Military Review

"Companies rushed forward." From the combat path of the Siberian shooters of the Great War

80
We wrote about Siberian rifle units and formations in the crucible of the First World War (Four fights of Colonel Yakov Sergeev; Siberian Army of the Great War, or Seven facts about the Siberian shooters. H. 1 ; Siberian Army of the Great War, or Seven facts about the Siberian shooters. H. 2; Offensive at Krosny, or Four days in the life of Siberian shooters; Saving bayonet plug; What is more important in war - military equipment or fighting spirit) In this series of articles, on the basis of documents and other materials we have, we will look at the milestones of the glorious military path of the Siberian rifle units of the Russian army.




"Companies rushed forward." From the combat path of the Siberian shooters of the Great War







Forms of ranks of Siberian rifle units (Schenk V.K. Tables of uniforms of uniforms of the Russian army. St. Petersburg, 1910. Units still pass as East Siberian rifle regiments. Renaming took place just in the year when this part of the brochure was published).


Siberian machine guns - breakwater of German attacks. The battle of the 3-th Siberian Rifle Regiment at the village of Pyasechno


On August 26 of 1914, the 3 Siberian Rifle Regiment, having occupied the village of Pyasechno as the head battalion (2), put up guard guard on the line of the eastern outskirts of the village of Skupye to the Pyasechno River at 19 hours, having a watch reserve in 1,5 companies and two heavy machine gun in the village of Piaseczno. Ahead, in the direction of the village of Kochki and the village of Kamenka, there was reconnaissance - teams of horse and foot scouts. On the left is the sentry guard of the 2 Siberian Rifle Regiment, and on the right there was no one.

At dawn on the 27 of August, the Germans, by force near a regiment with artillery, launched an offensive in the 79 altitude band - the Piaseczno River. Enemy artillery fire reached extreme tension. An eyewitness notes that there was literally no place where heavy and light shells would not burst. Especially densely fired by the enemy were the highways from the village of Kamenka on Pyasechno and from the village of Kochki to the village of Skvarne. The Germans concentrated their fire mainly on the village of Piaseczno.

About 9 hours, rare chains of German infantry were seen - they descended from the crest of the 79 height and accumulated on its northern slope. At 13 hours the enemy’s chains with a force near 4 mouth launched an offensive in the 79 altitude band - the Piaseczno River - in the direction to the south-eastern outskirts of the village of Posyadaly. Artillery fire intensified, and the 2 Siberian mountain battery was shot down from a position. Despite the absence of all full-time artillery (for it was still unloaded in Warsaw), all enemy attacks were repulsed by Siberians - and the Germans retreated in the direction of the 79 height.

About 15 hours from the side of the village of Sodlo thick enemy columns were seen, which sought to hit the right flank and rear of the battle formation of the 2th battalion. To counter coverage, the commander of the 3 Siberian Rifle Regiment, Colonel V. A. Dobrzhansky, sent the 9 and 10 companies and two machine guns.



The 9 company occupied a section along the Piaseczno River - between the 2 bridges south of the arable land; 10 company - took a position to the left. The first machine gun was installed between the 9 and 10 companies, and the second machine gun was installed between the 3 and 4 departments of the 4 platoon of the 10 company. As a result - “With the fire of heavy machine guns, nine wave-like attacks of the German infantry were repelled.” The enemy met with strong rifle - machine gun fire, having suffered heavy losses, swept to the side and lay down.


Battle plan


At 18 hours, by order of the regiment commander, the 9 and 10 companies went on the counterattack. It was very successful: prisoners were captured and weapon.


V. A. Dobrzhansky


June day of the 10 Siberian Rifle Regiment. Fight on 24 on June 1915 of the year.


The night attack unfolded at 2 hours, and by the morning of 24 on June the soldiers of Lieutenant Colonel A.F. Krukovsky occupied the southern edge of the forest, pushing the enemy back and finally establishing cooperation with the units of the 2th battalion, occupying gosp. Lesnichuvka courtyard and strong point (RGVIA. F. 16180. Op. 1. D. 63. L. 480. 10 Siberian Rifle Regiment 24 - 26 June 1915 of the year in documents).

The 3 company of the 9 Siberian Rifle Regiment was replaced by the 9 company of the 10 Siberian. That night, the 9 regiment was not able to push the enemy away from the foils. Lenchitsa, and the right flank of the 10-th regiment (10-th company) and two companies of the 9-th regiment, in relation to the position of the 10-th regiment, stood perpendicular to the north. To establish communication with the 9 regiment, a half-company of the 8 company was allocated, which stood to the right of the 4 company of the 9 company. Then she came in contact with the companies of the 1 battalion, which was put forward to help the 9 regiment to attack the forest backrest south of the Lenchitsa folklore.

At 12 hours, a warning was received from the brigade commander Major General N. S. Trikovsky that the 9 Siberian Rifle Regiment, reinforced by the battalion of the 10 Siberian Rifle Regiment, was attacking a forest lunette at 16 hours. In case of success, the 10 regiment was ordered to advance to the northern edge of the forest, crashing into the enemy’s position with a wedge.


Major General N. S. Trikovsky, commander of the 1th Brigade of the 3th Siberian Rifle Division


4th battalion from vil. Ghosts advanced to Podzamchye and stood in reserve.

The attack began at 16 hours, and led to success: the Austrians began to cross from the Lenchitsky forest to the Big Forest. The 11 and 10 companies showed themselves here: when the enemy appeared in a clearing, he was met by fire. In this situation, enemy soldiers threw rifles and surrendered in groups.

