Article Review: The Great Stalin Plan for the Transformation of Nature

For this post I reviewed “The Great Stalin Plan for the Transformation of Nature” (Environmental History, 2010) by Stephen Brain.

Early afforestation efforts in the Soviet Union were initiated in the 1920s but met with mixed success. “Both Lenin and Stalin called for aggressive afforestation at party conferences in the 1920s and as time went by, Stalin-era legislation creating protective areas and government agencies to oversee them encouraged ever more concerted empirically based efforts” (p675). Other government reports of the time discussed the benefits of using trees to create wind breaks in certain landscapes.

Image from article

To me the overarching theme of the article is that there was always a background motivation for enhancing or protecting nature for a utilitarian purpose (minimizing erosion, combat drought, creating wind breaks, reducing temperature variability, etc) rather than seeing nature as having an intrinsic value in and of itself. Because of a lack of buy in from rural people most of the planting schemes failed during initial attempts but eventually over time and with more trained planters garnered success.

Staling created a series of 5 year plans the afforestation plans being among them. Below is a video clip which answers the question: “What were Stalin’s five-year plans?”

As the program of planting gathered steam it eventually culminated in the ratification of The Great Stalin Plan on October 20th, 1948. The plan included moving from planting 1.5million to 5.7million hectares.

Some questions for consideration from this reading:

• Who was Trofim Denisovich Lynsenko and how did he influence the Great Stalin Plan?
• Was there any opposition to the Great Stalin Plan?

The Damages of A War Footing

Kate Brown`s Plutopia offers an interesting view on both the USSR and the US in that while it compares the two, it also draws attention to the similarities of the two cities, Ozersk and Richland. I find this interesting for a number of reasons:

1. The USSR is thought to have developed its nuclear weapons program in part through the theft of American nuclear weapons project documents, something referenced in the paper. Could the actual methods of plutonium production have anything to do with the similarities in the development of these cities?
2. Both countries effectively experimented on their own populations: operation `Green Run` was a AEC-backed test which exposed people to substantial amounts of radioactive isotopes. The Soviets exposed its military and convicts to large quantities of radiation, utilizing them to work in the most contaminated areas. Once those individuals had become sick they were admitted to highly specialized medical care for treatment. Brown notes that this is not standard practice, and could be argued shows that the Soviets equally were willing to experiment – via incidental exposure- on their own population as well to better understand the effects of radiation poisoning.
3. While both countries spent large amounts of money on the occupants of these two cities, in an effort to keep the population happy. In regards to reasoning, however, are they the same or divergent? Brown notes that the Soviet Union had a very limited number of individuals with the training and knowledge necessary to produce plutonium. This meant that the USSR had to keep this specialized class happy in their work, lest they refuse. Brown does not tell us in this excerpt whether or not the limited amount of specialized individuals was the same, however, the United States would still have wanted to maintain a loyal worker base, which they could trust to not divulge information. Could this be one of the reasons for their special treatment?
4. Neither nation seems to hold an environmental or moral high ground. Furthermore, the similarities simply point to both states coming to the same conclusion: a happy worker is most productive, and in the face of slowing progress for health code is not preferable to operating on a war footing to create the most nuclear weapons.

Valentin Rasputin passed away Saturday

Just a brief note: Valentin Raputin, author of “Downstream” (which we read for class) and the well-known Farewell to Matyora passed away on Saturday, age 77. While the Moscow Times article mentions that Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his condolences, all of the quotations are from Prime Minister Dmitrii Medvedev. Rasputin, it seems to me, is a clear case for illustrating why it’s difficult to categorize people politically in Russia: his books served to raise awareness about environmental issues in the Soviet Union, and could be read as implicit critiques of the Soviet system, yet he himself was pro-Communist. Furthermore, as the article points out, he was basically a Russian (or Siberian?) nationalist and socially very conservative. Was he left wing or right wing? The categories don’t make much sense, in his case. In any case, however, he was a gifted writer.

Craters in Siberia Caused by Global Warming

I noticed something about this awhile back, but the Washington Post just yesterday published a story titled, “The Siberian Crater Saga Is More Widespread – and Scarier – than Anyone Thought.”  The craters are thought to be caused by underground methane explosions, which in turn relate to the melting of the permafrost as a result of global warming. I didn’t realize quite how scary the situation is – check out the video, below, if you get the chance.

The Chernobyl Disaster in Comparison

I noticed this in the readings this week that there is a brief mention in the book about how Chernobyl was not the worst environmental disaster that happened. That there were at least two examples of environmental disasters that the author felt was as important or terrible to be listed beside Chernobyl. One of these was the chemical disaster in Bhopal, India that I decided to try to learn more about (Josephson 258). According to Greenpeace this killed 8,000 people initially and around 20,000 people since. This has not led to the downfall of the democratic government of India despite being a much worse incident. The disaster is not widely talked about as proof of what is wrong with capitalism either. I became curious about nuclear disasters in India when I misread this section a thought this disaster was a nuclear incident instead of a chemical one. While looking up further nuclear incidents I found a list of some of the worst cases accidents and India generally does not generally make the list at all.

A look into Greenpeace shows that India has actually had several incidents but little to not actual information. Sometimes there is not even any testing done on exposed people.

Yet Chernobyl has had a high level of coverage about many of the people effected by nuclear disasters, like the newest disaster, Fukushima. There is a list of those who died immediately and even a list of those who have since died due to exposure. With only a vague search one can find out how many people had to be evacuated and just about anything else you want to find. Looking at the list of nuclear disasters where Chernobyl is one of the few accidents that anyone has died. Is the fact that the USSR was communist the only reason anyone will even admit that people died there? Is a lack of information about deaths in other nuclear disasters in other countries due better safety measures, or better ability to silence information? 

