The Rise of Stalin’s Absolute Power
On December 21, 1929, the Soviet Union celebrated Joseph Stalin’s 50th birthday with unprecedented national fanfare. This event marked the culmination of a decade-long power struggle among Lenin’s successors, solidifying Stalin’s position as the undisputed leader. Through shrewd political maneuvering, Stalin had transformed the initially secondary role of General Secretary of the Communist Party into the most powerful position in the USSR. He consolidated control over both the party apparatus and the government, including the OGPU (the secret police).
Unlike Lenin or even imperial rulers like Peter the Great, Stalin’s authority became truly absolute. While historians debate whether Stalin actively shaped events or reacted to circumstances, there is no doubt that all major Soviet policies during the 1930s originated from Stalin and his inner circle. As the decade progressed, Stalin’s cult of personality grew, and dissent within his circle vanished—fear of opposing the “Vozhd” (Leader) became pervasive.
Industrialization and Collectivization: Stalin’s Twin Revolutions
The official newspaper Pravda dedicated a special edition to Stalin’s birthday, praising him as the heir to Marx, Engels, and Lenin while hailing him as the “organizer and leader of socialist industrialization and collectivization.” These two policies would define Stalin’s rule:
– Socialist Industrialization: A state-driven industrial revolution prioritizing heavy industry, energy, and machinery.
– Collectivization: The forced consolidation of privately owned peasant farms into state-controlled collective farms (kolkhozes).
These initiatives marked the end of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which had allowed limited market elements in agriculture and light industry. For Stalin, industrialization, collectivization, and the purges (to replace old bureaucrats with loyal cadres) were essential to ensure the USSR’s survival in a hostile capitalist world.
Ukraine: The Testing Ground for Stalin’s Policies
As the USSR’s second-most populous republic, Ukraine became central to Stalin’s plans. Its agricultural wealth was seen as the primary source of capital for industrialization, while its existing industrial base in the east made it a key investment zone. However, resources were tightly controlled by Moscow, forcing Ukrainian leaders to plead for funds extracted from their own villages.
The First Five-Year Plan (1928–1933) initially treated Ukraine fairly, allocating 20% of national investments—proportional to its population share. But after 1932, resources were diverted eastward to the Urals and Siberia, deemed safer from potential Polish aggression. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s own investments were concentrated in its industrialized southeast, leaving the agricultural west neglected.
### The Dniprohes Dam: Symbol of Soviet Industrial Might
The crown jewel of Ukraine’s industrialization was the Dniprohes Hydroelectric Station on the Dnieper River near Zaporizhzhia. Built with American expertise (including engineer Hugh Lincoln Cooper), the dam aimed to power the industrial regions of Donbas and Kryvyi Rih while improving river navigation.
The project embodied Stalin’s slogan:
> “The combination of Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism.”
Yet the human cost was staggering. Tens of thousands of unskilled Ukrainian peasants—desperate to escape rural hardship—flocked to the construction site. Worker turnover was extreme: in 1932 alone, 90,000 were hired while 60,000 were fired. The dam was completed in October 1932 at eight times its original budget, becoming a propaganda triumph even as famine loomed.
The Holodomor: Stalin’s War on the Ukrainian Peasantry
While the Dniprohes dam rose, Ukraine’s countryside descended into chaos. Forced collectivization, implemented brutally in 1929–1930, provoked widespread resistance:
– Peasant revolts: In March 1930 alone, over 1,700 uprisings were recorded.
– Deportations of “kulaks”: 75,000 families were exiled to Kazakhstan and Siberia.
When repression failed to quell dissent, Stalin temporarily retreated, blaming overzealous local officials in his article “Dizzy with Success.” But by autumn 1930, collectivization resumed. Peasants now resisted passively—slaughtering livestock, hiding grain, or fleeing to cities like Zaporizhzhia.
### The Famine as Policy
Moscow responded by escalating grain requisitions, especially in Ukraine. By 1932:
– Ukraine, with 27% of USSR grain output, was forced to surrender 38%.
– Villages failing quotas were stripped of food, livestock, and even basic supplies like matches.
The result was man-made famine. By spring 1933:
– Kyiv and Kharkiv oblasts lost nearly 1 million people each.
– Odessa and Dnipropetrovsk lost over 300,000.
– Total deaths: ~4 million (1 in 8 Ukrainians).
Stalin denied the famine, banning the word itself. When Ukrainian leaders begged for aid, he accused them of sabotage—linking peasant resistance to “bourgeois nationalism.”
Purges and the Destruction of Ukrainian Autonomy
The famine coincided with a political purge:
– 50% of local party secretaries were removed by mid-1933.
– Ukrainianization policies reversed; cultural figures like Mykola Skrypnyk driven to suicide.
Stalin’s goal was clear: transform Ukraine into a “model Soviet republic.” By 1934:
– The capital moved from Kharkiv to Kyiv—now politically neutered.
– 98% of farmland was collectivized, but productivity stagnated.
The Great Terror and WWII Prelude
The late 1930s purges further devastated Ukraine:
– 270,000 arrested (1937–1938); half executed.
– Poles and Germans disproportionately targeted as “foreign agents.”
As war loomed, Stalin sent Nikita Khrushchev to secure Ukraine as a “fortress.” Meanwhile, the 1939 annexation of Carpatho-Ukraine—briefly independent before Hungarian occupation—heightened Stalin’s paranoia about Ukrainian nationalism.
Legacy: Trauma and Debate
The Holodomor remains a contested genocide. While Ukraine and many scholars view it as a deliberate attack on Ukrainians, Russia rejects this framing. What’s undeniable is its impact:
– Broken resistance: Ukraine remained submissive for decades.
– Industrial “success”: By 1940, industrial output grew 8x since 1913—but at catastrophic human cost.
Stalin’s policies reshaped Ukraine into a Soviet showcase, but the scars of the 1930s endure in memory and politics to this day.