Seeing this success, the left flank (the 5 and 12 companies, as well as the half company of the 7 companies) quickly moved forward, chasing the enemy in front of them and knocking out of the 3's consecutive trench lines in the direction of the 118 height and the village of Galenzov. Thus, the regiment's companies advanced on a large forest and passed its eastern edge in the direction of 118 height. On the way of the offensive, an abandoned light 4-gun battery of the enemy was discovered.

Companies rushed forward.

5-I company under the command of staff captain Terletsky reached der. Galensov. The 13 company came under the command of the ensign Korzhenevsky. Here both officers died.

Half of the 7 company, led by Ensign Syrodoyev, captured the enemy machine gun.

The enemy managed to get reinforcements and fired intensively. The cavalry necessary for the development of success was absent.

Seeing the impossibility to resist, the companies in order retreated to the old line of their trenches at the gentlemen. Courtyard Lesnichowka.

The following trophies were captured in this battle: 428 prisoners (headquarters officer, 10 chief officers and 417 lower ranks), machine gun No. 4399 and many rifles and cartridges (RGVIA. F. 16180. Op. 1. D. 63. L. 480 10 Siberian Rifle Regiment 24 - 26 June 1915 of the year in documents).

This is only one June day of the 1915 year in the life of the regiment. Part continued to conduct fierce battles.

Thus, a number of officers of the 10 Siberian Rifle Regiment, following the results of the battles 24 - 26 on June, were awarded high prizes.

The order for the 4 Army of 31 on October 1915 was noted by Captain P. Vasilevsky, Lieutenant B. Logvinenko and Ensign K. Sokolov (RGVIA. F. 16180. Op. 1. D. 63. L. 482 - 482 10 Siberian Rifle Regiment 24 - 26 June 1915 of the year in documents) All three were awarded the St. George Arms on the basis of Art. 121 St. George Statute.

Captain Pavel Vasilevsky in the battle on the 25 of June, when attacking the northern edge of the large Lesnichuvsky forest, with a bayonet strike of his company broke through the enemy’s front (allowing the rest of the regiment to break through the enemy on the rest of the front), and occupied the southern edge of this forest.

Lieutenant Boris Logvinenko in the battle of June 24 at the village Roscopachev, in a position of exceptional danger under enemy fire in the front trench, gave precise instructions for correcting heavy artillery fire and this made it possible to suppress the enemy’s battery. The latter had previously completely swept away the Russian trenches with its fire.

A warrant officer Konstantin Sokolov in the battle of June 26 at the village. Golenzov, having been sent with 17 by foot scouts to clarify the situation, attacked the enemy's forward guard, punched him and, moving forward, captured an enemy outpost of 24 people. Then, having rushed to the attack, he took flight near 3's enemy’s mouths.

Officers of only the 3 Siberian Rifle Regiments had breast regiments: 42, 43 and 44 Siberian Rifle, which were part of the 11 Siberian Rifle Division. All granted February 14 1911


42th Siberian Rifle Regiment. In the center is an oval shield with the monograms of Peter I and Nicholas II. The shield is framed by a colored ribbon with the inscriptions: "42th Siberian Rifle Regiment", "1711" and "1911". A shield is placed on a wreath tied at the bottom of the St. George ribbon. The sign is crowned by a two-headed eagle, and under the last - the number "200"


43th Siberian Rifle Regiment. The woven monograms of Peter I and Nicholas II are crowned with a double-headed eagle. Monograms and an eagle are superimposed on a red (anniversary Alexander) ribbon with gold dates "1711" and "1911". Below - crossed laurel branches, on which a plaque with the number "200" is applied


44th Siberian Rifle Regiment. The cross covered with white enamel is crowned with a golden crown (the rim, possibly raspberry). On the crosses - the dates "1711" and "1911". In the center are the woven monograms of Peter I and Nicholas II.


To be continued ...
Author:
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Albatroz
    Albatroz 8 November 2019 06: 41 New
    +7
    Very interesting combat episodes of the path of the Siberian rifle units.
    Excellent combat units of the Russian army
    1. Hunghuz
      Hunghuz 8 November 2019 07: 53 New
      +7
      They proved themselves in all wars, WWII, Civil, WWII.
      Saved 2 capitals, Warsaw and Moscow
      1. Albatroz
        Albatroz 8 November 2019 09: 51 New
        +7
        Yes, Warsaw, the third capital of the Russian Empire, in 1914,
        Moscow, the only capital of the USSR in 1941
        1. fuxila
          fuxila 8 November 2019 13: 15 New
          0
          If I’m not mistaken, then Kiev was still considered the third capital, and Warsaw in this case is the fourth.
          1. Albatroz
            Albatroz 8 November 2019 13: 26 New
            +5
            You are mistaken. The third was Warsaw. The capital of the Kingdom of Poland.
            Not for nothing even our guard was partially concentrated there. The indicator of the capital status.
            Kiev yes, but I'm not talking about historical roots
      2. fuxila
        fuxila 8 November 2019 13: 22 New
        +1
        Yes, I read that during the battle of Warsaw, some Siberian regiments were unloaded from the echelons and immediately entered the battle. I would very much like the respected author in the following articles to also highlight this point. Still very interested in the defeat of the 6th Siberian division in the Lodz operation, I would like to know more about the circumstances of this tragedy.
        1. cost
          cost 8 November 2019 15: 58 New
          +3
          Vl.Gilyarovsky "March of Siberian Riflemen" 1915
  2. Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 8 November 2019 07: 11 New
    0
    If we talk about Siberians, and I consider myself a cohort - excuse me, I was born and raised here ... then I would most likely pay attention to the patriarchal nature of the local population. And note, this word has two meanings, I use it in the sense of conservatism, commitment to the principles ... And I have a feeling that the closer to the capital, the more depraved a person becomes, the more he becomes influenced by the West. Probably the way it should be. I'm not saying that the west is bad ... but every time the west attacked Russia, for some reason they called the Siberians. I wonder why?
    1. AU Ivanov.
      AU Ivanov. 8 November 2019 17: 03 New
      +1
      I dare to express my opinion: Siberia did not know serfdom, free people lived in it. So that their descendants were freer both in thinking and in making decisions. Well, the climate - you want, you do not want, but you will become strong and seasoned.
      1. Albatroz
        Albatroz 8 November 2019 17: 58 New
        +4
        And also the strongest and most economical peasants left for Siberia.
        And on Stolypin reform before
        serfdom ... The explanation is so-so.
        The greatest victories of Russian weapons came in the era of serfdom. And nothing.
        By the way, the Great Russians, who knew serfdom, were the best soldiers of the empire. Far better than the Balts, who didn’t know much.
        Here I think another explanation. This is noted by literally everyone.
        The peasants, as the basis of the army, were excellent combat material - unpretentious, hardy, reliable. Unlike workers, whatever you say but with rottenness.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 8 November 2019 18: 08 New
          -3
          The greatest victories

