Song of the Forest: Russian Forestry and Stalinist Environmentalism, 1905–1953 by Stephen Brain (review)

This provocative and highly competent study seeks to revise—or at least to significantly nuance—a bedrock argument of Russian environmental historiography that traces back to Douglas Weiner’s ground-breaking 1988 study, Models ofNature: Ecology, Conservation, and Cultural Revolution in Soviet Russia (Bloomington, 1988). Here, Weiner argued against the straightforward but fashionable assessments of the time that saw the Soviet system as inherently destructive of the natural environment and public health. He did this by highlighting some remarkable conservation achievements originating in the Leninist period and centered on the establishment of a network of unique nature preserves (zapovedniki). These, he suggested, kept the Soviet Union “on the cutting edge of conservation theory and practice” for at least a decade (Weiner, x). The rot set in thereafter with the turn to Stalinism and the substitution of a promising conservation ethic with an increasingly simplistic emphasis on industrialization, the transformation of nature, and “correction” of its “mistakes.” With various and often significant caveats, other historians (and Weiner himself) subsequently extended and deepened these themes creating a rough sort of environmental-historians’ consensus that in some ways echoes the wider (if more controversial) framework of a “good” Lenin and a “bad Stalin.” Not everyone has agreed, of course. This reviewer, looking specifically at Russian and Soviet forest history, argued in a 2005 monograph against overly optimistic assessments of the Leninist period and its distinctiveness from what came later. Stephen Brain’s book, interestingly, goes the other way.

Brain’s main contribution is to reassess Stalin and the Stalinist system as more pro-environmentalist than hitherto considered. The focus is specifically and exclusively on forests and is certainly not meant as a blanket statement of approval of the regime, of course. But in this one domain, says Brain, “Stalin emerges as a peculiar kind of environmentalist” whose “policies withdrew millions of hectares [of forest land] from economic exploitation” (2). Why would Stalin (or the Politburo) care about forests? Brain points primarily to the leader’s personal interest in increasing national power generation through development of a network of hydroelectric dams. This left him sympathetic to the lobbying efforts of conservationists and educated foresters who argued that these goals required healthy and free-flowing rivers and who insisted, therefore, that other agencies’ plans for greatly-increased clear-cutting would only lead to soil erosion and the silting-up of major rivers—all to the detriment of hydroelectric projects. Thus, with some exceptions, Stalin sided consistently with those who sought to protect forests—and against those who sought to increase their exploitation, including the Ministry of Heavy Industry. If this is so, then Stalin’s environmentalism is largely inadvertent or contingent rather than the outcome of a personal investment in the subject. His patronage of conservationists, similarly, reflects less the latter’s influence on Soviet policy and more a mere confluence of interests with the dictator and his inner circle. Brain notes this, but argues essentially that whatever the cause or context, environmental protection is environmental protection. Intentions are not paramount.

Brain’s arguments are solid, fascinating, and for the most part, convincing. On occasion, however, one does wonder to what extent the pro-environmental decisions taken by the Politburo (especially the withdrawal of millions of hectares of forest land from active exploitation) translated to real conservation on the ground. In all countries, and certainly in the USSR, there is often a very broad gap between laws and policies on the one hand and realities on the ground (or in the forest!) on the other. For example, the pre-Stalinist Soviet nature preserves noted above, while “inviolable” in theory and on paper, often turned out on closer inspection to be much less in fact. Brain’s study, while it does provide some insights into forest realities, is more often oriented toward policies, personalities, legislation, and the political fortunes of one or another Soviet bureaucracy. Perhaps there is room here for a follow...