|
The Jewish Experience during World War two and
the Ukrainian Famine.
By 1JMA member oi_katacpofa
Debate of this article
can be foud here:
The "sacred" nature of the Jewish experience during
the Nazi regime is unquestionable. The sufferings, the loss, the
tragic nature of the Holocaust, and the special status of the Jews
in relation to World War Two's related destruction is assured with
little doubt. However the nature of the Holocaust (1) leaves questions
on the whole scale uniqueness of the Jewish experience. Can the
Holocaust be compared to other mass killings? If so, which ones
qualify as similar genocides? What defines Genocide at all? The
United Nations defines genocide as:
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
" (2)
Most definitions revolve around the intent to destroy a large portion
or all of a group such as Steven Katz when he defines genocide as
"the concept of genocide applies only when there is an actualized
intent, however successfully carried out, to physically destroy
an entire group" (3) or in Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn's
definition that "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing
in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group,
as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator"(4)
. Each definition by each author provides a slightly different answer
to a tough question. One could argue that according to Katz's concept
the Jewish Holocaust is not genocide due to the lack of proof that
the Nazis had any intention to kill the Jews outside of Europe.
This obviously leads to problems. The study of these problems of
comparison come in a field known as Comparative Genocide Studies,
a field sown with political agendas, national pride, minority issues,
and a general hostile attitude toward the claim that any one genocide
is more perfect (horrible as it sounds) than another. Is the Holocaust
Unique? To best answer this one must compare it to other events
of a similar scale. In this paper, the Man Made Famine of the Ukrainian
people of 1932-1933 will be used to challenge the hegemony of the
Holocaust as the epitome of genocide. First, however a closer look
at the various perspectives of genocide and the arguments for the
Holocaust as being "Phenomenologicaly unique" (5)or did
the holocaust "[take] place out of history, and [became]
a mysterious event, an upside down miracle, so to speak"
(6) or was it just another mass killing in a century marked by mass
killings?
What makes the Holocaust stand out? Those who argue that the Genocide
of European Jewry is a distinct and incomparable event above and
beyond other European Genocides assume one half of the debate. A
key aspect of their argument for uniqueness comes from the intentionality
of the Holocaust. Steven Katz in a bold move defined the uniqueness
of the holocaust by stating:
DEFINITION: "The Holocaust is Phenomenologicaly unique
by virtue of the fact that never before has a state set out, as
a matter of intentional principal, every man woman and child belonging
to a specific people" (7)
However, he soon disclaimers that he is NOT endorsing that the
holocaust is "more evil than alternative occurrences of extensive
and systematic persecution, organized violence and mass death (8).This
is a crucial point that needs to be understood of the Unique genocide
followers. They say not that the Holocaust is the worst form of
evil ever attempted, but that its distinctly different in character
from other horrible events. Katz later says in reference to the
Gulag, Cambodia and the Native Americans that "These other
happenings are also morally outrageous and arguable as outrageous
as the Sho'ah" (9) It is said, "it was never the
quality
or unlimited suffering that set aside from other catastrophes,
but the meaning of this sufferings
the Intentionality of the
Holocaust".(10) It would be fallacious to assume however
that the uniqueness supporters preach an entirely unique platform,
for even the most outspoken followers like Yehuda Bauer admit, "The
Holocaust brought to the world's attention extremes in human behavior-torture,
sadism, murder,There was nothing new in these" (11)The
base for many unique genocide believers is in the idea that the
Jews are a unique people within the context of European History
and that although others share great suffering, the Jewish experience
was above and beyond what others felt. (12) When faced with the
prospect of Comparison Uniqueness Theorist (13) Henry Feingold rebutted
that "The Holocaust is an event of magnitude which deserves
examination in its own right; its truth is concealed by facile comparisons"
(14)and furthermore "The distillation of a lesson is best
achieved and derived from the uniqueness of the event rather than
from what it shares with other atrocities". (15) Here,
he makes a strikingly convincing statement. What weight does an
event like the holocaust have if it is considered no more unique
than any other event.