          The point is not in the era of serfdom, but in what happened after. The big landowner owners did not leave the landlords. The population in the village began to grow, households become smaller.
          1. Albatroz
            Albatroz 8 November 2019 19: 17 New
            +5
            How is this not the case? The comrade noted that the Siberians were allegedly strong because there was no serfdom. And I say that the Great Russians (where it was) are not the worst soldiers.
            What does the landowners have to do with it? From someone came out, from someone not.
            I tell you the main thing is that the peasants are the foundation of the army. They are the good soldiers
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 8 November 2019 19: 34 New
              -2
              Let's just say that there are more contradictions to the WWII in the European part of Russia (128 million) than in Siberia (10 million). Support for the February Revolution was not formed from scratch.
              And other things being equal, workers as soldiers are better, more organized, and easier to learn.
              1. Albatroz
                Albatroz 8 November 2019 19: 43 New
                +5
                We are not talking about contradictions, but about physical virtues. Workers, yes, more savvy, but more crafty and depraved (I mean city life).
                And the February Revolution is more far-fetched.
                Specially created a stir with the delivery of food in a single city (despite the fact that the province was bursting with food). The Germans - militarized railway and did the right thing.
                Plus, the country still lived according to the laws of peacetime and the reaction to tightening individual nuts was not normal.
                Yes, and 10-thousandth reserve battalions in the city (and not in the field like the French) - white-ticket soldiers, former warriors and others.
                That's all the contradictions
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 8 November 2019 19: 59 New
                  -2
                  working

                  So it is necessary to work with personnel, including on the topic of political morsos.
                  А

                  If we talk about the peasantry, it was worth a little release the reins and raced. Already in April 1917, the Ministry of Agriculture recorded 205 agrarian unrest (land seizure) in 42 of the 49 provinces of the European part of Russia.
                  1. Albatroz
                    Albatroz 8 November 2019 20: 07 New
                    +5
                    "The army is out of politics"
                    that's what led.
                    the peasantry in 17 years appropriated everything they wanted. Then it remains only to legalize it, and even later - to remove the fat
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 8 November 2019 20: 16 New
                      -3
                      Army

                      This led to 3 years of war-deployment, loss.
                      grease

                      What to take from the poor? Bread on the cards?
                      1. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 8 November 2019 20: 38 New
                        +4
                        The original scheme is an army outside of politics. officers were not involved. and the soldiers were not politically prepared.
                        What to take from the poor

                        With beggars ?? Firstly, our peasantry was not even a beggar by 1914.
                        Secondly, grabbing the strawberry in 17 and fattening during the NEP, it ripened to cutting off the fat in the era of dispossession and collectivization 29-31. I'm talking about it)
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 8 November 2019 20: 56 New
                        -2
                        Original

                        There was a lot of time to think about it, starting with the 1905 revolution.
                        With beggars ???

                        But what about. In 1928/29, 1 million rubles (of which agricultural tax 029,1 million) were received in total taxes and fees from the population, in 449,4/1929, 30 million (1 million) 556 million (560,2 million). As a percentage of the revenue side of the budget 1931/2110 380,9 (agricultural tax 1928%), in 29/11,7 5,1 (1929), in 30 16,4 (5,8).
                      3. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 8 November 2019 21: 32 New
                        +4
                        And what are these numbers talking about?
                        That% began to decline just as a result of collectivization - the defeat of the village (30-31). Before that (the end of the NEP, 28-29), it was higher.
                        They made them beggars. Not as it was necessary to cut off the fat) Instead, they killed the pig)
                        And our agriculture has since become a hole - hopelessness.
                      4. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 November 2019 07: 40 New
                        -2
                        Oh-ho-nudes ...
                        You are not only looking at the percentage, you are looking at the amount. In 1928/29, the budget revenues amounted to 8 million, in 830,4/1929 30 million, for the special quarter 13 879,4 million, in 1930 5 million, in 269 1931, 25 million. Collected more, but the budget grew. The main source of income has always been the turnover income of enterprises - 246,4%, 1932%, 38%, 041,5%, 35,6%, respectively.
                        Moreover, they spent more on agricultural products than they received, first with an agricultural tax, in 1928/29 714,2 million (I recall the agricultural tax for the same year 449,4 million), in 1929/30 1 353 million . (560,2), for a special quarter 614,7 million, and then all taxes from the population in 1931 2 914,3 (with the collection of 2110 million taxes from the population).
                      5. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 9 November 2019 07: 53 New
                        +3
                        I look.
                        Size is another question. The size of the revenue side of the budget as a whole.
                        The fact that he has grown as a whole is not surprising. The economy developed, industrialization proceeded.
                        But ...
                        Due to the robbery of the peasant. At the expense of the village
                      6. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 November 2019 11: 03 New
                        -2
                        According

