Harvests and procurement of bread in the occupied territories of the USSR

In the course of my recent searches in the archives, I managed to find several documents that shed some light on the scale of grain production and grain procurement in the territories of the USSR occupied by the Germans. These were several certificates compiled by the Imperial Statistical Office for the Reich Ministry of Economy, which reflected the size of grain harvesting, supplies for the needs of the Wehrmacht and export to Germany.

Judging by the use sheet, this case was watched by a dozen researchers who used this data in their works, in any case, I saw some numbers and links to documents in the publications I looked at earlier. However, these researchers ignored the very interesting nuances of these documents, which make it possible to assess the state of affairs in the grain farming of the occupied regions in some dynamics and results. This is partly due to the fact that in order to draw conclusions, one must have good experience in researching the agricultural economy of the USSR and be able to derive others from some figures by the calculation method, which was widely used in economic planning at that time. Researchers who took up the economic history, as a rule, they did not have such experience. I have such experience, and it has already led me more than once to interesting conclusions, sometimes overturning established ideas.

Information about German grain procurements

On August 9, 1943, a small, but very informative certificate was drawn up in Berlin about the supply of agricultural products for 1941/42 and 1942/43. The German business year began on August 1 and ended on July 31 of the following year, thus covering the collection and use of the harvest of spring and winter crops. This certificate is supplemented by other documents: a certificate of deliveries for July 31, 1943 (in the previous document, data for 1942/43 are given until May 31, 1943), a certificate of deliveries for March 31, 1944. If in the first document data are given for each financial year, then the last two documents provide information on an accrual basis. However, it will not be so difficult to calculate exactly how much accounted for the full year 1942/43 and 1943/44. That is, we have information about the harvests from the crops of 1941, 1942 and 1943. The Germans could not collect the harvest of 1944, because in the spring of 1944 they lost the territory of the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, and in the summer of 1944 they lost the most important agrarian part of the Reichskommissariat Ostland - Belarus.

This is perhaps the most complete data, and one can hardly count on their refinement. But who knows, archives sometimes give surprises.

Procurement data can be presented in the following table (in thousands of tons):

The sign (*) denotes the data obtained by calculation, by subtracting the cumulative total of deliveries from previous years from the given data. Data on supplies to the Wehrmacht and exports to Germany in 1943/44 are inaccurate, since they were obtained from generalized data from the beginning of the occupation until March 31, 1944 by subtracting data for 1941/42 and 1942/43, and for the second year it was not taken into account 537 thousand tons of grain harvested in June-July 1943. How they were distributed was not reflected in the documents; one can only assume that most of this grain was supplied to the Wehrmacht, and the volume of supplies to the troops in 1943/44 reached about 2 million tons or a little more. But in general, this does not particularly affect the overall picture.

The certificate does not indicate what is meant by deliveries to the Wehrmacht, but according to the content of the document, most likely, it means the supply of the troops of the Eastern Front and stationed in the occupied territory of the USSR.

The Wehrmacht, as you know, tried to fight on the grass. However, the certificate dated August 9, 1943 indicates the share of the eastern occupied regions in supplies to the troops. For 1941/42 - 77%, for 1942/43 - 78%. If I understand the value of this indicator correctly (it would be better to clarify it from other documents; perhaps this information will be found later), then in 1941/42 the German troops on the Eastern Front received about 376 thousand tons from Germany and other occupied regions, and in 1942/43 - 599 thousand tons of grain, that is, about a fifth of its annual consumption. The Wehrmacht subsisted mostly on occupational agriculture, but not entirely.

Ukraine is the main source of food

Much or little grain was procured, and what was the relation to production? It is not easy to answer this question now, since I have not yet been able to find German statistics on the size of crops and the average yield in the territories occupied by them. If there were such information, then the calculation of the grain balance would be a relatively simple task.

Until these data are found (and there are some doubts that they were actually collected), one can resort to preliminary, rough estimates. The certificate dated August 9, 1943 indicates the share of the Reichskommissariat Ukraine in the supply of grain: 1941/42 - 77%, 1942/43 - 78%. That is, this Reichskommissariat delivered 1941 thousand tons in 42/1263 and 1942 thousand tons in 43/2550. The rest was distributed between the Reichskommissariat Ostland, as well as the territories of the west of the RSFSR, the left-bank Ukraine, the Caucasus and Crimea, which were in the zone of responsibility of Army Groups North, Center and South under the control of the economic headquarters of the Army Groups.

It is very difficult to find photographs that are not staged and propaganda and reflect agricultural work. This photo seems to be like this. Fresh plowing is visible, in front of the girl in the foreground is a box with a sling, which allows us to say that this is a sowing one, and a German soldier pours seeds before entering the field. The shooting location is probably Ukrainian Polesie or Kiev region

In the German data, there are statistics on the distribution of the total amount of food (including grain, potatoes, meat, sunflower, hay and straw) by sources for 1942/43 (excluding harvests for June-July 1943):

Total - 6099,8 thousand tons.
Reichskommissariat Ukraine - 3040,6 thousand tons.
Household staff "Center" - 816,5 thousand tons.
Household staff "South" - 763,9 thousand tons.
Reichskommissariat Ostland (excluding Belarus) - 683,5 thousand tons.
Caucasus - 371,2 thousand tons.
Household staff "North" - 263,7 thousand tons.
District of Belarus - 160,2 thousand tons (RGVA, f. 1458K, op. 3, d. 77, l. 92).

These data show the comparative value for Germans of different occupied territories. But it is not yet possible to single out grain crops from them. Belarus took the last place in this list because in the summer and autumn of 1942 the partisans staged a defeat of the occupation agriculture there.

However, until more detailed data are obtained, a comparison can be made for Ukraine by comparing the German data with the data on pre-war grain deliveries. This will make it possible to understand the state of agriculture under the occupation not in the “Germans plundered everything” format, but on the basis of more or less objective data.