With the idea of a unique holocaust in mind, what are the stand
out characteristics that make it so profoundly different from the
Armenian Genocide, Ukrainian artificial famine, Balkan massacres,
and other horrible events of the last century? Intention and methods
are often cited as the crucial differences
First, unlike previous horrors, it was:
"systematic," meaning that it was pursued with all
the efficiency accessible to a modern technological society. Second,
it had no apparent economic motive, indeed was economically counterproductive,
and therefore, unlike an abuse such as slavery seems "senseless"
And
finally, it meant not merely pain, humiliation and servitude, but
death." (16)
Though, this definition of uniqueness is a source of dissent within
the Uniqueness Theorist. Katz as an active supporter of the unique
holocaust focuses on the phenomenon of the holocaust as opposed
to a moral or ethical stance. He argues:
"This is not to deny that non-Holocaust X is different from
Holocaust Y but rather to assert that the nature of this difference
is logical and structural, not moral." (17)
The crucial fallacy they often cite to strengthen their position
while not offending survivors of other genocides is to claim that
they are not saying that "Jews in denying the comparability
of the Holocaust are advancing a moral claim and diminishing
the
misfortunes that befall other peoples" (18)
Instead the Katzian perspective avoids the concept of equating
"Uniqueness with morality and again uniqueness with types
of degrees of evil" (19)
In essence, the Holocaust was a new form of malicious intent toward
a population, but as Katz says it was not "a new or higher
level of evil" (20) Other uniqueologists use different
approaches to assuring the unique nature of the Holocaust. Some
argue that it is in the distortion of the post enlightenment and
industrial European society that creates the unique situation for
the Holocaust. It served to some as "the juncture where
the European Industrial system went awry; instead of enhancing life
it
began to consume itself". (21) This version of the Holocaust
Uniqueness is based more on the modern methods of the holocaust
than quantity. Descriptions of Auschwitz not as "another planet"
but as "an extension of the modern factory system" with
"raw material", "end products", "chimneys",
"railroad grid's" and the role of the perpetrators as
"managers" and "engineers (22).Many who agree with
Feingolds ideas also concur that the uniqueness of the holocaust
rests in the uniqueness of the Jews. Other genocides involved people
who were seen to be in the way or backwards or otherwise distasteful
groups. The Jews on the other hand were responsible for wonderful
things like "the Espèranto Movement, The Psychoanalytic
Movement and socialism" (23) and that "
Europe
would not be able to think of itself the way it does without the
conceptualizations of Mark, Freud, Wittgenstein, von Neumann, and
the hundreds of other Jewish intellectuals and thinkers with Jewish
Sensibilities." (24) The Holocaust in this perspective
took a unique turn not because of the killing of a large number
of people within a group, but in that the perversion of modern society
allowed itself to consume part of its own population (25) . This
is to refer back to Katz "Phenomenologicaly unique" .(26)
To test the accuracy of this position comparison must be made to
check the unique traits of the holocaust versus the characteristics
of another large genocide and verify the differences.
To verify the Uniqueness of the holocaust, one must seek similar
instances of destruction that are similar enough in context and
character to be applicable. While the Atlantic slave trade, destruction
of native peoples and the Crusades are all events of terrible actions
and consequences, all are too far in the past to apply contextually
to the holocaust. A better example for comparison would be the Ukrainian
Famine of 1932 and 1933. Here, the playing field is more level.
Both have totalitarian leaders exercising extreme power over peoples
both native and conquered with Stalin and Hitler at the helm. Both
are within a reasonable span of time to the other, the Famine occurring
just as Hitler was starting to seize control over Germany. Both
also involve the repressing of a group of people seen as justifying
elimination "
as a nation,
from political maps
from
history,
from peoples memory,
from human consciousness".
