Introduction
Holodomor was one of the most devastating events in Soviet history, filled with the loss of life of numerous citizens. The tragedy affected the whole country, from Ukraine in the West to Kazakhstan in the East. Coincidently, collectivization affected these two countries the most, which led to mass hunger and death. Lev Kopelev provides an invaluable first-witness account of the tragedy in Ukraine. In The Last Grain Collection, he describes the forceful collection of the last grain reserves from the citizens as he participated in it. Moreover, he analyzes his attitude toward collectivization at that time, showing glimpses into the mind of a person affected by propaganda. His account further explains the justification of the Soviet government for this process. Kopelev demonstrates how governments can “justify unjustifiable” and convince people to commit crimes against humanity, like taking away the only sources of food from starving people. The Last Grain Collection presents this pattern of the government’s treatment of its citizens. For the greater context of Soviet history, Holodomor establishes the pattern of the Soviet government’s policy, as many decisions that similarly disregard human life would follow.
Historical Background and Truth of Holodomor
To understand Kopelev, it is important to view it through the lens of the historical background of the Soviet Union at that time. As mentioned earlier, Kopelev describes the events of collectivization, which further led to Holodomor. In particular, he provides the first-witness account of the forceful collection of grains in Ukraine. After the revolution and Civil War, the Soviet government was established. The objective of that government was to begin taking measures to accomplish the Soviet vision. One of the main components of this Soviet vision created by Lenin was the communal organization of living and labor. Another component stems from the original Marx’s ideas, as he believed that revolution and communism are only possible in fully economically and industrially developed nations. He thought that, in these countries, people would slowly come to the realization and change their political system. Russia at that time was far from that, remaining an economically challenged simple feudal state. Thus, in his strategy, Lenin had to account for this difference, and he created the idea of vanguards and the rapid development of Russia under these vanguards or later party members.
This strategy also meant the necessity of rapid pace in industrialization to reach these ideals of the Soviet vision. Moreover, this industrialization in the Soviet sense was not possible without collectivization. Lenin’s first slow attempts at collectivization were cut short by his death. However, Stalin continued this task with increased speed, ordering the forceful collection of grains and living stock. His major rationale was that people driven by need and hunger would come to these new collective farms and start working toward the Soviet ideal. However, Russia was not one of Marx’s theoretical countries that fully reached the need for communism. In contrast to idealistic party members who did not produce resources themselves, people were unwilling to abandon their past ways of living, which they developed over centuries. Moreover, these farms were not prepared to sustain people and domestic animals. For example, for nomads of Kazakhstan, the harsh climate and desert environment made any other form of subsistence nearly impossible except for nomadic animal husbandry. Obviously, these conditions led to Holodomor, mass hunger, and death.
Kopelev’s Perspective and Dissonance between the Soviet’s and Actual Reality
In The Last Grain Collection, Kopelev describes collectivization through the experience of a devoted party member. He wrote to people for them to learn about the truths of collectivization and his changed perspective. The propaganda of the Soviet Union widely celebrated collectivization and Stalin’s actions before and at the time of Kopelev’s writings. Victims and damages were hidden and considered justified in the pursuit of the Soviet ideal. Any disagreements with this interpretation of the events were silenced and punished. Kopelev was similarly exiled from the Soviet Writer’s Union first, then from the country. This ideological resistance of Soviet propaganda led to Kopelev’s main purpose: to show unspoken atrocities to the whole world and reach everyone. Therefore, to achieve this purpose and appeal to a wider audience, he kept his writing style and genre simple, narrating his thoughts and experiences of collectivization.
Kopelev’s account shows both the power of propaganda and the atrocities of collectivization. Propaganda from Kopelev’s descriptions forms a simplistic view of the world in the citizens. He writes how he and other Soviet soldiers believed in this two-dimensional representation of the situation, where one side is them and the other – the enemy of the state. In the middle of this scheme lies the peasants who have no conscience to decide for themselves, being led astray by “the enemies of the state” (Kopelev 234). Undoubtedly, this view reduces the situation’s complexities, allowing for justification for the forceful collection of people’s only food source. Moreover, these beliefs raise the sense of righteousness and patriotism, causing young men like Kopelev at that time to fight to oppress starving people. They believe that they are fighting for a better future that people do not grasp due to their unconscious loyalty to the enemies of the state or “kulaks” (Kopelev 234) and others. Even faced with human suffering and hunger, they still hold this belief in a better future that helps them cope with reality.