There are two difficulties that deserve special mention. Firstly, the Reichskommissariat Ukraine in its territory did not coincide with the Ukrainian SSR. It consisted mainly of Right-Bank Ukraine with a small western part of the Left-Bank Ukraine. In addition, most of Western Ukraine was separated and annexed to the General Government of the occupied territories of Poland. Also, the Moldavian ASSR (within the borders of 1939), along with Bessarabia, was annexed to Romania, and almost the entire Odessa region of the Ukrainian SSR entered the Romanian occupation zone known as Transnistria. It is very difficult to carry out an exact comparison of territories, since the Germans divided the territory at their discretion, and the pre-war regions of the Ukrainian SSR were repeatedly subjected to reorganization and disaggregation, which affects the comparability of statistics. Here you need to compare the regions, but so far there is no such possibility. For a rough estimate, it can be assumed that the territory of the Reichskommissariat Ukraine more or less corresponded to the territory of the Kiev, Vinnitsa and Dnepropetrovsk regions of the Ukrainian SSR within the borders of 1934.

Scheme of dividing the occupied territories of the USSR into Reichskommissariats and areas of responsibility of army groups. Not the most successful, but allowing you to get a general idea

Second, with what to compare, what state of pre-war agriculture can be taken as the starting point of comparison? The figures for the late 1930s are not very suitable, since agriculture was already largely mechanized by this time. The Germans, however, faced the fact that, due to the acute shortage of oil products, they could not use all the capacities of Soviet mechanized agriculture, especially the MTS, large collective and state farms. It is also hardly correct to compare with the data of the late 1920s, since the Germans still used some of the equipment of the MTS and state farms, although there is no data on which one. For this reason, I took the 1934 level, when tractors had already appeared, but at the same time a significant part of the plowing for grain and harvesting was still done by horses.

This is a very rough, rough estimate, but I hope to collect more accurate data on both the German occupation economy and the Soviet pre-war economy in the regional and district sections in order to make a more accurate comparison.

According to the data of 1934, in the three regions of the Ukrainian SSR, the gross grain harvest was as follows:

Kiev region - 2 million tons.
Vinnytsia region - 1,89 million tons.
Dnipropetrovsk region - 1,58 million tons.
Total - 5,47 million tons (Agriculture of the USSR. Yearbook 1935. M., "Selkhozgiz", 1936, p. 1428).

There were 11,5 collective farms in these regions of the Ukrainian SSR (p. 634). In 1934, 233,3 thousand collective farms in the USSR harvested 68,8 million tons of grain and handed over to the state 13,3 million tons (pp. 629-630). The share of collective farms in grain deliveries to the state was 76,9%, the rest - state farms and individual farmers.

It can be calculated that the average collective farm collected 294,9 tons of gross harvest and supplied 57,3 tons of grain to the state. In total, it is estimated that 11,5 thousand collective farms could collect about 3,3 million tons of grain and supply the state with 658,9 thousand tons. The total procurement in these areas could have amounted to 856,8 thousand tons. These are compulsory grain deliveries. There was also payment in kind by the MTS, which in 26,4 in 1934 thousand collective farms in the Ukrainian SSR amounted to 739 thousand tons of grain, or 27,9 tons on average per collective farm. Thus, the collective farms of the three regions handed over another 320 thousand tons of grain as payment in kind. The total amount received by the state was approximately 1176,9 thousand tons (calculated: deliveries from collective farms + payment in kind + deliveries from state farms and individual farms). The total ratio of deliveries and payment in kind to the gross harvest is 21,3%. This is the level of grain delivery that did not undermine the collective farm and still left a certain amount of marketable grain on the collective farm for trade. Let's take it as a starting point for comparison.

The German harvest could be comparable to the pre-war

So, let's bring the data together for three regions of the Ukrainian SSR - the Reichskommissariat Ukraine.

1934 billets - 1176,9 thousand tons.
German blanks:
1941/42 - 1263 thousand tons.
1942/43 - 2250 thousand tons.
1943/44 - 1492 thousand tons (if the share of the Reichskommissariat Ukraine was 78%).

Hence the conclusion: in order for the Germans to get so much grain from the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, they had to maintain the state of agriculture at least at the 1934 level.

It may be said that the Germans shoveled all the grain clean. This can only be done once. The fact is that in 1934 these three regions of the Ukrainian SSR sowed almost 9 million hectares with grain crops, and the seed fund for such an area with normal sowing is 1,7 million tons. Sow less - the harvest will inevitably fall, even under good conditions. The Wehrmacht, as we have seen, is very gluttonous.

Then, with a shortage of oil products and a poor condition of the tractor fleet (which significantly decreased in 1941 and continued to decline later due to poor repairs and a lack of spare parts), the main burden fell on the horses. Horses, so that they can plow so much soil, need to be fed with grain. Otherwise, the horses will fall and there will be no harvest. The same is with the peasants. They need to be left with food grain to plow, sow and harvest. An acute shortage of grain for peasants and peasant horses leads to a catastrophic drop in the harvest, which was proven in 1920-1921. If the harvest falls, grain procurements inevitably fall. German data do not show a catastrophic decline in agriculture. Even in 1943/44, they prepared either as much as in 1934, or slightly more, taking into account the territorial errors of accounting and losses in the eastern part of the territory of the Reichskommissariat during the autumn offensive of 1943 by the Red Army.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the Germans took more than 25-30% of the gross harvest of individual farmers and abandoned collective farms, and then the average harvest in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine was about 4,2-4,6 million tons (possibly up to 5 million tons, taking into account territorial errors), and the 1942 harvest was apparently very good, up to 7,5 million tons. That is, practically at the pre-war level, at least in this part of occupied Ukraine. In other places it could be very different, the picture on the huge occupied territory should be motley, mosaic.

These calculations allow us to understand the background of the strange raids of the Belarusian partisans on the Right-Bank Ukraine from October 1942 to September 1943, in particular the Carpathian raid of S.A. Kovpak, who is sometimes considered pointless and adventurous. As you can see, the reason to send partisans to the forest-steppe and steppe right bank of Ukraine and even to the Carpathians, where the partisans will obviously find it difficult, where there will be few shelters, there will be no support from the population and where they will be surrounded by Germans everywhere, was and was very weighty. The Germans settled themselves very freely in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, they grow bread ... That is why it was necessary to impose proper panic on them, and at the same time remind the local population about the Soviet power.