(27)". On a historical level, the two Genocides, Holocausts,
terrors, or what have you line up for comparison. Crucially, both
projects whether it be the Jewish Question in Prussia or the Ukrainian
question in Russia are strikingly similar in the fact that "
neither
Nazis nor Bolsheviks regarded genocide as their main aim; it was
only one means, among many others, to realize their utopian social
projects "(28)With this in mind, the similarities between
the two events attacks the uniqueness of both.
Why were the Ukrainians targeted? The broad and over cited answer
to nearly any questions of Soviet actions tends to be "class
struggle" as a generalization and justification for all actions
therein. In general however, "class struggle" can be read
to mean the "re-establishment and expansion of the old Russian
Empire" .(29) Stalin faced many problems with the Ukraine.
They were the most populous minority in the Soviet Union; they possessed
vast territories; and most importantly, they were the breadbasket
of Russia with ideal agricultural land. (30) . Problems also occurred
with the Ukrainian Nationalism that sprung from a nation with a
long and proud history, even being able to claim as to of founded
Russia in the Kyyivan Rus era. For the Soviet Union to reap the
benefits of the Ukrainian lands, they had to have a firm grip upon
the population. Khrushchev overheard Stalin gripe, "Ukrainians,
unfortunately, are too numerous to be deported to Siberia"
. (31)This shows a small difference in that "it was not
motivated by a quest for racial purity, and was not an attempt to
destroy a nation by means of the physical murder of all its members."
(32) This stated by Dr. James E. Mace of the Harvard Ukrainian Research
Institute, initially implies a very crucial separation from the
holocaust, however he continues that : "For one thing, Stalin
had far too any Ukrainians under his sway for him to ever take the
idea of physical annihilation seriously. Nor was it necessary for
his purpose, which was to destroy a nation as a political factor
and social entity" (33)Just like Jews in Western and Central
Europe, the Ukrainians have been targeted and attacked for hundreds
of years. Starting after 1620, the Ukraine became a nation of "priests
and peasants" while the Tsars sought to (34)"cut short
the revival of national consciousness" by "
ban[ing]
the Ukrainian language from the printed page". A group
of people, historically targeted by their masters, facing the destruction
of their national identity, these words would fit nicely into any
holocaust text.
With an understanding of where the Ukraine was on the Soviet radar,
one must move onto the event itself. What happened in the Ukraine
that was catastrophic enough to stand next to the Jewish holocaust?
During the late 1920's, Stalin, who had just seized control of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, decided to undo the moderately
capitalistic New Economic Policy and move into the collectivization
of agriculture.Until 1929, most peasants were able to sell their
own goods at relatively free markets and were not attacked too frequently
for withholding grain from the state. This all changed when "the
party began to introduce collectivization on a mass scale and at
a rapid pace." (35)This was a crucial change in attitude, as
the "peasants were denied all those property rights which had
been Guaranteed them by the Decree on land, issued on November 8,
1917 .(36) This action took away what had been a pillar of support
for the Bolsheviks who used the Decree on Land to win the support
of the peasants in the first place. The Official History of the
CPSU(Communist Party of the Soviet Union) described the collectivization
as: "During 1930-34, the Bolshevik Party accomplished a
historic task, the most difficult (after the establishment of the
Soviet Government) of the whole proletarian revolution-the transference
of millions of small-propertied peasants' farms to the collective
farms and onto the path of socialism" (37) The Soviet union
used a polarization of the average peasant versus the exploiting
"kulak" to give the impression that the government was
aiding the narod(38) while in fact exploiting them further.Specifically,
the Famine came about due to amazingly high grain procurements.
It was not, as the Soviets claimed, due to drought and poor harvest,
considering that "the Ukrainian harvest of 1932 was better
than that of the worst NEP year. (39)Instead collectivization began
to wreck havoc upon the fragile Ukrainian Economy. In 1930, the
Soviet Government required that 7.7 million metric tones of Grain
be delivered, this being a third of the 1930's harvest. However
in comparison, in 1926 the government only demanded a mere 21 percent.
