Those deaths were caused by a drought, and by the mass destruction of crops by their previous owners as a form of protest against collectivization. Collectivized farms produced more food per hectare than privately owned farms did, and the confiscation of food by the NKVD was implemented to prevent hoarding of food which would have made the famine worse.
More to the point, the famine that rocked the USSR during the first of the five-year plans was the last famine in the caucuses, save for those caused by the invasion of the Nazis years later. This was a region that had massive famines like clockwork every 5-10 years, and it was explicitly the policy of collectivization and modernization that put a stop to that cycle. The idea that Soviet policy caused the famine is pop history gibberish that is commonly believed in part because of actual Nazi propaganda produced years after the famine occurred.
This theory is pretty roundly discredited in academia, though. The consensus view is that while there was a drought that lasted several years, the starvation that occured was exacerbated by the policies set by the Politburo, including:
Excessive quotas leading to the reduction in crop rotation and leaving land fallow, which in turn lead to weaker crop yields
The fall in livestock numbers following forced collectivization
Poor quality harvest resulting from an unsettled agriculture industry that resulted from political upheaval
So yes, nature itself was partly to blame but the refusal to deviate from the unrealistic goals set by the people in charge was the reason why the grain shortages and resulting famines were so much worse that they ought to have been.
You’ve missed out the main cause, which was a lack of oversight over figures that were being reported by the farms. They trusted the numbers they were being given which proved to be false reporting, which led to the incorrect quotas and crop rotation mistakes, which led to all the other mistakes.
This was a blunder that was corrected later (with extra third party checking of numbers). Solving it.
Keep in mind this was the very first time central planning had been applied to a task like this. The notion that the numbers reported would be wrong was not something anyone expected because there was no precedent to go on. All of these “incorrect policies” that you blame them for are a product of the incorrect figures that they had. Figures that were incorrect because kulaks were grain hoarding to sell for profit then reporting incorrect figures.
Are you telling me a group of men with an 1800s education didn’t have the most up to date agricultural science? Sounds like the fault of the people who educated them to me.
The fall in livestock and the “poor quality harvest” you’re referring to didn’t happen by accident. Large numbers of private landowners burned crops and slaughtered livestock when they learned that their land was to be collectivized. You could argue that the Soviets should have seen this coming and that it might be better to slow-roll the collectivization, but that’s an argument that can only be made in hindsight.
Those deaths were caused by a drought, and by the mass destruction of crops by their previous owners as a form of protest against collectivization. Collectivized farms produced more food per hectare than privately owned farms did, and the confiscation of food by the NKVD was implemented to prevent hoarding of food which would have made the famine worse.
More to the point, the famine that rocked the USSR during the first of the five-year plans was the last famine in the caucuses, save for those caused by the invasion of the Nazis years later. This was a region that had massive famines like clockwork every 5-10 years, and it was explicitly the policy of collectivization and modernization that put a stop to that cycle. The idea that Soviet policy caused the famine is pop history gibberish that is commonly believed in part because of actual Nazi propaganda produced years after the famine occurred.
deleted by creator
This theory is pretty roundly discredited in academia, though. The consensus view is that while there was a drought that lasted several years, the starvation that occured was exacerbated by the policies set by the Politburo, including:
Excessive quotas leading to the reduction in crop rotation and leaving land fallow, which in turn lead to weaker crop yields
The fall in livestock numbers following forced collectivization
Poor quality harvest resulting from an unsettled agriculture industry that resulted from political upheaval
So yes, nature itself was partly to blame but the refusal to deviate from the unrealistic goals set by the people in charge was the reason why the grain shortages and resulting famines were so much worse that they ought to have been.
You’ve missed out the main cause, which was a lack of oversight over figures that were being reported by the farms. They trusted the numbers they were being given which proved to be false reporting, which led to the incorrect quotas and crop rotation mistakes, which led to all the other mistakes.
This was a blunder that was corrected later (with extra third party checking of numbers). Solving it.
Keep in mind this was the very first time central planning had been applied to a task like this. The notion that the numbers reported would be wrong was not something anyone expected because there was no precedent to go on. All of these “incorrect policies” that you blame them for are a product of the incorrect figures that they had. Figures that were incorrect because kulaks were grain hoarding to sell for profit then reporting incorrect figures.
Are you telling me a group of men with an 1800s education didn’t have the most up to date agricultural science? Sounds like the fault of the people who educated them to me.
The fall in livestock and the “poor quality harvest” you’re referring to didn’t happen by accident. Large numbers of private landowners burned crops and slaughtered livestock when they learned that their land was to be collectivized. You could argue that the Soviets should have seen this coming and that it might be better to slow-roll the collectivization, but that’s an argument that can only be made in hindsight.