                        Explain how industrialization can take place at the expense of the village, if the agricultural tax is a few percent of the budget revenue? Moreover, the amount of fees less than those spent on agricultural in the same year?
                      7. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 9 November 2019 14: 56 New
                        +3
                        how industrialization can take place at the expense of the village

                        monographs have been written on this subject.
                        the source of industrialization is the agricultural sector.
                        where does the tax? This is a nuance. Both the tax and other schemes of robbery of the village. She is a donor
                      8. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 November 2019 14: 59 New
                        -2
                        donor

                        So due to what is she a donor?
                        Taxes do not apply to this, I have already explained why.
                      9. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 9 November 2019 15: 03 New
                        +3
                        At the expense of everything.
                        Including taxes. But the tax is an unprincipled thing for the command-administrative in the yard and all the same state. No need to think in market categories)
                      10. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 9 November 2019 15: 06 New
                        +2
                        The state simply, roughly speaking, nationalized the village.
                        It took away a lot of cattle and property (collectivization), appropriated almost completely INCOME from agricultural (through collective farms) and redistributed resources.
                        Here are the main sources
                      11. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 November 2019 15: 26 New
                        -2
                        Excuse me, but this "all" - what was included?
                        The tax is a matter of principle, because the peasant economy is private property, and the collective farm is collective, and not at all state.
                      12. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 9 November 2019 15: 32 New
                        +3
                        laughing
                        in the command and administrative system everything is state. De facto)
                        Private property under the law at that time was not in the USSR. Did not know?)
                        collective farm, not state at all

                        on a piece of paper, but in reality - a state one. For this they were created, collective farms to pump out resources. And even the Germans preserved in the temporarily occupied territories. For the same purpose.
                        I mean:
                        State nationalized the village.
                        This is the main source of industrialization. Thanks to collectivization, the state appropriated the resources of the agricultural sector.
                        It took away a lot of cattle and property (collectivization), appropriated almost completely INCOME from agricultural (through collective farms) and redistributed resources.

                        Here are the main sources
                      13. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 November 2019 15: 38 New
                        -2
                        [The state nationalized the village

                        You are now warm with soft confuse. State agricultural enterprises are state farms, not collective farms. Land cannot be sold, but otherwise the peasant does what he wants. Which resulted in a bread strike of 1927, from which they switched to collectivization.
                        Selected

                        So please indicate when and what took away?
                      14. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 9 November 2019 15: 43 New
                        +3
                        That you pretend that you do not understand
                        and state and collective farms belonged to the state. The collective-farm-cooperative form of ownership was in fact also state.
                        Land cannot be sold, but otherwise the peasant does what he wants.

                        before collectivization. What am I talking about. Then - the second serfdom.
                        So please indicate when and what took away?

                        during collectivization, a sufficiently large peasant sector was defeated. His property is appropriated by the state, and the former owners are evicted or worse
                      15. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 November 2019 15: 56 New
                        -2
                        to

                        It was not, the state directly controlled the state farms, but not the collective farms. They obeyed because they gave seed loans, loans, tractors with MTS, etc. They invested in agriculture.
                        His

                        Can you tell me where to look for this developed peasant sector? Nothing that the peasants in 1928/29, accounting for the vast majority of the population (with handicraftsmen and artisans 74,9%) in the country paid less than half the tax for the same year?
                      16. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 9 November 2019 16: 45 New
                        +3
                        The state controlled both collective and state farms. The difference is how.
                        And through both of these structures, resources were pumped out from agricultural.
                        Yes, peasants before paid only tax. Corrected. And they began to plow on the state and without any taxes (collective and state farms).
                        Can you tell me where to look for this developed peasant sector?

                        The collectivization of the middle farms was 60%, and large farms (kulaks) 5%. They were largely dispossessed. What the last term means - you know, I think, without a clue.
                      17. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 November 2019 17: 13 New
                        -2
                        We fixed

                        "Before" individual peasants paid agricultural tax and handed over grain at fixed prices; after complete collectivization, the collective farms did the same. Nothing has changed fundamentally.
                        I already wrote about how the state "siphoned" resources from the agricultural sector, I see no reason to repeat myself.
                        They

                        I know the term, but I don’t know what the state got from them. Can you voice the numbers?
                      18. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 9 November 2019 17: 34 New
                        +3
                        That's it.
                        The peasants wanted to stand alone - they handed over bread. They didn’t want to - they didn’t give up. By the second, they were stimulated by fixed prices.
                        To avoid the "wishlist" from the peasants, the state drove them into collective farms. Through which they pumped out agricultural products in the volumes he needed. Naturally, imitating the economic process - with some kind of nominal prices and so on.
                        I also do not want to repeat myself)
                        but I don’t know what the state got from them
                        it received their property. People were then evicted and (or) driven into poverty. In our country, the state loves to drive into poverty, choosing first - whom) Naturally, it flows somewhere. In those days - in the state pocket.
                        Can you voice the numbers?

