Journalists Who Spoke the Truth
Although the Soviet Union tightly controlled access to famine-stricken areas, a few courageous journalists and travelers exposed what they witnessed.
- Gareth Jones (Wales, 1933)
In March 1933, Welsh journalist Gareth Jones traveled illegally through Ukrainian villages. He described seeing starving peasants, abandoned fields, and entire communities on the verge of collapse. His dispatches, published internationally, declared bluntly: “I walked through villages and saw dead bodies lying on the ground… There is no bread. The famine is worse than people know.” - Malcolm Muggeridge (UK, 1933)
Muggeridge, writing for the Manchester Guardian, also risked travel through famine zones. He published three anonymous articles describing Ukraine as a land of horror, with silent villages and people too weak to bury the dead. His reports reinforced Jones’ claims and directly challenged Soviet propaganda. - Alexander Wienerberger (Austria)
As an engineer posted to Kharkiv, Wienerberger secretly photographed famine scenes: skeletal children, mass graves, bodies lying on streets. His images, smuggled to the West, became some of the only visual evidence of the Holodomor.
The Power of Denial: Walter Duranty and Soviet Propaganda
At the same time, the Soviet Union orchestrated a massive propaganda effort to deny the famine. Western journalists accredited in Moscow were heavily censored, their movements restricted, and many chose cooperation over confrontation.
The most notorious was Walter Duranty, New York Times correspondent in Moscow. In a Pulitzer Prize–winning series of reports, he echoed Soviet lines, dismissing famine reports as exaggerations. In 1933, when Gareth Jones revealed his findings, Duranty responded: “Any report of famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.”
Duranty’s reporting carried immense weight, shaping U.S. and British perceptions. His denial helped shield Stalin’s regime at a critical moment, contributing to decades of silence around the Holodomor.
Government Awareness and Silence
Evidence shows that Western governments, including the United States and Britain, were aware of famine conditions. Diplomatic cables and consular reports described mass starvation, but political and economic priorities prevailed.
- In 1933, as the famine peaked, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved to establish diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union, seeking trade opportunities and a geopolitical partner. Acknowledging the famine publicly would have undermined this goal.
- Britain also prioritized stability and trade relations over confronting Stalin.
As a result, governments remained publicly silent while millions perished in Ukraine.
Soviet Censorship and Control of Information
Inside the Soviet Union, the famine was never acknowledged in official publications. Mention of hunger was forbidden; those who used the word “famine” risked arrest for “spreading anti-Soviet propaganda.” Foreign relief organizations, including the Red Cross, were denied entry.
State propaganda reframed starvation as the fault of “kulaks” or “enemies of the people.” Posters depicted prosperous collective farms, while newsreels showed healthy workers and full harvests. This dissonance between official images and lived reality deepened the trauma of survivors, who were forced into silence even as they buried their loved ones.
Why the World Looked Away
The combination of Soviet censorship, Western journalistic denial, and government pragmatism meant that the Holodomor remained hidden from global consciousness for decades. Unlike other 20th-century tragedies, it was not immediately etched into international awareness.
For the Ukrainian diaspora, especially those who emigrated during and after World War II, preserving the truth of the Holodomor became a mission. Oral history projects, community organizations, and memorial initiatives abroad kept the memory alive when official Soviet narratives denied it ever happened.
Diplomatic Reports from Ukraine
While the Soviet press denied famine, foreign diplomats stationed in Ukraine and nearby regions often sent candid reports back to their governments.
- Italian Consular Reports (Kharkiv, 1933): The Italian consul wrote that famine was “not a natural disaster but the result of deliberate policy,” describing scenes of mass starvation.
- German Diplomatic Records: German officials reported rail stations filled with starving peasants barred from traveling, confirming the scale of enforced blockades.
- Polish Consular Observations: Border officials in Poland reported thousands of starving Ukrainians attempting to cross illegally, with many being turned back by Soviet guards.
These reports left little doubt that famine was widespread and intentional. Yet most were classified and not shared with the public at the time.
The U.S. Position and Roosevelt’s Recognition of the USSR
In November 1933, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt granted formal diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. Archival documents show that the famine was known within the U.S. government, but acknowledgment would have jeopardized relations with Moscow.
Letters from the U.S. Embassy in Riga (which monitored Ukraine) described severe famine conditions. However, in Washington, the strategic priority of balancing Nazi Germany outweighed humanitarian concerns. Roosevelt invited Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov to Washington, sealing U.S.-Soviet ties just as the famine reached its height.
Britain’s Pragmatic Silence
Britain faced its own economic crisis during the Great Depression and was hesitant to jeopardize trade with Moscow. British intelligence reports from 1932–1933 acknowledged starvation in Ukraine but concluded that public exposure would damage diplomatic relations.
The Foreign Office relied heavily on correspondents like Walter Duranty, who reassured officials that the crisis was exaggerated. Gareth Jones’s reports, though troubling, were dismissed as “sensationalist.” Only decades later did historians uncover how deliberately Britain chose silence.
The Role of Walter Duranty and Historical Controversy
Duranty’s reporting in The New York Times is one of the most controversial chapters in journalism history. His dispatches not only denied famine but actively undermined journalists like Jones and Muggeridge. Despite mounting evidence, Duranty insisted that food shortages were the result of “bad harvests” and “peasant sabotage.”
Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the Soviet Union remains a source of controversy. Ukrainian organizations have repeatedly petitioned for its revocation, arguing that his false reporting helped conceal genocide. The Pulitzer Board has acknowledged his distortions but has not rescinded the award.
Western Intellectuals and the Soviet Narrative
The famine years also coincided with a surge of leftist intellectual sympathy for the Soviet experiment. Writers, academics, and travelers often accepted carefully staged tours of Soviet farms and factories. These “Potemkin villages” showcased well-fed workers and model farms, hiding the suffering beyond the gates.
Figures like George Bernard Shaw praised Soviet progress after visits, ignoring famine reports. For many intellectuals disillusioned with capitalism during the Great Depression, the Soviet Union appeared as a hopeful alternative — and famine reports clashed with this ideal.
Why the Silence Lasted
The combination of:
- Soviet propaganda,
- Western journalistic complicity,
- Diplomatic pragmatism, and
- Ideological sympathy
meant that the Holodomor remained obscured in Western consciousness for decades. Unlike the Holocaust, which was widely documented during and immediately after World War II, the Holodomor was largely hidden until survivors in the diaspora began organizing commemorations in the 1950s and 1960s.
Early Diaspora Efforts to Break the Silence
Ukrainian immigrants in Canada, the United States, and Europe began publishing memoirs and testimonies, often privately printed or shared within communities. In 1986, the U.S. Congress established the Commission on the Ukraine Famine, which collected over 200 testimonies from survivors living abroad.
This grassroots effort gradually broke the silence, culminating in greater recognition after Ukraine’s independence in 1991.