(40) Later in 1931, a slightly off year resulted in a smaller 18.3
million ton harvest, however Stalin and the CPSU maintained that
7.7 million tons must be delivered, and delivered it was. (41) In
1932, 14.4 million tons were harvested, and according to Dr. Mace
"should still of been adequate to feed the population and livestock
but which would have left few reserves". (42) In the end, 3.7
million tons were eventually procured and the devastation would
begin. Here the first horror stories begin to leak out. A report
released on July 23 1932 describes the; " "
general
food situation in the Ukraine, are beyond description. There the
famine is real with all its attributes-the bark of trees and pig
weeds eaten as a substitute for bread". (43)Later the same
author would report "in 1932-33 the country was literally
starving
in the villages of the Ukraine
cannibalism was,
if not an extensive, at least widely spread phenomenon".
(44) What were the results of this famine, and how do they compare
with the holocaust? On a ranking of quantity alone the "Shtuchnyi
Holod (45) claims an estimated 5-7 million victims. Dr. Mace claims
"Purely in terms of Mortality, it thus was on the same order
of magnitude as the Jewish holocaust". (46) The Uniqueness
Theorists argue now that while "the object of the entire
campaign was the complete annihilation of Ukrainian nationalism"
it was not genocide a la the holocaust because it "would have
been counterproductive from the perspective of the oppressor seeking
to exploit the victim people". (47)Now, its understood
that Stalin realized "that only a mass terror throughout
the body of the nation-that is the, the peasantry- could reduce
the nation to submission". (48)To accomplish his mission
of submission, Stalin had to crush the Ukrainian Kulak (symbolic
for all peasants) to crush the Ukrainian nationalist sentiment.
(49) Statistics are also tossed about to discredit the claims of
equality for the two genocides, that;"
though the human
carnage was immense, approaching the number of Jewish Victims
the
percentage of the Ukrainian peasant population lost was somewhere
in the region of 20 percent" (50) Katz then concludes that
Stalinist Ideology created "a state that was guilty of mass
murder, but not a state that sought or implemented, a policy of
physical genocide. Logical argumentation is also wielded in stating
that although "the government could of relaxed procurement,
eliminated grain exports, and even imported grain
its failure
to take these measures does not justify genocide the charge of Genocide"
. (51)Why? "
Objective effect is not the same as subjective
intent". (52) Famine is seen as "the result of
Stalin's effort to totally reconstruct Soviet society through rapid
industrialization". (53) Logically speaking, in a nation
that is primarily peasant, it makes sense that an absurdly high
percentage of the weight was thrust upon the Ukrainian people.
In short, the deaths were a consequence, not the intent of Stalin's
policies in the Ukraine. . (54) Perhaps another crucial difference
not spoken is in the Success of the psudo-genocide. While the outcome
of World War Two is known, and a significant portion of the Jewish
population lived, Stalin did manage to collectivize the Ukrainians,
increase industrial output, raise GDP, and double the city population.
(55) Intention is the key difference cited by uniqueologists, and
after careful study of both the holocaust and the Ukrainian famine,
one comes to the conclusion that intention makes all the difference.
Stalin in essence wanted to rebuild the Russian way of life, and
like he is oft quoted "couldn't make an omlate without breaking
a few eggs" . (56)Hitler wanted to remake the national
identity of Europe, and had to break a few eggs also, but the holocaust
seems to be more for the sake of destruction, as opposed to the
rebuilding of society. The battles between Uniqueness Theorists
and Comparative Theorists is not going to end, battles over definition,
quantity, method, context, etc can swing what appears to be an obvious
genocide into nothing at all and back again. One could argue that
simply mass death implies genocide, and thus history is marked by
hundreds of genocides. Or one can make a very specific definition
to match their chosen genocide into the only pure genocide. It's
a field strewn with political mines, personal offenses, and crosses
to bear. Hearing a Jewish group claim that only they relate to suffering
genocide, as a Ukrainian is painful. However, being brushed aside
as a victim of one in a hundred genocides aids in little. Perhaps
the best, albeit naive approach to comparative genocide is to acknowledge
that each historical event is unique, but shares similar characteristics.
|
|
Notes:
1)In this paper, Holocaust will be used to reference
the specific experience of the European Jewish population.
