The EU: Ode to joy or not?

The internal strife emanating throughout Europe is transforming the union into a concord of disharmony. In streets and city squares, hoards of protesters commune to aim their vitriol at lacklustre governments and impugned banks. The years of cheap credit and profligacy have returned to haunt many nations as their debt-ridden treasuries have been forced to implement austerity measures in return for financial bailouts. In Madrid, protesters known as los indignados (meaning ‘the outraged’) have occupied the Puerta del Sol, rejecting the punishing measures accepted by its government. Meanwhile in Athens, Syntagma Square has seen months of violent clashes between riot police and demonstrators, as the Greek government implemented tough austerity measures in return for EU loans. Dublin, Lisbon, London and Rome have also seen a surge in protests and occupy movements, all in reaction to the prospect of cuts to welfare and an unreformed financial sector. What is most noticeable about the swelling in anger is the increasing distrust and hostility between nations. Germany, the central political and economic power is increasingly being slurred with Nazi characterisations, as it forces the ‘feckless’ Greeks to accept the tranches of bailout money. The open antagonism between the prudent Northern Europeans and their reckless Southern cousins is opening tensions to the sustainability of the whole fiscal and political union.

Yet as the continuous infighting continues, many of Europe’s other countries are beginning to lose sight of the European dream. Welcomed in from beyond the frosty realms of the Iron Curtain, Eastern Europe is discovering that the party they thought that was inviting is not as welcoming as they previously thought.

Many policy chiefs in the corridors of power of Brussels believed that a larger political union would create a stronger economic union. To an extent they were correct; here was the world’s largest and most successful internal market. All countries from the Eastern bloc yearned to join; even some North African countries sought membership. The European Union had the benefits of close political and defensive ties with America, multilateralism and a form of welfare capitalism. How the tides of fortune have ebbed away.

Countries that EU technocrats may have one day expected to join are weighing up their options. Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan resent Europe’s hesitancy and hypocrisy. In fact, the West’s biggest proponent in the former Soviet bloc, President Saakashvili of Georgia, could flout the constitutional rules and run again for Presidency in 2013. Why should any of these countries listen to hedonistic messages of prudence when the European Central Bank is printing money to buy debt from its own shambolic economies? Even Hungary, an EU member, is flouting union rules over budget-deficit targets and media freedom. Turkey appeared to go cold over Europe many years ago. Russia is happy to see former satellite states return to the fold.

What about that great American hope? The US was once the Baltic States biggest and most loyal admirer. Countries like Poland were steadfast in their support of NATO and happy to commit men on the ground in war zones. Not to mention America’s new missile defence shield, to the chagrin of Russia. Yet, American foreign policy is heading west once again. The geopolitical and economic shift to Asia is seeing American strategy head towards the Pacific and the emerging markets. No longer is Europe the primary frontier. Obama’s decision to abandon the shield and along with the EU’s inexistent foreign policy is turning the once idealistic Poles and Czechs into hardnosed endorsers of Realpolitik.

The EU’s decision to prevent the Euro from failing will see a new era of internal relations. Closer fiscal relationships will only mean tougher stances on imprudence. The collective voices of the right in Northern Europe will no longer tolerate the spending cultures of countries like Italy and Greece. EU expansion will certainly be welcoming to countries of the Balkans but it might not be as jovial as they thought.

Holodomor: Starving to death

It was a policy that aimed to change the economic power and landscape of the Soviet Union. A policy introduced to reorder the inequality that had governed the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. Yet, it was a policy devised to manipulate power and ultimately led to the death of millions by starvation. Called by one commentator as "the crime of the century that nobody's ever heard of" the Holodomor, a Ukrainian word meaning ‘death by hunger’ was a famine ruthlessly designed by Joseph Stalin to crush and strike and fear to an entire population. Massacred by Stalin’s secret police and abetted by left-wing Western intellects, the full scale of the atrocities are still unknown and still unrecognised as a crime of genocide. It is an event where the truth was killed.