It is too early to put an end to this study. The matter is far from over. The data set is clearly not complete, and it is necessary to find at least data on the area of ​​crops in various parts of the occupied territory of the USSR. Given the area and average yield, you can determine the yield. Conversely, data on the gross yield allows you to determine the area from which such a crop can be harvested.

It would also be nice to find German data on the population of the occupied regions (they registered the population and had to collect this statistics) and on the number of horses. The area under crops, the population and the number of horses allows, in a rough approximation, to calculate the grain-feed balance.

It is also necessary to compile a list of regions and districts of the pre-war USSR, which correspond as closely as possible to the territory of the Reichskommissariat and other occupied regions, collect data on them necessary for comparison (plowing, gross yield, grain delivery and payment in kind, population, livestock, tractors, and so on).

Then it will be possible to very accurately study the dynamics of occupational agriculture in all its main characteristics.

Comments

[Ross xnumx]

It is too early to put an end to this study. The matter is far from over.

The end of this study was put in 1945. And the fact that the fascist army had more options for the "stick" and only one version of the "carrot" - life, so it was known for a long time.
Another fact is interesting, why until the 50s in Ukraine there were bandit formations in the form of a well-known organization? And why did they fight with them for so long?

[Alexander Suvorov]

From the first words of this opus it was clear who the author was. And the photos for the article are selected just download. The "good" Fritz uncles are helping the poor peasants "tortured by the evil Bolsheviks" to raise their grain. Well, you can describe yourself straight from emotion. Author, you wanted to say something with your opus? What do you achieve in the end? Why is this:

It is also necessary to compile a list of regions and districts of the pre-war USSR, which correspond as closely as possible to the territory of the Reichskommissariat and other occupied regions, collect data on them necessary for comparison (plowing, gross yield, grain delivery and payment in kind, population, livestock, tractors, and so on).
Then it will be possible to very accurately study the dynamics of occupational agriculture in all its main characteristics.

for what purpose? What conclusions should be drawn from everything? As far as I understand, you are so unobtrusively trying to push us to the idea that under the occupiers, it’s not bad, or am I mistaken? Then reveal to us the secret, but the hell was all this written ?!

[Cartalon]

And the hell to study history at all?

[Alexander Suvorov]

Cartalon (Michael)
And the hell to study history at all?

History ... it is, of course, no one argues to teach, but what does this opus have to do with history? No, it is of course, this is also history, only it is customary to draw conclusions from history and ...?! What conclusions from this opus suggest? Can you tell me?
So I somehow lived almost fifty dollars without these data and did not die. Knowledge of history is of course very important, but the history of history is different. You can present the story this way, or it can be done that way. Usually in normal countries it is not customary to smear their history with crap, but quite the opposite, so that the younger generation would be proud of their country. And we have a competition for who will dig up more dirt and crap in their own history.
These data may be of interest to a narrow circle of historians, but they are in no way interesting to the masses, and they are not needed. For the country should be proud, and not delve into shit. The history of the United States is almost continuous filth, violence, murder and robbery of other peoples, and even genocide, but WHERE is there even a word about it in one textbook of the United States? I am silent about Hollywood, there are only some Americans throughout the history of mankind, "heroes", but the Russians are completely drunk, rags, subhumans. And no one sprinkles ashes on his head either for the civil war in the United States, or for the genocide of the Indians, or for all the crimes that the United States has committed, and from these crimes ALL their rotten history consists.

Well, now pour in a minus, "lovers" of history ...!

[Cartalon]

But I'm just wondering how it really was, and the fact that you need an agitation with confirmation of your views, there are so many of them, read enjoy

[Alexander Suvorov]

Cartalon (Michael)
But I'm just wondering how it really was

As it really was, I know from the words of my grandmother, who survived the occupation, and for me this is much more valuable than the delights of a certain Verkhoturov, who, according to his views, left not far from the Nazis.

and the fact that you need agitation with confirmation of your views, so full of them, read enjoy

Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you where to go ...

[Cartalon]

Well, no matter what a communist does not offend someone, this simply cannot

[Alexander Suvorov]

What did you see as an insult? And what does the communists have to do with it , I was not a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, at that time did not come out of age ... Or "bloody gebnya" interferes with sleep, climbs from all corners?

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Why are you getting into a dispute? Well, comrade grandmother's stories prefers numbers - his business. Well, he sees in anyone who doubts the officialdom and tries to analyze the nationalist, the Vlasov, etc. - and to hell with him. Vaughn, he has already suffered - Hollywood, Indians, US crimes. Can't you see that your opponent is an ordinary turbopatriot with hysterical habits? ))

[Alexander Suvorov]

Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
Well, my friend prefers grandma's stories to numbers

Here's my grandmother, already deceased, you shouldn't have touched ...
And the fact that Verkhoturov is a Nazi by his views does not know only deaf-and-blind.

Look, he has already suffered - Hollywood, Indians, US crimes.

And this was not in nature?

Can't you see that your opponent is an ordinary turbopatriot with hysterical habits? ))

Kaneshno ...

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Alexander Suvorov

Here's my grandmother, already deceased, you shouldn't have touched ...

and what, did I put it in an inappropriate tone? I said that her grandson prefers heroic fiction and oral epic over numbers and the conclusions that follow from them.

Quote: Alexander Suvorov

And this was not in nature?

What is it here? Well, drag the conquest here and the Armenian genocide.

Quote: Alexander Suvorov

Kaneshno ...

I am glad you agreed.

[Beringovsky]

Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.