                        -
                        monographs have been written on this subject

                        Now I have an immodest question for you - are you tired of doing the flood?
                      19. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 November 2019 17: 47 New
                        0
                        That

                        Because large-scale farming (landlord, state farm, collective farm is not important) is economically more profitable, it can contain an agronomist, a livestock breeder, a feldsher point, normal agricultural tools and infrastructure.
                        it

                        Sorry, but against the background of hundreds of millions a year (for example, in 1933, not counting state farms, they invested 2 million rubles) this is a penny.
                        Now

                        Dear opponent, it may be a reference to obscure monographs for you and is an argument, for me there isn’t. If you confuse knowledge with faith, then this is yours, not my problem.
                      20. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 9 November 2019 18: 26 New
                        +2
                        Are you trying to justify the new enslavement of peasants by agri-cultural delights?
                        Perfectly)
                        Invested)
                        And how much deflated)
                        This system has become a donor financing industrialization.
                        maybe for you a reference to obscure monographs is an argument, then for me there isn’t

                        I don’t say when you bring me incomprehensibly from where and it is not clear what figures are unknown) or do you want me to start retelling articles and monographs regarding collectivization ??
                        This -
                        If you confuse knowledge with faith

                        Traditional is your cant. Replace knowledge with faith.
                        Or want to discuss agricultural development in an article on hostilities?
                        Flood
                        this is yours, not my problem.
                      21. Albatroz
                        Albatroz 9 November 2019 18: 31 New
                        +2
                        There is simply a whole series of works by specialists on this issue, a respected opponent.
                        silly now and then talk about it.
                        They sent me the numbers.
                        I will also send an answer.
                        Collectivization dealt a severe blow to agricultural production (gross grain production decreased in 1932 to 69,9 million tons against 78,3 million tons in 1928, the number of horses decreased from 36 million to 20 million, and cows - from 68 million to 30 million).
                      22. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 November 2019 19: 06 New
                        0
                        Great. Figures from where?
                        Checking. For example Bashkin A. V. "Crops of the thirties or stolen achievements".
                        Grain harvest for 1928 according to official statistics 73,3 million tons, for 1932 69,5 million tons. And when it more or less settled down, by 1937 they received a crop of 120 million (according to official statistics) or 97 million (according to modern estimates) grain. At the same time, the insidious Bolsheviks drove into the agriculture from 1933 to 1937 32 203,8 million rubles.
                    2. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 9 November 2019 18: 41 New
                      0
                      And how much

                      Less than received wink
                      I say

                      Dear opponent, the budgets of the USSR are in the public domain, is this news for you?
                      Or

                      So you can’t confirm your point of view?
                    3. Albatroz
                      Albatroz 9 November 2019 20: 00 New
                      +2
                      First of all, dear floodman, I substantiated:
                      1) The state nationalized the village in order to turn it into a donor of industrialization. The village began to fulfill state orders.
                      2) Dekulakization and redistribution of resources has become an important source of industrialization.
                      And the budgets of the USSR have nothing to do with it. The main thing is that
                      in the 1920-1930s. most of the financial and material resources, the best cadres, were used by the state to pursue a policy of socialist industrialization and strengthen the defense capabilities of the USSR. Agriculture was financed on a residual basis, developed mainly at the expense of scanty own funds

                      Well, juggling numbers taken out of context ...
                      I leave this dubious privilege to you.
                    4. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 9 November 2019 20: 20 New
                      0
                      Disposition

                      Dear opponent, if you repeat the same argument 10-20-30 times, your statement will not become. How much and what received from dispossessed?
                      own funds

                      Expenditures on industry in 1928 / 29-1932 amounted to 26 million, on agricultural 319 million, in 9-540 1933 and 1937 million rubles, respectively.
                    5. Albatroz
                      Albatroz 9 November 2019 20: 32 New
                      +2
                      Naturally, dear, I will not repeat 10 times what I already wrote above.
                      This is for a trained reader, not sophists)
                      much has been written about dispossessed, I am not an educational program for you.
                      Well, digits taken out of context, are worth little)
                    6. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 9 November 2019 20: 37 New
                      0
                      educational program

                      That is, you cannot substantively confirm your own statement. Thank.
                      Ну

                      So feel free to explain where and how the context is torn out?
                    7. Albatroz
                      Albatroz 9 November 2019 20: 39 New
                      +2
                      I.e. you cannot substantively confirm your own statement

                      I have confirmed everything above. And about the sources. And about property (the forms of which you do not know) and so on.
                      You are welcome!
                      Explain where and how the context is torn out?

                      it is known to you alone, if from juggling befits by what figures)
                    8. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 9 November 2019 21: 00 New
                      0
                      Please

                      I looked again and did not see the amount of income from dispossession. Have you lost the thread of the conversation?
                      it

                      That is, you cannot explain, but claim that they are taken out of context? Sorry, but this is faith, not logic. Believe is your right.
                    9. Albatroz
                      Albatroz 9 November 2019 21: 16 New
                      +2
                      What does the dispossession have to do with it?
                      About dispossession (if that) a very large bibliography. Please read.
                      I wrote above that the village became a BASE, on which industrialization was carried out. Base in every sense, and not just some kind of tax there. That’s what for.
                      And one more thing ...
                      We have no special conversations.
                      There is harassment by a flood carrier - an "expert" (in large quotation marks) of the collective farm peasantry under the nickname strannik1985) No more)
                    10. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 9 November 2019 21: 21 New
                      0
                      BASE