Russia’s Environmental Effort… Sorta!

For this week’s readings, in An Environmental History of Russia, it was interesting to read about the “series of laws and resolutions intended to demonstrate that the Soviet Union was at the forefront of the world’s environmental protection activities” (Josephson, 197). In the Brezhnev era, there were a series of laws and regulations ratified in order to push Russia into the forefront of environmental issues. However, the laws were unsuccessful and this is because the laws are unenforced and if a company broke environmental regulations they were required to pay a fine for pollution. As it turns out, it was cheaper for a factory to pay the fine than it was for them not to meet their quota therefore; the environmental regulations were often broken.

Baykalsk Pulp and Paper via Wikimedia Commons

The practice of paying fines for pollution is still the norm under President Vladimir Putin and it is still just as ineffective. It is far more beneficial for factories to meet their targets and as a result they will pay the levy rather than invest in environmentally sustainable business practices. Some headway has been made; however, Russia still has a large environmental footprint. The Youtube video below helps delineate the negative impact of Russian environmental standards and practices.

Back in the USSR (or is it the USA?)

One thing that struck me about this week’s readings was the Soviet reliance on the USA, either indirectly (U.S. industry or agriculture inspiring changes to Soviet industry or agriculture), or even directly, through using U.S. experts and U.S. machine tools in the industrialization process. We’ve already discussed the influence of both Henry Ford and Frederick Winslow Taylor on early Soviet planners.

Magnitogorsk, 1930s, via wikimedia commons

The readings, however, underscore continued U.S. influence in the Stalin era, as U.S. experts were brought in to help plan and create Magnitogorsk, modeled partly on Gary, Indiana, and on Khrushchev’s famous corn campaign, inspired by corn production in Iowa.

Here we find amazing footage of Khrushchev’s visit to Iowa:

A More Liberal Regime?

Iosif Stalin

An intriguing aspect of this week’s readings from An Environmental History of Russia is that, in terms of environmentalist thought and action, the Khrushchev regime actually seems to have been more oppressive than the Stalin era. Usually, Khrushchev is considered to have been a comparatively liberal Soviet leader, having allowed the expression of some political dissent (142). Yet Khrushchev censored any news or scholarly publications that raised environmental issues (142). Conversely, Stalin allowed the presence of environmentalist groups and supported the creation of a number of zapovedniks (nature reserves) (107-8). It was even during the Stalin era that the project to prevent the extinction of Siberian tigers was given the green flag (111). Stalin did ideologically monitor and often harshly treat environmentalists, but it appears that so long as they toed the party line environmentalists were allowed to go about their work (108, 110, 112). Although both regimes had a devastating impact on Russia’s environment, Khrushchev appears to have been far more dedicated to the total censorship of environmentalists.

Nikita Khrushchev

The primary question raised by all of this is why did the generally less oppressive leader, Khrushchev, seem to find environmentalism more threatening than the infamously totalitarian Stalin? There are several possibilities; for example, Khrushchev’s coming into power on the promise to exploit nature through the Virgin Lands campaign could potentially have put him into opposition with environmentalist ideology. I would also like to raise the question as to why the project to prevent the extinction of the Siberian Tiger, having existed under both regimes, was accepted as both non-threatening and worthy of assistance by them?

Siberian Tiger

USSR “Sense of Place” Modified Bibliography

(Each of the highlighted words leads to an internet link that was used as a source for this presentation.)

The Geography in the USSR contains three large topographic region entitled the Tundra, Taiga and Steppe. These three regions have sections of plains, mountains, plateaus and peninsulas.

The great bodies of water that can be found here include Lake Baikal, Lake Ladoga, Lake Karachay and the Aral Sea.

The climate includes average summer temperatures that reach 28 C and winter can last anywhere from 6-8 months of the year. It is a very dry climate with an average annual precipitation of 490mm

Agriculture in the USSR primarily involved the growing of grains. The unpredictable climate was an issue, however, “Black soil” could be found in temperate areas

41% of the USSR is covered in forests, it has the second largest coal reserves in the world. Oil and gas replaced coal as the dominant fuel of the people in 1960. Luckily for the USSR both oil and natural gas can be found in their lands Other minerals that can be found in the land include gold, copper, iron, diamonds, platinum, lead and uranium.

Natural disasters associated with the USSR include the thawing of permafrost, tornadoes, floods, volcanoes and their resulting ash.

An Environmental History of Russia, p.60-69

What caught my attention the most in this segment was the quote by Knipovich on page 64 discussing how delicate Russian natural resources are and the lack of knowledge exhibited by officials; “those natural resources which are spread abundantly to all ends of Russia, from the desolate cold other to the fertile heat of the south, and on the surface of the land and in its bowels, and in the depths of the waters, are all poorly understood. And that which we know, we don’t use rationally and wisely.” After reading about the repercussions from the prodrazvertska and fisheries industries, it does make it clear that there was a significant lack of knowledge regarding the effects on the environment. Josephson then discusses some work surrounding environmental activities, including the development and expansion of zapovedniks. In 1920 with the support of Lenin, ll’menskii was established as the first scientific reserve funded by the state. This chapter concludes with scientists making an active role in the education and management of natural resources but only to be see environmental destruction in the late 1920’s by Stalin with the increase of industrialization and construction. I think there were some serious attempts to forge a feasible relationship with the environment, but then destroyed with the industrialization.