2)"Social Scientists' Definitions of Genocide",
http://www.isg-iags.org/definitions/def_genocide.html
3) ibid
4) ibid
5) Katz, Steven T. "The Uniqueness of the
Holocaust: the Historical Dimension" Is the Holocaust Unique.
Edited by Alan S. Rosenbaum. Westview press, 1996. p19
6) Young, James E. Writing and Rewriting the Holocaust, Indiana
University Press, 1998, p88
7) Katz, Steven T. The Holocaust in Historical Context, Volume 1,
The holocaust and mass death before the modern age Oxford University
Press, 1994, p28
8) ibid
9) ibid
10) Young, James E. Writing and Rewriting the Holocaust,
11) Bauer, Yehuda. "Holocaust and Genocide:
Some Comparisons" Lessons and Legacies. Ed. Peter Hayes. Northwestern
U. Press, 1995. 37
12) Feingold, Henry L. "How Unique is the Holocaust?"
Genocide: Critical issues of the Holocaust. Ed. Alex Grobman and
Daniel Landes. Simon Wiesenthal Center. 1983. p398
13) Term created to describe one who believes in the uniqueness
of the Holocaust.
14) Feingold, Henry L. "How Unique is the Holocaust"
15)ibid
16)Katz, Steven T. The Holocaust in Historical Context, Volume 1,
The holocaust and mass death before the modern age p32
17) ibid p33
18) ibid p33
19) ibid p33
20) ibid p34
21)Feingold, Henry L. "How Unique is the Holocaust"
p399
22)ibid p399 (excerpted from many parts of the same
paragraph)
23)ibid p 400
24)ibid p400
25) ibid p401
26) Katz, Steven T. The Holocaust in Historical
Context, Volume 1, The holocaust and mass death before the modern
age p28
27) Riavchuk, Mykola. "The Elimination of
a People" http//:www.ukrweekly.com/archive/1995/049522shtml.
28)ibid
29)ibid
30)ibid
31)ibid
32)Mace, Dr. James E. "The man made famine
of 1933 in Soviet Ukraine: what happened and why" http//:www.ukrweekly.com/archive/1995/049522shtml
33)ibid
34)ibid
35)Kostiuk, Hryhory. "Stalinist Rule in the
Ukraine: A study of the decade of Mass Terror" (1929-1939)
Frederich A. Praeger Press. New York, 1960, p5
36)ibid
37) ibid p 6
38)Wonderful Russian word that is difficult to translate,
but is best described as the way a government in power things of
the average Joe farmer or peasant
39)Mace, Dr. James E. "The Famine: Stalin imposes a "final
solution" http://www.ukrweekly.com/archive/1984/278421.shtml
40)ibid
41)ibid
42)ibid
43)Kostiuk, Hryhory. "Stalinist Rule in the
Ukraine: A study of the decade of Mass Terror p 15
44)ibid
45)Ukranian term for the Great Famine of 32-33
46)Mace, Dr. James E. "The man made famine
of 1933 in Soviet Ukraine: what happened and why"
47)Katz, Steven K. "Ideology, State power,
and mass murder/genocide" Lessons and Legacies. Ed. Peter Hayes.
Northwestern U. Press, 1995. 87
48)ibid
49)ibid
50) ibid p 88
51)Green, Barbara B. "Stalinist Terror and
the Question of Genocide: the Great Famine" Is the holocaust
Unique? t. Ed .Alan S. Rosenbaum. West view Press inc. . 1996 p155
52)ibid
53)ibid p156
54)ibid
55)ibid
56)Absurdly quoted by nearly everyone, I have no
idea if its authentic, but it fits.
|