                      I’m very curious when you move from general words to specifics. People and the grain is understandable. Then what?
                      Funds for the purchase, construction of factories, etc. were not taken from the village. Do you understand the idea?
                    11. Albatroz
                      Albatroz 9 November 2019 21: 59 New
                      +2
                      See below.
                      3 of my postulates are more than specific.
                      Do you understand the idea?
          2. Albatroz
            Albatroz 9 November 2019 20: 37 New
            +2
            The general conclusion of the process is as follows.
            Quote
            [quote] Formally, the management of the collective farm was carried out on the basis of self-government: the general meeting of collective farmers elected a chairman, a board and an audit commission. In fact, the collective farms were controlled by the party district committees.
            Collectivization solved the problem of free transfer of funds from the agricultural sector to industry, provided the army and industrial centers with agricultural products, and also solved the problem of export deliveries of bread and raw materials. In the years of the first five-year plan, 40% of export earnings came from grain exports. Instead of 500-600 million poods of marketable grain previously harvested, in the mid-1930s, the country harvested 1200-1400 million pounds of marketable grain annually. Collective farms, although not satisfying, still fed the growing population of the state, primarily cities. Organization of large farms and the introduction of machinery in them made it possible to remove from agriculture a gigantic number of people who worked on industrialization construction sites, then fought against Nazism and again raised industry in the postwar years. In other words, a huge part of the human and material resources of the village was released.
            The main result of collectivization was the industrial leap that was realized at many unjustified costs, but nevertheless, which was realized. [/ Quote]
          3. strannik1985
            strannik1985 9 November 2019 20: 57 New
            0
            Dear opponent, it follows from your text that the village provided industrialization with people and grain. Moreover, grain is guaranteed supply and agricultural tax on collective farms. Nobody argues with this. Where are you any extra profits from the village found I can not imagine, do not explain?
          4. Albatroz
            Albatroz 9 November 2019 21: 12 New
            +2
            I'm not talking about excess returns. And this follows from the quote.
            I repeat for those who are in an armored train.
            The village has become the NUTRIENT ENVIRONMENT of industrialization.
            AT THE ACCOUNT OF THE VILLAGE.
            You don’t know how to read, or traditionally I look at the book, but can I see? ....
          5. strannik1985
            strannik1985 9 November 2019 21: 28 New
            0
            AT THE ACCOUNT OF THE VILLAGE

            Dear opponent, the fact that workers for industrialization were taken from the village does not give you the right to assert that industrialization was carried out at the expense of the village or somehow infringed on agriculture. Payment for industrialization, most of it, came from the tax on the turnover of enterprises (for example, in 1933-1937 it amounted to 63-73% of the budget revenue).
          6. Albatroz
            Albatroz 9 November 2019 21: 58 New
            +2
            Dear opponent
            The workers have nothing to do with it.
            The fact is that, firstly, the village was nationalized and collective farms, along with state farms, became an important element in pumping funds into the industrialization process. Private property was replaced by collective-farm-cooperative (that is, in fact state).
            Secondly, the dear opponent, the village was robbed due to the expropriation of its most prosperous layer (dispossession).
            Third, a more than respected opponent, the appropriation of collective farm incomes (in contrast to previous incomes of peasant owners) has also become a breeding ground for industrialization.
            And your comments are terrified as a respected opponent, little will change about this)
          7. Albatroz
            Albatroz 9 November 2019 22: 04 New
            +2
            due to the tax on the turnover of enterprises (for example, in 1933-1937 it amounted to 63-73% of the revenue side of the budget).

            they still had to create enterprises during industrialization)
            it’s good that they didn’t remember 47 or 57)
          8. strannik1985
            strannik1985 9 November 2019 22: 51 New
            0
            The sales tax has been introduced since 1930, this year it amounted to 45,9%, in 1931 46,2%, in 1932 51,5%.
        2. strannik1985
          strannik1985 9 November 2019 22: 46 New
          0
          Secondly

          So tell me, dear, what has the state received in the person of collective farms from dispossessed? I’m asking you for the tenth time, but there’s no answer.
          Thirdly

          Please explain how this assignment was expressed? For example, in 1933 the income tax from collective farms was 222 million rubles, the agricultural tax from collective farmers and individual farms was 547 million. A lot? In the same year, the costs of activities under the department of the People’s Commissariat of Agriculture amounted to 2 million rubles.
        3. Albatroz
          Albatroz 9 November 2019 22: 50 New
          +2
          Should I repeat again?
          firstly, the village was nationalized and collective farms, along with state farms, became an important element in pumping funds into the industrialization process. Private property was replaced by collective-farm-cooperative (that is, in fact state).
          Secondly, the village was robbed due to the expropriation of its most prosperous layer (dispossession).
          Thirdly, the appropriation of collective farm incomes (in contrast to the previous incomes of the peasant owners) has also become a breeding ground for industrialization.

          what are you playing with these dubious numbers ...
          The STATE ASSIGNED all agricultural property.
          Here is the basic for those who are beyond.
          How is private property different from state or collective-farm cooperative?
        4. Albatroz
          Albatroz 9 November 2019 22: 54 New
          +2
          abstract yourself from invented numbers and answer this simple question wanderer.
          This is the main thing. issue of ownership. Everything else is a toy
        5. strannik1985
          strannik1985 9 November 2019 22: 59 New
          0
          STATE APPOINTED

          Yeah, appropriated and de facto began to govern. What a sadness for the peasant? He both paid the tax and will pay. The whole difference is what will work in the organization (collective farm), and not in the personal economy.
          Can you explain the mechanism of "robbery" or again, for the tenth time, will you repeat the same mantra?
        6. Albatroz
          Albatroz 9 November 2019 23: 03 New
          +2
          For those who are on an armored train.
          When fixed assets are in the hands of the state, all these taxes have only a formal meaning.
          So everything is state.
          The robbery mechanism is veiled nationalization. The peasant from the owner becomes the user. If you can’t get to something, then what have I to do with it?)
          It was private, but it became state and (or) collective-farm cooperative.
          The question is the same: how is private property different from state or collective-farm cooperative?
        7. strannik1985
          strannik1985 9 November 2019 23: 26 New
          0
          Peasant

          Nothing has changed, the peasant was a user of land in the person of personal farming, he became a user in the face of a collective farm worker.
          Question

