Holodomor: the famine of 1932–33 and why grain carries weight here
On the fourth Saturday of November the country stops for a minute and puts candles in windows. Understanding what is being remembered explains a great deal about how grain policy is discussed in Ukraine.
In the winter of 1932 and the spring of 1933, several million people died of starvation in the grain-producing regions of Soviet Ukraine. The event is known as the Holodomor, a compound meaning death inflicted by hunger.
This entry deals with what happened, how it is commemorated, and why it remains directly relevant to anyone working in the Ukrainian agricultural or food sector.
What happened
Collectivisation of agriculture began in 1929 and was resisted. Grain procurement quotas set by the centre were raised repeatedly and, by 1932, exceeded what the harvest could deliver. When quotas were not met, the response was not to reduce them.
Brigades searched households and removed food, including seed grain and food that had no relation to the quota. Villages that failed to meet targets were placed on blacklists that cut them off from all goods. In January 1933 internal movement restrictions prevented peasants from leaving the countryside to find food.
The combination — extraction beyond capacity, removal of all household food, and a prohibition on leaving — is what distinguishes the event from a crop failure. There was grain in the country. There were exports during the famine. The mortality was concentrated in the areas that produced the food.
The question of designation
Ukraine and a substantial number of other states recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. The designation rests on the argument that the measures were directed at Ukrainians as a group, pointing to the blacklists, the movement restrictions applied specifically to Ukraine and the Kuban, and the simultaneous suppression of Ukrainian cultural and political institutions.
Other historians accept the scale and the deliberate nature of the policy while disputing the genocide classification, generally arguing that the policy targeted the peasantry as a class across the Soviet Union.
The debate is genuine and continuing. What is not disputed by serious historians is the scale, the deliberate removal of food from starving households, and the fact that the deaths were a consequence of policy rather than of weather.
How it is commemorated
The fourth Saturday of November is the day of remembrance. At four in the afternoon there is a national minute of silence. Candles are placed in windows — the practice is near-universal and is observed by households with no other public commemoration.
The memorial in Kyiv, on the slopes above the Dnipro near the Lavra, is the principal site. The sculpture at its entrance — a thin girl holding a few ears of wheat — is among the most recognisable images in the country.
Commercial broadcasting and advertising are widely suspended for the day. A company operating in Ukraine should not run promotional activity on that date, and the omission is noticed.
Why it matters commercially
This is not a point about sensitivity in scheduling, though that applies. It is about understanding why certain debates in Ukraine carry more charge than their subject matter suggests.
Grain export restrictions, food price controls, land ownership rules and foreign ownership of farmland are all discussed in Ukraine against a background in which the state once took the harvest and people died. That history is present in the room when land reform is debated, and it explains the depth of resistance to foreign ownership of agricultural land more accurately than any economic argument does.
Anyone entering the agricultural sector here should understand that the caution around land is not protectionism in the ordinary sense. It has a specific origin, and it is not going to be argued away with efficiency arguments.
Related in this archive
Share this analysis
Comments