An exhaustively researched chronicle of the 'Holodomor', a program of genocide conducted by the Soviet Union against the Ukrainian (and other nationality's) peasantry that culminated in a manufactured famine in 1931-2 that killed millions.

Besides focusing upon the 'dekulakization' campaign that ultimately degenerated into the infamous famine itself, the book also serves effectively as a general survey of the horrors of the early Soviet Union, especially under Stalin (but before the era of the 'purges'). The ultimate objective of the book seems to be to highlight the abject failure of communist ideology to translate into the promised Marxist "utopia".

Not light reading; a bit of a slog to get through this one. This is due not only to the genocidal subject matter, but because of the rigorous academic standards of the book. Conquest wrote 'Harvest of Sorrow' before the Soviet Union dissolved and he obviously understood that this book would have political implications. He therefore took the role of 'objective historian' extremely seriously, as evidenced by the book's laboriously systematic style.

This is not "fluff" narrative history; this is history conducted with the rigour of a prosecutorial attorney. And for good reason, because 'Harvest of Sorrows' puts not just the Soviet Union, but the communist ideology itself on trial. ( )

A challenging read, due to content and style. It is a scholarly treatment and does not have great flow. The account of the genocide by starvation against the Ukraine is a true horror. While Marxism would go on to slaughter many millions more people over the next century this was the beginning. This should stand as a warning to civilization as to what communism will do. ( )

This was a difficult book to read. First, and most importantly, because of the horror of the subject it covers: the death by starvation of millions of people, primarily in the Ukraine, in the early 1930s, due to a famine deliberately caused by and then enforced by the Soviet leadership. I learned about this in a completely chilling chapter in Vassily Grossman's Everything Flows, and wanted to learn more about it: the introduction and notes to the NYRB edition I read of the Grossman book heavily cited the Conquest, and so I bought it.

The second reason it was difficult to read is because it is a scholarly book. I simply did not have the deep background in Soviet politics to understand the ins and outs of the first half or more of the book, which deals with the policies of farm collectivization and the suppression of Ukrainian nationalism, and so I skimmed those chapters. I have no basis for evaluating the author's point of view on those policies, and I gather there is some matter for debate about the degree to which Stalin himself was involved, although I, as a non-scholar, certainly find it difficult to believe that any major policy could be carried out without his blessing. However, it was the famine itself that interested me, and while I learned some more from this book nothing can hold a candle to the chapter in Everything Flows for depicting the full terror and horror of the terror-famine.

More of a prosecution than an unbiased history. Conquest lays all of the blame on Stalin (rather than Lenin's decisions or the direction of the party as a whole), and works through the book to convince the reader of his point. It's an interesting thesis, though I feel that I'd have to do more reading from other more balanced sources before reaching a final conclusion myself.

It's a good read, though, definitely--very moving, and a well-written look at a little-explored crisis of Soviet history. Check it out, but make sure you're ready to be critical of the sources represented and other choices the author makes. ( )