          Understand the porridge in your head, private ownership of the land was canceled on July 10, 1918. Until 1930, land could only be leased.
        8. Albatroz
          Albatroz 10 November 2019 08: 48 New
          +2
          private land ownership abolished

          outstanding discovery laughing
          I wrote to you about this above. you did not know that in the USSR there was no private property.
          I wonder if you know the difference between ownership
          was a peasant a user of land in the person of a personal farm, became a user in the face of a collective farm worker

          tell these tales you know to whom)
          Everything has changed. From the degree of socialization of property (from which collective farm funds were formed) to the degree of compulsory work (serf labor).
          The sole peasant worked for himself - and he decided to whom and what he would sell. And whether it will be.
          On the collective farm, he worked for the state. The collective farm was OBLIGED to fulfill the state order - on time and on certain volumes. He became a pump for pumping out manufactured products (not without reason, I repeat, was saved even by the invaders) and, accordingly, a donor of industrialization.
          Well, you do not know how private and collective-farm property is related.
          Let us then see how personal property (peasant) correlates with collective-farm and cooperative property (collective farm) and state property (state farm). Ready?
        9. strannik1985
          strannik1985 10 November 2019 09: 14 New
          0
          On the collective farm, he worked for the state

          He worked for the enterprise and received a salary for this.
          He

          Wildly interesting, am I talking with a happy farmer now? Does actual land ownership have a sacred meaning for you? But nothing that you need to get income from the land?
          Yes, the collective farmers contributed land to the collective farm (except for their personal backyard 0,25-0,5 hectares), livestock, and tools. So it then worked for them. Moreover, the state did not stand aside, in 1926 / 27-1929 / 30, only a seed loan and assistance to collective farms amounted to 154 million poods. In 1930-1933, the state spent 2 billion rubles on organizing MTS alone, a seed and food loan of 262 million poods, tax and insurance benefits of 370 million rubles. Total state investments in agriculture (with MTS, state farms, collective farms, individual farms) 5 million rubles. Will you continue to mumble about "robbing the peasantry"?
        10. Albatroz
          Albatroz 10 November 2019 09: 50 New
          +2
          Does actual land ownership have a sacred meaning for you?

          Any peasant is the owner. read Lenin, if solid literature on the topic is not good.
          He worked for the enterprise and received a salary for this.

          But what does the enterprise have to do with it?
          The fact of the matter is that the peasant sole-man worked for himself.
          And he was made him a worker, plowing the state.
          Yes, collective farmers contributed to the collective farm land (except for the personal farmstead 0,25-0,5 hectares), livestock, implements.

          Thank God recognized.
          This is in addition to those whose property was seized, and they were evicted or planted.
          So then it also worked for them.

          So it worked that the passports were dumb. And there were more workdays than in the old serfdom.
          And investments - these pounds and rubles NOTHING compared to the socialization (nationalization if you want) of the village. The state can’t be fooled) And minus it will not work for itself)
          Appropriated the whole industry, and you there about some penny investments.
          Naturally, investments are needed, without them anywhere. But the village has always been funded by us on a residual basis. If only it were not dead, it is necessary to feed all this horde. The latest serfdom, state standard. Instead of a peasant, a rural proletarian appeared, working not for himself but for a totalitarian state. No more.
        11. strannik1985
          strannik1985 10 November 2019 10: 19 New
          0
          Any peasant owner

          So what? He will eat earth instead of bread? Will she bring him moral satisfaction? Does it not reach you that actual (not private, land cannot be sold) property and income from it are different things?
          But what does the enterprise have to do with it?

          Amendment 5, 191 million, are expenses for 1932 alone. For example, investments in industry for the same year are 9,6 billion, of which 8,4 billion in group "A"
          Despite the fact that the state invests more in this enterprise than it receives from it (in money).
          It worked that passports were dumb

          Yes, you are just a storehouse of tales. The passport is not a privilege, but a citizen's duty, because registration is needed. This did not interfere with the resettlement from village to city; in fact, from the years of collectivization, from 8 to 12 million people moved.
        12. Albatroz
          Albatroz 10 November 2019 15: 45 New
          +2
          Ownership and income.
          rather than handouts from wage labor or working off workdays
          Yes, with any of your amendments, be able to distinguish some percentages there from the ASSIGNMENT of agricultural property. Giant raider seizure by the state.
          Well, your (now), of course, you need to periodically toss money on fuel. Otherwise, why this capture? Not so often in history for a couple of years whole industries have been appropriated.
          Well, if the passport is not a privilege, but a duty, then you can hand over your own and become a stateless person, eh? laughing
          But in our country the "proletarian" government treated the peasant in such a way that
          The main feature of the 1932 passport system was that passports were introduced only for residents of cities, workers' settlements, state farms and new buildings. The collective farmers were deprived of their passports, and this circumstance immediately put them in the position attached to their place of residence, to their collective farm.

          NEW FORTRESS. What I was talking about. Why get puffed up, casting a shadow on the wattle fence?
          In general, the restriction of freedom is a punishment. But for the collective farmer, this became a normal life.
          They could not go to the city and live there without a passport: according to clause 11 of the decree on passports, such "passportless" are fined up to 100 rubles and "removed by order of the police." Repeated violation entailed criminal liability. Introduced on July 1, 1934 in the RSFSR Criminal Code of 1926, Article 192a provided for imprisonment for up to two years.
          Thus, for the collective farmer, the restriction of freedom of residence has become absolute. Without a passport, he could not only choose where to live, but even leave the place where he was caught by the passport system. "Passportless", he could easily have been detained anywhere, even in the transport taking him out of the village.
          In this form, the passport system and the registration system existed until the 70s. In 1970, a small loophole arose for non-certified collective farmers assigned to the land. In the "Instruction on the procedure for registration and discharge of citizens by the executive committees of rural and settlement Soviets of workers' deputies" adopted this year, approved by order of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, an outwardly insignificant reservation was made: "As an exception, it is allowed to issue passports to residents of rural areas working in enterprises and institutions , as well as citizens who, due to the nature of the work performed, need identification documents. "
          All those, especially young people, who were ready to flee from ravaged villages to cities with all means, began to use this reservation.
        13. strannik1985
          strannik1985 10 November 2019 17: 07 New
          0
          Ownership and income