.... heroic fiction and oral epic to figures ...

he sees in anyone who doubts the officialdom and tries to analyze

Just think how much pathos. By the way, our "officialdom" pours out numbers.
So should we doubt the numbers because this is "official"? Or not to doubt the "official" because these are numbers?
You will decide. And after all, 80% of those who voted for Luka are numbers. And the stories of the demonstrators are "oral epics"
How can this be?
By the way, I will tell you the variant with the Germans. Procurements of bread at 43 were high, not because they loved the peasants so much and did not take too much from them, neither! And because they dumped everything clean during the retreat. What's wrong? And if so (say), where do your conclusions fit? Such "analysis" is down the drain ...

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

... By the way, I will tell you the variant with the Germans

Yes, somehow I can do without your 'variants', do not push)

[Beringovsky]

You will get by, no doubt about it. But others will take thought I didn't write this to you in a personal note.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Beringovsky

But others will take thought

I really hope that these "others" do not suffer from patriotic reflections and are building a picture for themselves based on documents, and not agitational phrase-mongering. And it is desirable that among them there are no idiots who consider Verkhoturov a nationalist.

[My doctor]

Quote: Alexander Suvorov

Here's my grandmother, already deceased, you shouldn't have touched ...

How shoud I understand this? First, you mention your grandmother, and when they refer to your mention, you dismiss your snot by becoming in an offended pose.

[meandr51]

As if people like you do not use propaganda for breakfast, lunch and dinner ...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Alexander Suvorov

Well, you can describe yourself straight from emotion. Author, you wanted to say something with your opus? What do you achieve in the end? Why is this

And then, so that there are fewer questions like: "If the entire Soviet people, as one person, rose to fight against fascism, then where did the Reich and the Wehrmacht get food in 1942 and 1943?"
For without the USSR, the food balance of the Reich in the same 1941 was negative:

... from the USSR, in any situation and any mood of the local population, it is expected to receive 2.5 million tons of grain, which the USSR promised Germany from the 1941 harvest and which are already included in the Reich's food balance (without them in any way), 3 million tons of grain per army food (if you drag it from the Reich, there is not enough rail capacity) and about 2 million tons more for Germany’s obligations to Romania, Hungary and others. Total approximately 8 million tons of grain.

© D. Shein
And then we first replace history with propaganda from the GlavpUR, and then we are wildly surprised, for example, at the repair of armored vehicles in Kharkov under the Germans.

[ccsr]

Quote: Alexey RA

And then we first replace history with propaganda from the GlavpUR, and then we are wildly surprised, for example, at the repair of armored vehicles in Kharkov under the Germans.

If they put you against the wall with your family, or promise to send everyone to a concentration camp, then you would agree to repair German armored vehicles in Kharkov at that time. So the point is not in GlavPUR, but in the fact that many people in the occupied lands had no choice, that is why people did not want to die of starvation and went to work for the Germans. Moreover, there were no repressions against them in the post-war USSR, unless our citizens participated in the punitive structures of Germany. Here are eyewitness accounts of the work of MTS in the occupied territory:

Two months after the liberation of Kerch, an open trial took place over the leadership of the Kerch MTS. Ordinary workers were witnesses: locksmiths, turners, mechanics. My father was also assigned to the same category of participants in the trial. I personally knew all the defendants, since I often visited my father when he worked in this MTS as a chief accountant. It was clear to me that these people were not inveterate enemies of the Soviet regime. Their complicity was forced, passive. They became victims of the prevailing circumstances and political thoughtlessness, to which the usual human greed was mingled. The decision made by the director of MTS Dregalev was correct: to put the equipment into operation and use German fuel for sowing winter crops. Rural communities, former collective farms, received payment in kind — grain and flour. Dregalev died suddenly in the summer, his place was taken by the chief mechanic Bespaly. The agreement continued, flour flowed in sacks into the homes of managers, while ordinary MTS employees received a modest supplement to the rations determined by the German authorities. My father's share was no less than that of other managers of the enterprise, but his sacks of flour disappeared on the way home, flour was distributed to the families of former MTS employees who served in the Red Army. The bosses exchanged flour for values. My mother grumbled at my father, comparing our supermode life with the lives of other members of the leadership. Now everything is out. The MGB officers did a long painstaking work, figuring out the details of very quiet cases that did not cause damage to the Soviet regime. The accused were reminded of this at the hearing. They also recalled how they ran away from the Soviet regime in cars loaded with junk ... They reminded them of their exceptional diligence in preparing for the dispatch of agricultural machinery to Germany. They were not sent, but there was no merit of the leadership. Interrogating my father at the trial, the state prosecutor asked the question: "Explain to the court how the disruption of the shipment of tractors and combines to Germany was carried out?" The father replied: “The locksmith Klindukh came to me and asked what to do? I told him that everything must be done so that the cars are not sent! The Germans will leave, how will we raise the earth? I do not understand technology, but I think that there are such small parts, without which the car will not go. Everything needs to be done subtly so that Fischer doesn't notice. Moreover, it is necessary not to suspend the work, but to make it even more intense so that the manager, a German, sees how well you are working! " “Weren't you afraid? - asked the prosecutor. "I was afraid, but hoped that in a hurry of gatherings, the Germans would not have time for us." A question to the defendant, the chief mechanic: “Have you heard the witness's answer? Explain why the locksmith went to the chief accountant, and not to you, who is in charge of the technician? " The chief mechanic, spreading his hands, answered: "I don't know!" The office space where the trial took place was completely filled with people. I listened and was proud of my father. “How smart he is,” I thought, “he foresaw everything! If he had obeyed his mother, he would have sat next to the accused. " And the correct conclusion was made: "They don't eat bread for nothing in the MGB!"

[Alexey RA]

Quote: ccsr

If they put you against the wall with your family, or promise to send everyone to a concentration camp, then you would agree to repair German armored vehicles in Kharkov at that time. So the point is not in GlavPUR, but in the fact that many people in the occupied lands had no choice, that is why people did not want to die of starvation and went to work for the Germans.