Reality is different from propaganda, as Kopelev shows in his writing. The truth is that the enemy of the state is simple people who own living stock and grains. The unconscious peasants are also simple people who follow the century-old ways of living and suffer from hunger as the source of their subsistence is removed. The difference is the subjective perception of their status and misplaced anger. In reality, every person owned something taken away from them by the Soviet government in its chase toward the vision. From historical notes, it is even more prominent in nomadic populations built on the concept of everyone owning the living stock equally. The same patterns of equal “sharing” of resources can also be seen in some villages in Ukraine and Russia (Kopelev 238). In this case, the promise of a better future where everyone would be equal does not make sense. Kopelev shows that collectivization does not bring equality or betterment but deprivation, disruption of people’s way of living, and death.
The Reveal of Soviet Policy Pattern
In the greater sense of Soviet politics, Kopelev proves the pattern of its policy direction. It demonstrates the gap between the promises and claims of the Soviet government and the reality of the human condition. Soviet vision presents the picture of a better future, where free and equal citizens control their means of production and govern themselves. In reality, some levels of freedom and equality already existed in the pockets of Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and other countries. However, the Soviet government was the one that deprived people of their freedom and resources, making them subservient to the small number of party members or vanguards. In Lenin’s ideas, vanguards were supposed to guide the citizens to freedom, protecting their rights, but the reality was the opposite, as mentioned above.
Moreover, this dissonance proves not only the hypocrisy of the Soviet ideal but the overall treatment of its citizens. As people were deprived of resources and freedom during collectivization, the Soviet government saw them as unconscious peasants who had the potential to be negatively influenced by the enemies of the state. In other words, this idea again stems from the vanguard’s principle, as they were the protectors of unconscious peasants, leading them to a better future. This attitude later led to propaganda and censorship because, according to Soviet ideology, citizens could not be trusted, as they could not think for themselves. It also caused multiple mandatory laws and actions like collectivization that citizens had no opportunities to change. Thus, he shows the hypocrisy of the Soviet government and human suffering of innocent peasants.
Kopelev’s account showed how the Soviet government saw the citizens not only as unconscious masses but also as an expendable resource. It can be seen further in another prominent example of Stalin’s approach to WWII. For Stalin, soldiers were expendable, as he pushed through the war mostly on a sheer number of people and human sacrifices. Weaponry and strategy were secondary, as Stalin purged his general before his initial plans to declare war, while Hitler managed to make the first move. Another pattern in politics is the treatment of other ethnicities and countries besides Russia. Holodomor in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, the most hit countries, mirrors the Soviet’s attitude toward ethnic minorities. Despite the claims of equality of the nations in the Soviet Union, the minorities were treated as secondary to their Russian counterparts. The most prominent example is the Semipalatinsk disaster, where the Soviets deliberately tested nuclear radiation’s effects on Kazakhstan’s town after Chornobyl’s disaster with more than six potential hydrogen bombs. The location was also chosen intentionally to avoid impacting the Central parts of Russia.
Conclusion
The important and unexpected question that Kopelev raises is the question of governments and humanity. The vision can drive governments to commit atrocities like in the Soviet Union’s case. These governments can convince people to be the instrument in committing these atrocities on the example of young Kopelev and his colleagues. However, as explored before, the ideals and reality do not match. In other words, the Soviet ideals of equality and freedom did not correspond to this reality of the government depriving the people of these same things. This mismatch birthed the necessity for propaganda, making the nation live in the government’s fantasy. Moreover, it prevented the Soviet Union from achieving its fantasy as it stuck to the flawed ideology, denying the objective reality. Among this dissonance, humans became an expendable resource and powerless mass which had a choice to perpetuate the ideology or go against it, risking exile, as Kopelev decided to do. Kopelev helps to reach these powerful conclusions through the narration of his experiences. He discovers this pattern of the Soviet politics ahead of the events that would follow.
Work Cited
Kopelev, Lev. “The Last Grain Collections”. The Education of a True Believer, edited by G. Kern, Harpercollins, 1980, pp. 234-244.