of your heritage and your ancestral belonging.

In his wisdom, much to his credit, Dr. Kuropas does present a disclaimer (probably to prevent letters such as this) stating his belief that language most definitely is important. To summarize the solution to this "language question," however, by saying that in order "to reach the younger generation we have to speak their language" is really to minimize the time, energy and effort of Ukrainian school students.

Worst yet, it is a lowering of standards for our children, an expression of our belief in their diminished capabilities to master another language. Instead of conveying to our children that learning Ukrainian shows love and respect for their parents, grandparents and ancestors, not to mention enriches the individual, we are saying that: It's OK. We are a kinder, gentler community; no need to exert yourself; we love you anyway; let's just all take the path of least resistance, the easy road.

All the "colorama" of our culture is fairly easily attainable in a Ukrainian community setting, but mastering another language inarguably requires the most time, effort, diligence and discipline. Don't underestimate our youth. Don't set the bar too low. Celebrate their capabilities, encourage them to strive for the higher goals in life. Someday they will thank you for your efforts and guidance!

Everyone speaks English - use it to your advantage! But let's encourage our youths to enrich themselves and help us survive as a people in the politics of the world - unified by our language!

Julia Kashuba
Kildeer, Ill.

The Ukrainian Weekly welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typed (double-spaced) and signed; they must be originals, not photocopies.

The daytime phone number and address of the letter-writer must be given for verification purposes.

| Home Page |