This is why it is necessary to write about this, recognizing that there were facts, and these facts are far from being isolated. And we need to analyze what pushed people to cooperate.
And then with us forever - then they will write down as traitors, then as victims of the regime.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Alexey RA

And then with us forever - then they will write down as traitors, then as victims of the regime.

well, but when it comes to some Czechs with CKD, French from Brest shipyards, or Dutch from Rotterdam docks, then the mode

If they put you against the wall with your family or promise to send everyone to a concentration camp

and the "collaborators ... plowed for Hitler ... voluntarily ..." and so on.

[hohol95]

First, we must be surprised at the refusals to evacuate the same workers of the Kharkov factories !!!
Not ordinary plumbers helped with the repair of tanks ...

[Astra wild]

"Under the occupiers, it’s not bad, and life" I did not notice that the author was praising the occupiers. He just shared the documents he found, and how to interpret them is a personal matter of readers

[Serg koma]

Quote: Alexander Suvorov

You are so unobtrusively trying to push us to the idea that under the occupiers it’s not bad

And finally, the "order of jurisdiction" deprived Soviet civilians of the right to complain, which in fact justified a priori any crimes committed against them by German soldiers - robbery, murder and rape. The order, signed on May 13 by Field Marshal Keitel, justified all this on the basis that “in the defeat of 1918, the subsequent period of suffering of the German people and the struggle against National Socialism, accompanied by a large number of bloody sacrifices in the name of the movement, one can trace the Bolshevik influence. No German should forget this "

. [quote] [/ quote] / BA-MA, RW 4 / 577. /
- from the book Anthony Beevor> Stalingrad> Page 7 (specially for the author of the article, a quote from a British historian is taken)
An article with "calculations" of the success of the invaders is very similar to eyewash, just like the data on the "great aces" of the Luftwaffe.
To cultivate the cultivated areas, human resources are needed, mechanization, as the author of the article points out, is practically absent, horses are requisitioned / in addition to natural losses from hostilities / by both sides, in most cases the "culled" ones end up in agriculture. The able-bodied male population of military age falls out of the ranks of agricultural workers, as it is "at work" either in the Red Army, or in the Wehrmacht, in the police, or partisans. We add here the human losses of the working population as a result of hostilities, punitive operations, and those evacuated, no one will be opening the export of labor to Germany, the number of the deported population from Ukraine was 2 people (TsGAOO of Ukraine, F.033, op.639, Ref. 1, l. 23-4351.) Hence the conclusion - the calculations are false. Without mechanization, without full-fledged horse-drawn traction, without human working resources, the Reich could not increase the production of grain in relation to the pre-war period.
The photographs clearly demonstrate - the Fritzes are working, the women are in control, reports on "shock harvests" go to the top

[EvilLion]

I would not be surprised to the working Fritzes, there were few peasants among them, especially those who were aged and did not get into the line units on the front line. Of course, finding himself in some Russian village, he will think about what to eat in winter. For a normal peasant, wherever he is, unplowed land is a crime. Well, since there are no local men, or very few, but maybe there is a horse, or oxen, in the end, the Germans themselves need to move on something, and vehicles and gasoline go to the front line, plus free time (they will not be there as a military to engage in preparation, as in places of permanent deployment, and a partisan, if he is, does not attack every day), then you yourself will stand behind the plow.

[your1970]

Quote: Serg Koma

The photographs clearly demonstrate - the Fritzes are working, the women are in control, reports on "shock harvests" go to the top

There is a Trouble in your calculations - the Wehrmacht wants to eat, you can't feed it with a "shock crop" - it demands bread ... Here the rear operators would not have gotten off the postscript ...

[Serg koma]

Quote: your1970

The rear officials would not have gotten rid of it here.

Read the memories. 1941 - retreating on wheat, 1943 - advancing on wheat ...
I do not doubt in any way that agricultural work was carried out under occupation, otherwise how to survive? We need money, we need bread, if you want to live, go to work.
Another thing is the "report" and the postscript. I will repeat once again - without mechanization, without full-fledged horse traction, without human working resources - the Reich could not raise grain production in relation to the pre-war period.
If you believe the data from the article, we get the following picture -

At the same time, he also "plows" for the occupiers for at least five.

[your1970]

Quote: Serg Koma

I repeat once again - without mechanization, without full-fledged horse-drawn traction, without human working resources - the Reich could not increase grain production in relation to the pre-war period.

could quite easily - the decree "on three spikelets" was invented not because of the villainy of "stalin's stalwart teran", but from the reality of life - the collective farmers were dragging grain from the fields and a lot ... That is why the pre-war yield statistics are lower than the actual one.
Exactly the same situation was later in the USSR - for example, our standard tariff was a liter of vodka for a grain bunker to a combine operator ...
This is one of the reasons that now our farmers get more grain harvests than in the USSR on a smaller area ..

Well, under the Germans, for theft or harboring, the population simply received a bullet right there on the spot, without trial or investigation.
Without men, horses and mechanization, harvests comparable to pre-war ones indicate that at least a third of the harvest before the war was stolen

[Serg koma]

it's a deal then

Quote: your1970

Well, under the Germans, for theft or harboring, the population simply received a bullet right there on the spot, without trial or investigation.

It is not mechanization that helps to increase the productivity of an individual several times, but the concentration camp and the fear of death instead of camps
Further, following your logic, reducing workers (without mechanization) to a minimum - leads to an unprecedented increase in yield due to a decrease in food products per worker (i.e. they eat less ) and to reduce the plundering of Reich property. Now, if the Reich drove into the fields ... x100 = more people, the (actual) yield would undoubtedly go down, because there would be a need to feed more and an increased number of armed guards. And so, for one employee working for five, one security guard is enough
Probably you do not completely doubt the veracity of the statistics provided by the Reich (in any sources) and the statistics of the Luftwaffe (for example) are infallible for you.

[your1970]

Quote: Serg Koma

Further, following your logic, reducing workers (without mechanization) to a minimum - leads to an unprecedented increase in yield due to a decrease in food products per worker (i.e. they eat less

I did not write this - these are your ideas ..

