Dear Professor Losurdo:
Here are my thoughts on your exchange with Nicolas Werth.
I'll begin with Werth. He is an inveterate anticommunist. I have caught him in one or two blatant lies, though not in this exchange with you.
In my opinion, Werth's intervention here rests on some misconceptions, no doubt deliberate ones:
I have possessed a copy of this 7-volume work since it was published. It is a useful compilation of primary documents. But documents, in themselves, prove nothing, and the same is true of this collection.
These peasants lost nothing by entering kolkhozes or sovkhozes. So the notion that collectivization was a "war against the peasantry" is a smokescreen.
Viewed in this light, collectivization in the USSR was one of the greatest feats of social reform of the 20th century, alongside the industrialization of the USSR. It saved millions of lives that would have been lost in future famines, which would have continued to recur with regularity.
Of course, it also enabled industrialization and victory in WW2. That was no small accomplishment. But even setting this aside, collectivization stopped the endless cycle of famines, saving millions.
In addition, one must say this: those whom the famine of 1932-33 killed were from all classes of the peasantry, the rich as well as the poor. In previous famines, rich peasants had thrived, merchants had hoarded grain for higher prices, and only the poor had starved. This, no doubt, is one of the reasons collectivization is so hated by Werth and reactionaries generally: it removed the privilege of the rich and protected the poor.
Bukharin's plan could not possibly have permitted industrialization, and therefore would have meant that the Nazis would have won the war. In addition, the capitalist elements in the countryside were growing rapidly under the NEP. This would have continued. Incidentally, Trotsky's plan was the same as Bukharin's here.
In a famous passage in his memoir of World War II, Hinge of Fate, Churchill quoted Stalin as saying:
"Ten million," he said, holding up his hands. "It was fearful. Four years it lasted. It was absolutely necessary for Russia, if we were to avoid periodic famines, to plough the land with tractors."
I quote this passage in a short article here.
Russia and the Ukraine are far more northerly than is the USA. The point is that, having industrialized, the USSR could pay for the importation of grain when necessary. Collectivization allowed for industrialization and stopped the cycle of famines.
I've done a lot of research on this and intend to write a book on it in the future. For now, see my article here:
"The Moscow Trials and the "Great Terror" of 1937-1938: What the Evidence Shows."
Here I have included links to all the interrogations of Ezhov that have been made public, along with translations of them into English, as well as to some other interrogations. They are very enlightening.
In a recent volume of documents on 1937-1938 (in Russian) Khaustov, an inveterate anticommunist, concedes that Stalin believed the reports Ezhov was sending him about bands of rebels and oppositionists. Arch Getty showed a decade ago that Ezhov murdered far more people than the Politburo ever contemplated. It was Ezhov, not Stalin and the PB, that set "quotas" for arrests and executions. Stalin and the PB had called for "limits."
I have a long article, with 17 or 18 web pages of evidence, on this question at
The article is the first link on the left. All the other pages are evidence.
Note that Winston Churchill agreed with the Soviet incursion into what had formerly been Eastern Poland.
The Germans almost seized Moscow and Leningrad as it was! If the USSR had not entered former Eastern Poland, the Wehrmacht would have started its invasion much closer to the Soviet heartland than it did and most likely captured Leningrad and Moscow.
To sum up:
I should mention here that, in my Russian-only book (with my Moscow colleague Vladimir Bobrov) I have an essay in which I show that Bukharin knew about Ezhov's conspiracy but did not mention it in his interrogations or at trial. If Bukharin, Rykov, et al. had done this, Ezhov could have been stopped and the mass murders either avoided or curtailed. Bukharin's, and the Right's, responsibility for Ezhov's mass murders has not been pointed out elsewhere.
When you read the MS of my Kirov book you will note that we have much evidence that the conspiracies alleged in the three public Moscow Trials, plus the Tukhachevsky trial, did exist - they were not at all "fabrications" by Stalin or anyone else.
As for your own contribution, I must be honest: I find it to be excellent!
You have certainly made arguments that I have not encountered elsewhere, and have not thought of myself.
I would like to translate it into English and circulate it - that is, if you agree.
Also, do you have a version in Italian? I would like to send it to some friends in Italy.
I like very much your response about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: "s'il y a course
compromis avec Hitler, Staline l'a perdue". Imagine anyone objecting to the Soviets signing the M-R Pact in the face of Munich!
I would only add that the M-R Pact was not only defensible - it was essential, and quite probably saved the USSR, and thereby all of us, from defeat in the war.
That said, there are a few points where I would disagree with you somewhat. They all boil down to this: In my view, you cede too much to Werth, every single one of whose claims is false.
Trotsky, for example. All the evidence we now possess points to Trotsky's having been guilty of all the charges made against him in the Moscow Trials. This includes a good deal of evidence from the Trotsky Archives at Harvard and at the Hoover Institution, as discovered by Pierre Broué, a famous Trotskyist.
I would disagree that collectivization was "La période la plus horrible est celle de la collectivisation de l'agriculture." As I stated above, in my view it was a triumph.
Naturally the Bolsheviks made many errors in carrying it out. They were the first; it had never been done. Pioneers always make errors; in fact it is impossible to be an innovator without making errors.
The Chinese and North Vietnamese learned from these errors, and carried out collectivization in different ways. The end result was, I think, fewer casualties. But they had the Soviet example to learn from.
For "most horrible" I'd vote for the Ezhovshchina - which, as I have argued above, Werth and all the other anticommunists falsify. Werth has absolutely no evidence that it was an attempt at "nettoyage prophylactique" - this is just verbiage. It was a disaster, of course, but a disaster for which Bukharin, so sacred to the anticommunists and to Khrushchev in his day, bears significant responsibility.
I do not agree that "the Stalin period" was a "horror". I think you do not really agree either.
But of course it was tragic, in that errors were made that led to socialism being sidetracked, and then betrayed altogether. It led to Khrushchev - and Khrushchev and his ilk were nourished during the Stalin period. Therefore, obviously, reactionary developments were taking place. We need to study to discover what they were.
But in sum, I think your essay is excellent! I know that Werth will not accept a word of it.
So much the worse for him. His father, Alexander Werth, was an honest observer, in my estimation, and his books are well worth reading today, all of them. Nicolas Werth's are what I call "propaganda with footnotes."
My apologies for writing at such length.