Trusted and regarded by Lenin, many of the Bolsheviks regarded the Stalin as nothing more than a party administrator. However, after Lenin’s death in 1924, all the potential successors: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin all underestimated him. Stalin’s tact and astuteness allowed him to pick off his political rivals one by one and saw him rise to become party leader. Stalin was someone who demanded obedience. Influenced by the works of as Friedrich Nietzsche and Niccolo Machiavelli, he was willing to manipulate the weak to stay in power. He knew several cruel acts would serve a purpose in avoiding weak rule. To him, the ends always justified the means, no matter how malign. How tens of millions would eventually pay with their lives.

Stalin’s economic plans included transforming the Russian economy into an industrial superpower; one of the policies included the collectivisation of farms. Its main concern was regaining the land that many peasants had gained during the early years of revolution. Stalin needed the grain to feed new industry and to export to achieve foreign capital. It was a policy devised to improve farming yields by introducing the use of modern machinery. Yet it was a political move also. The peasants (Kulaks), though far from wealthy, had gained from the land reforms; but were regarded as traitors to the Communist cause. Many of them lived in the Ukraine, a bread basket for the whole country. Stalin saw the collectivisation in Ukraine as a way bludgeoning attempts to reaffirm independence. It demonstrated his ability to be strong. The so-called ‘dekulakisation’ was his attempts to end class warfare in the USSR.

To feed the growing workforce, Stalin demanded that yields improve. All produce was confiscated by party officials. Anyone who dared to hoard or steal grain would be executed or deported to Gulags in Siberia or Kazakhstan. Stalin’s terror demonstrated to ordinary citizens what would happen if they did not change their ways. When demand increased, the Ukrainian farmers were left without food. Their hopes of an invading force from Poland or Germany evaporated with the signing of non-aggression pacts. Travel was forbidden and slowly the population began to wilt.

Parents gave away their children in hope of a future; some because they could not feed them. Others dug their own graves, to await their peace. In the spring of 1933, 10,000 people were dying every day.

Some Communities resorted to cannibalism. In fact, human meat developed into a market. One mother when asked why she had killed and then eaten half of her child said ‘they would die anyway’.

It is thought that Ukraine lost around a quarter of its population, mainly women and children.

Yet this was all a lie according to Soviet officials, their line was explicit: ‘There was no famine’. It was not just Soviet officials, Western sympathisers and admirers of Communism came to see the country for themselves. They marvelled at Stalin’s ‘Five Year Plan’ and endorsed the progress he had brought. Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, Doris Lessing all extolled the virtues of the Soviet system. Lenin coined the phrase for such people as ‘useful idiots’: Those who believed that political violence was necessary in the name of progress. British journalist Walter Duranty (the only Western journalist to interview Stalin) said that of the situation in Ukraine was malnutrition not famine. Foreign diplomats were given 'tours' of neighbourhoods to illustrate the Soviet project.

The two Western journalists who did report the truth, Malcolm Muggeridge and Gareth Jones, both had to dodge the secret police to investigate the reports themselves. Yet, when they published their work, the likes of Duranty lampooned and denied their results. Duranty went on to win a Pulitzer Prize and Jones was murdered mysteriously in China several years later (believed to be by Stalin’s secret police).

To this day, eighty years on, the truth is still hidden in the police archives. It is also hidden to the Russian public. A BBC report highlighted that Russian history books distort large chunks of their own history. Stalin, who was voted the third greatest Russian of all time, was the war leader and great manager, he was not a tyrant. It hides the fact that Stalin lied about his date of birth and his height. They do not know that Stalin’s face was scarred by smallpox or his hand remained withered after an accident as a young boy. Nor do they learn of the massacre inflicted on 20,000 Polish officers in the forests of Katyn or his Great Purge that would eventually kill millions more. Stalin did not observe things in a moral sense of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, he was more interested in what was a good for him. Evil never crossed his mind. Any of his associates he distrusted were tortured then murdered. Even at his death, his guards refused to disturb him for days in case they felt his wrath.

History may redeem the plight of the Ukrainian nation, which included Poles, Germans and Jews. But we will never know how many.