Once again, it is impossible to feed the army with the additions to the war.
I hope you understand that if Soviet stocks were taken away in 1941, there were no horses or workers, and the harvest of 1942-43 is comparable to the pre-war harvest - this means that the actual pre-war harvests were much higher than the "paper" harvests.

If German statistics were wrong, the railway transportation would be occupied by grain, and not by the famous many times mentioned French cognac, Italian conservatory and other delicacies

[svp67]

Quote: ROSS 42

Another fact is interesting, why until the 50s in Ukraine there were bandit formations in the form of a well-known organization? And why did they fight with them for so long?

And that only there were similar gangs? And only there they fought for so long?

[parusnik]

And what did the author want to say: like, in the occupied territories, "liberated" Soviet citizens worked better than under Soviet rule? Did you get record harvests for the Germans?

[Cartalon]

Or maybe he wanted to say exactly what he wrote?

[Blacksmith 55]

Why immediately reproach the author.
Figures are stubborn things. And people had to work in the occupied territory, otherwise you would stretch your legs. And after all, not only the adult population was under occupation, there were many children, their diet was already cut back.
Therefore, it is necessary to understand those people, and not only in the countryside, but also in the city.
This is not an excuse for Nazi crimes.

[parusnik]

And people had to work in the occupied territory, otherwise you would stretch your legs.

... And I don’t argue with that .. And they raised bread, mined coal, cooked steel .. "Whoever wants to rattle, to Great Germany, he puts to kushat, a delicious hang a long ferefka ".. This is how my grandmother worked in the occupation and at that time there were 8 souls of children, the youngest mother, with older children. And on the square of the village, the gallows stood and was not empty. That is the high yield in the occupied territories.

[antivirus]

"Whoever goes to rake to Great Germany, he goes to kyushat, delicious pea soup.
- = I had to ask Lucy Gurchenko, she survived the occupation in Kharkiv

and without saliva in each other there would be an answer

[Astra wild]

Sailboat, you yourself answered the question about high yields "

[Astra wild]

The author SAYS ANYTHING. He gives dry numbers. And about the "record harvests" he himself writes: "how many in 1934", and in 1934 the harvests were not the greatest

[Olgovich]

Second, with what to compare, what state of pre-war agriculture can be taken as the starting point of comparison? The data for the late 1930s are not very suitable, since at this time agriculture was already for the most part mechanized

The difficulties of the author are not clear: it is a well-known fact that the yield of the "horse" 1913 was mechanized. collective farm agriculture reached only by 1956

The German harvest could be comparable to the pre-war

But this does not mean that people wanted to work for the invaders. This speaks to something completely different ...

[Foul skeptic]

The difficulties of the author are not clear: it is a well-known fact that mechanized collective farm agriculture reached the yield of the "horse" 1913 only by 1956.

The goal of agricultural mechanization in any country is to reduce production costs, not increase yields. Due to this, the crop can be removed from large areas that cannot be mastered by horses alone. But due to a decrease in yield (again, due to the fact that less man-hours of care is spent per unit of product). Productivity is increased by adhering to the agricultural cycle and chemistry.
To see the impact of the mechanization of the late 30s in comparison with 1913, one must look at the dynamics of sown areas, and not at the yield of crops.

[ccsr]

Quote: Olgovich

that the yield of the "horse" 1913 was reached by mechanized collective farm agriculture only by 1956.

Well, there is no need to compare so primitively, because the yield is measured in centners per hectare, and in 1913, almost 90% of the inhabitants of Russia were peasants. But most importantly, you forgot to point out that between 1913 and 1956 there were two world wars and one Civil War, and this could not affect the general level of development of agriculture, at least in terms of the destruction of human resources.

[Olgovich]

Quote: ccsr

Well, no need to compare so primitively, because the yield is measured in centners per hectare, and in 1913, almost 90% of the inhabitants of Russia were peasants.

How does 90% of the peasantry of the inhabitants of Ingushetia affect ... yield (amount of grain per hectare)?

Quote: ccsr

But most importantly, you forgot to point out that between 1913 and 1956 there were two world wars and one civil

К NEP In 1928, the indicators of food consumption almost reached the level of 1913, but in the thirties, during the muhanization and collective farms, everything collapsed in the consumption of meat, milk, eggs, butter, etc.

[ccsr]

Quote: Olgovich

How does 90% of the peasantry of the inhabitants of Ingushetia affect ... yield (amount of grain per hectare)?

It is easier to get higher yields from small plots, any summer resident will confirm this to you.
But for commodity production with a decrease in rural residents in the country, not only crop yields are important, but also the volume of crops - have you studied political economy or so, have you slept through all the lectures? Or maybe you haven't heard of such a science at all?

Quote: Olgovich

but in the thirties, during the muhanization and collective farms, everything collapsed on the consumption of meat, milk, eggs, butter, etc.

You definitely did not study the history of the country, otherwise you would know that the industrialization of the twenties and thirties required an outflow of rural residents for construction projects and work in cities, which is why the decline in agricultural production was obvious. That is why it was decided to carry out collectivization in order to achieve an increase in commodity production in LARGE farms by supplying them with advanced technology, including tractors and combines. I sometimes read your texts and I get the impression that either you are mowing like an eccentric, or you really have gaps in basic history education, at least at the level of Soviet universities. Maybe it's time to quit this - do you think that one is so cunning here and no one sees your fraud?

[Olgovich]

Quote: ccsr

It is easier to get higher yields from small plots, any summer resident will confirm this to you

You only do not blurt out this nude to your former teachers in economics and History, otherwise their kondraty will be enough: the yield in the Republic of Ingushetia on small peasant plots was just is low (because of the outdated, at that time, methods of cultivating the land, but the peasantry learned quickly), but in estates of large landowners - it was much HIGHER.

Hack into your forehead

Quote: ccsr

But for commodity production with a decrease in rural residents in the country, not only crop yields are important, but also volumes crops - have you studied political economy or so, slept through all the lectures? Or maybe you haven't heard of such a science at all?

those. Extensive farming is more important than Intensive methods to ensure production?
Do you even read Stalin about the tasks to increase yields

Or in your "high school" taught only tails of animals, um. , Yes?