          No, property is an asset, it can be both profitable and unprofitable. The main thing that the peasants had when entering the collective farm was their own allotments, but this is not enough to make a profit, you need to invest in land. Here the Bolsheviks invested.
          NEW FORTRESS

          Like an adult, but you carry laughing
          The state itself recruited workers in the villages through an organizational recruitment. During the period from 1926 to 1939, rural areas lost 18,7 million people in migrations, almost all natural growth, for comparison, from 1897-1914, 330 (from 1910 470 thousand people) -351 thousand people arrived in the cities of the European part of Russia .
        14. Albatroz
          Albatroz 10 November 2019 21: 06 New
          +2
          property is an asset
          , the use of which generates income.
          In contrast to work (for carving) for a good (or not so) uncle.
          You are an adult, you should probably know the difference. And only a state based on the class of small owners, and not lumpen, alienated from means, production, will be stable.
          NEW FORTRESS

          Fact what to do. Serfdom number 2.
          The state itself recruited workers in the villages through an organizational recruitment

          Naturally, for the collective farmers themselves were attached to collective farms and could not move anywhere without passports.
          Becoming a consumable for the "proletarian" state and a breeding ground for industrialization.
  • Kapitan a
    Kapitan a 8 November 2019 07: 35 New
    10
    Sergey, they called everyone from all regions, and not just from Siberia. For example, I am from Astrakhan, but at the moment I live and work in Moscow. My ancestors served in the Astrakhan Cossack army and took a direct part both in that war and in all other wars where the government sent them.
    And yes, I agree with you about the corruption of morals in some people, depending on where they live. And yes, I agree that the Siberians in all wars showed their best side. And yes, there is nothing to apologize for being a Siberian.
    Thanks to the author, interesting material .... as usual. We look forward to continuing.
  • Hunghuz
    Hunghuz 8 November 2019 07: 55 New
    +9
    By the way, the banner of the German Pomeranian Fusiliers will become the trophy of the regiment of Dobrzhansky in half a year
    1. Albatroz
      Albatroz 8 November 2019 09: 50 New
      +8
      That's right!
      1. Hunghuz
        Hunghuz 8 November 2019 09: 54 New
        +9
        Paradoxically, some ignoramus who does not know about this fairly well-known fact also denied my comment about the trophy banner)
        1. Albatroz
          Albatroz 8 November 2019 10: 01 New
          +8
          se la vie
          camrad)
  • Ryazan87
    Ryazan87 8 November 2019 10: 54 New
    +4
    Thanks to the author for the article. In the ranks of the 3rd Siberian Rifle Regiment during the Great War, my great-great-grandfather Dmitry Nikitich Dormidontov served, so it is especially interesting to learn about the battles in which he probably took part.
  • Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 8 November 2019 15: 14 New
    -4
    Quote: Kapitan A
    Sergey, they called everyone from all regions, and not just from Siberia. For example, I am from Astrakhan, but at the moment I live and work in Moscow. My ancestors served in the Astrakhan Cossack army and took a direct part both in that war and in all other wars where the government sent them.
    And yes, I agree with you about the corruption of morals in some people, depending on where they live. And yes, I agree that the Siberians in all wars showed their best side. And yes, there is nothing to apologize for being a Siberian.
    Thanks to the author, interesting material .... as usual. We look forward to continuing.

    You know, I agree with you on everything ... but only one small question - why are you all drawn to Moscow? I am not saying that it is good or bad, but why?
    1. Kapitan a
      Kapitan a 8 November 2019 20: 17 New
      +2
      Choose what you like more: 1) Earnings more. 2) Business opportunity more. 3) For health reasons, the southern climate is contraindicated for me (for certain reasons).
      1. Sergey Averchenkov
        Sergey Averchenkov 8 November 2019 20: 25 New
        -4
        I think earnings, and here come the business opportunity. Aren't you ashamed of your choice? Are you kind of from Astrakhan Cossacks? Well? Cossacks to hell? I guess I'm very categorical, but ...
        1. Kapitan a
          Kapitan a 8 November 2019 20: 53 New
          +6
          Sergey, you did not guess. I have an allergy. What is the edema of both lungs must be explained. Take a look on the Internet yourself. And at the expense of the Cossacks, not a shame.
          Regarding the Astrakhan Cossack army, even before the revolution, the question was raised of its dissolution, well, or relocation to the Far East. But first the war, then the revolution, and finally, the policy of the Bolsheviks regarding the Cossacks, in general, the issue of Cossacks was completely closed by the middle of the 20th century.
          Now the Cossacks are more a cultural movement than anything else.
          Well, being in Moscow, I brought an order of magnitude more benefit (including the country) than being in Astrakhan. For example, from the open part of my activity, you can watch the film "Once Upon a Time in America or a Purely Russian Fairy Tale" on the Internet, written by Mikhail Zadornov. Being in Astrakhan, participating in the filming is not an option. Well, one more thing, well, little things ...
          1. Sergey Averchenkov
            Sergey Averchenkov 9 November 2019 16: 27 New
            -1
            C'mon, I'm wrong. You are the master of your life. Excuse me.
  • The comment was deleted.