74 HUMAN LIFE IN RUSSIA
caution and reserve should have been observed in judging the
position. All the reports reaching Moscow from the Soviet
Ukraine reveal the fear of a new catastrophe. It is enough to
mention that on October I five million hectares had been
cultivated in the Soviet Ukraine., i.e. only half the area planned.
It is impossible to increase this area; and if Soviet statistics
are read with the necessary caution, the conclusion is unavoid-
able that even these five million hectares are an overestimate.
The Ukraine., where less than fifty per cent of the planned
area was cultivated, is the best proof of the harmful effects of
collectivization."
At the same time, i.e. in the autumn of 1933, various reports,
not least those published in the Soviet press, put it beyond all
doubt that the excellent harvest, despite its good condition,
had had its yield most adversely affected by a number of
factors.
So much for the harvest. But the decisive factor this year, too,
was the ruthless collection of grain from the peasants. On
June 15, 1933^ a decree was issued in Moscow organizing
agricultural "cells" on the lines of the industrial "cells," and
placing them under the control of the party. Berland's comment
was: "The effect of this is very great; but the local fighters who
have thus been exposed are full of indignation, and their hatred
may some day become dangerous." The judicial autonomy of
the federated states was suspended with respect to the pro-
tection of the harvest and the grain transports. On June 21
Pravda announced the appointment of Comrade Akulov as
All-Russian Commissioner and public prosecutor for this
special task. The decree of the central committee of the Soviet
republic appointing him, dated June 10, was the basis for the
entire struggle between Moscow and the grain producers,
which in severity and determination exceeded all previous
measures against the peasantry. These orders cancelled all the
regulations of earlier years.
Postyschev's principle—"away with compassion"—was fol-