Quote: ccsr

You definitely did not study the history of the country, otherwise you would know that the industrialization of the twenties and thirties required an outflow of rural residents for construction projects and work in cities, here why the decline in agricultural production was obvious.

What kind of nonsense are you talking about?
Read the leaders: according to reports at congresses, etc., there were no "recessions", but there was a constant growth. "

Quote: ccsr

That is why it was decided to carry out collectivization in order to achieve an increase in commodity production in LARGE farms by supplying them with advanced technology, including tractors and combines.

1. Learn WHAT is "commodity".

2. When you learn it, then it will come (but I'm not sure) that there is no more "marketable" grain, not because they began to produce much more bread, but because they began to take much more of it, for which the collective farms were created.
From which it became much easier and easier to tear three skins than from an individual peasant.

Quote: ccsr

... I sometimes read your texts and I get the impression thatabout whether you mow under an eccentric, ... Maybe it's time to quit this - do you think that one is so cunning here and no one sees your fraud?

Reading your "texts", I see that you DO NOT squint under the blow, yes

Quote: ccsr

Maybe it's time to quit this - you think that there is one like this here hee

You don’t tie, because it’s funny!

[Foul skeptic]

Andrei, good afternoon!
May I correct you?

but on the estates of large landowners, it was much HIGHER

For peasants with small plots, it was lower because the land was not allocated for fallow (there is little land), because there is no manure (there are few livestock), because the sowing density is less (part of the sowing seeds were eaten up in winter). None of this applies to questions of mechanization.
All other things being equal, small-scale farming in the first half of the 20th century will outperform large-scale farming only because 1) large losses from weeds, pests and diseases will be higher until chemistry appears 2) large losses during mechanized harvesting will be higher for now the technique of a later period will not appear.

that there is no more "marketable" grain because much more grain has been produced

RGAE f.1562, op. 41, units. xp. 65
It seems that the growth of crop production is higher than the growth of the population, so more surpluses are formed, and this is an increase in marketability.
PS You can immediately assess the marketability of NEP and compare 1928 to 1913 to understand that NEP did not cope with providing the population with products.

[Olgovich]

And yes

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Andrei, good afternoon!
May I correct you?

Hello Timur!
Correct - in what? Small, in comparison with large arable land, the yield of peasant farms is undeniable fact.

The reasons were not discussed, but I note that the yield is also a small cross. farms of the West are much higher.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

RGAE f.1562, op. 41, units. xp. 65

Throw away these stupid propaganda materials in the trash, invented immediately after the Hunger 33g and check out the REAL numbers that 30% less false agitation: The national economy of the USSR for 70 years (Jubilee statistical yearbook). Finance and statistics M. 1988 p. 208, 210

General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee:

grain harvest in 1953 -5 billion 05 million poods, grain harvest 1913 - 5 billion 250 million poods.

Few?
Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee A. B. Aristov, 1952

“I was in Ryazan. - What is there? Outages? - No, I say, comrade Stalin, not interruptions, but there has been no bread for a long time, no oil, no sausage. I stood in line with Larionov at 6-7 am, checked. No bread anywhere.

Few?
collective farmer from the Kurgan region O. P. Zhideleva:

“I went to buy some baked bread in the store, but the seller doesn't sell me in any way, he says that only to teachers. Now grief takes me: we produce bread and sit without breadand. There is no bread for children. We eat potatoes.

Consumption of at least bread at the level of 1913 could not be provided even after forty years

So all this:

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

It seems that the growth of crop production is higher than the growth of the population, so more surpluses are formed, and this is an increase in marketability.

, sorry, nonsense.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

You can immediately assess the marketability of NEP and compare 1928 to 1913 in order to understand that NEP did not cope with providing the population with products.

NEP restored the country. The NDP fed people, unlike in subsequent years.

[Foul skeptic]

Correct - in what? The small, in comparison with large arable land, the yield of peasant farms is an indisputable fact.

And here no one argued about where is higher and where is lower.
I am correcting you that you cite this fact as a counterargument to this:

It is easier to get higher yields from small plots, any summer resident will confirm this to you

In this cssr is right (regardless of whether he understands correctly why it is so)

Throw away these stupid agitation in the trash, invented immediately after the Hunger of 33g and get acquainted with the REAL figures, which are 30% less than the false agitation: The national economy of the USSR for 70 years (Anniversary statistical yearbook). Finance and statistics M. 1988 p. 208, 210

I would not say that the 50th is immediately after the famine of the 33rd.
To understand where I brought the page from the last message.

That is secret internal document - agitation, and compilation for promotion to the masses (positioning it as a jubilee one directly indicates this) - not agitation. Especially in 1988. You have an interesting approach to the evaluation of documents. In my opinion, it is very categorical. Friendly advice in general on comparing numbers for the same thing from different sources - without knowing the method of obtaining numbers, they cannot be considered equivalent.
All that you give below is the "products" of the not unknown congress, they first appeared there. I have already pointed out to you in detail in one of my previous conversations about the frauds of Nikita Sergeevich and Co. By the way, you missed Andreyev's letter, you also usually copy an excerpt from it. In general, the collection is not replete with variety (I mean that the resources where you get it from do not bother themselves, and "people hawala" without analysis). If you write in a personal, I will send you a lot of interesting things from the archives, where you can still find "horror". We must somehow diversify the texts in the end. The same letter from Andreev - a letter not about the lack of food, but about the fact that there are bad comrades whom it is desirable to order, since speculation blooms in full bloom in collusion with these bad comrades, and products from the state network are bought and sold privately. But they forget to add it in the Internet garbage))

It seems that the growth of crop production is higher than the growth of the population, so more surpluses are formed, and this is an increase in marketability.

sorry, nonsense.

No, this is an explanation of an economic term in an accessible language.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

I am correcting you that you cite this fact as a counterargument to this:
It is easier to get higher yields from small plots, any summer resident will confirm this to you

In this cssr is right (regardless of whether he understands correctly why it is so)

It was SPECIFICALLY about RI... Therefore, he is WRONG.

And the fact that people in the USSR worked for HIMSELF much better, we have already discussed: when on miserable scraps of household farms they produced agricultural products in volumes comparable to the entire collective farm production.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

I would not say that the 50th is immediately after the famine of the 33rd.
To understand where I brought the page from the last message.

Immediately after 1933, the "advanced" method of calculating the yield was introduced - "biological" - and this with WILD losses during harvesting, storage and transportation.

There was no more bread from this: as they swelled and died in 31,32,33, 1937, 1930, so they swelled up in the blessed 1940, and wild hunger throughout the 1950s, and the XNUMXs and XNUMXs starved.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

That is, a secret document of internal use - agitation,

Why are you surprised? And what other numbers could they get from? Another point of view was shot. They LIED everyone and they themselves lived in a lie, considering it to be true.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

, and a collection for promotion to the masses (positioning it as an anniversary one directly indicates this) is not agitation. Especially in 1988.

And that's right, 1988: people are smarter and more information

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Friendly advice in general on comparing numbers for the same thing from different sources - without knowing the method of obtaining numbers, they cannot be considered equivalent.

The advice is useless, because it is a long-known axiom. Any conscientious author leads everything to a single basic frame of reference, otherwise one counts in parrots, the other counts the same in meters.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

If you write in a personal, I will send you a lot of interesting things from the archives, where you can still find "horror". We must somehow diversify the texts in the end.

1. Send, I will be grateful.

2. None of the above is NOT refuted

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

The same letter from Andreev

What is this?

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

No, this is an explanation of the economic term accessible language.

There was, practically, no growth in production, and this was the growth of the population.

And there was HUNGER. Practically, all the years - often with massive hunger swelling and deaths (and this is in the middle of the 20th century in Europe!) - this is an explanation of REALITY in accessible language.

[Foul skeptic]

It was SPECIFICALLY about RI.

Is it? I see that it was about the difference between mechanized and non-mechanized agriculture. And not agriculture RI, USSR or Alpha Centauri.

what yields "horse" 1913 г mechanized collective farm Agriculture reached only by 1956.

And the fact that people in the USSR worked FOR HIMSELF better, we have already discussed

Discuss something discussed. But the conclusions I look have not been done once again you repeat this

: when on miserable scraps of household plots they produced agricultural products in volumes comparable to all collective farm production.

Immediately after 1933, the "advanced" method of calculating the yield was introduced - "biological" - and this with WILD losses during harvesting, storage and transportation.

I disassemble in parts:

Right after 1933

The question of an adequate assessment of the yield has been raised since the mid-20s. Control threshing came into practice in 1931. Everything that happened after 1933, namely in 1934, instead of one criterion, they began to use three - biological, normal economic, barn.

the "advanced" method of calculating the yield was introduced - "biological"

What was advanced was the use of not 1, but 3 indicators in the yield calculation. One of which was biological. Because only in this case it is possible to find out at what stage of the production of the final product there is a reserve for increasing the indicator and how this can be achieved.
1) Biological harvest. The amount of produce grown but not yet harvested.
2) Normal economic. Corrections are introduced for losses that are considered acceptable. It turns out by multiplying the biological by these amendments
3) Barn. How many were poured onto the elevator.
By comparing the barn and normal-economic, a conclusion is made about the possible reserve. If the discrepancy is significant - either the work is improperly delivered, or abuse. If not essential - the work is delivered normally, there is no reserve in the barn figure. A further increase in productivity is possible in a biological indicator due to the introduction of the achievements of scientific and technological progress. And the cycle starts again. Roughly speaking, with this approach, the problem breaks down into many steps and steps: Did we grow a little? - We collected little? - We transported little? - We saved little? If you have grown a lot, but have kept a little, then we are looking for a problem either in cleaning, or in transportation, or in storage. If you have grown a lot and removed a lot, but retained a little, then the problem is either in transportation or in storage. Etc. This is the right business approach.

this is with WILD losses during cleaning, storage and transportation

I remember you still like to cite Sholokhov's correspondence. I advise you to read it carefully. I think you will remember the place where he talks to the combine operator, who tells you where to tweak and pour yourself a pood and a half from a hectare. Or where the team rotting the harvested grain.

Why are you surprised? And what other numbers could they get from? Another point of view was shot. They LIED everyone and they themselves lived in a lie, considering it to be true.

Unproven. And it contradicts the logic in the situation we are considering. The fact that in animal husbandry the same document honestly shows a two-fold fall is only a confirmation of this - they would lie, they would lie everywhere. They shoot the same.

The advice is useless, because it is a long-known axiom. Any conscientious author leads everything to a single basic frame of reference, otherwise one counts in parrots, the other counts the same in meters.

Then it turns out that you are an unscrupulous author, since you brought the collection after the 60th year when compared with the figures for the collection of the issue before the 60th year. Explain why? Can you remind me when the abolition of MTS began? And do not tell me how the collective farms paid off with MTS? In the collection of '88, the granary harvest is what was unloaded in the elevator, in the collections before 1960 it is transferred to the elevator minus transferred to the MTS as payment for work.
Therefore, there is no

And that's right, 1988: people are smarter and more information

There are different forms of accounting

1. Send, I will be grateful.
2. None of the above is NOT refuted

1. That's why I wrote about private messages, I won't send my grandfather to the village)) Write in a personal message where and how to send - mail or whatever is more convenient, I will send the materials.
2. Purely hypothetically, who would deny it then or now? And how can this be done after a while? It's like Powell's tube.

What is this?

Forgive me, I misled, I meant Peters, and wrote Andreev, you always bring him.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Is it? I see that it was about the difference between mechanized and non-mechanized agriculture. And not agriculture RI, USSR or Alpha Centauri.
that the yield of "horse" 1913 g mechanized collective farm agriculture reached only by 1956

What do you say: on Alpha Centauri .... were there also COLLECTORS?

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

repeat this again

You were given irrefutable FACTS

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

A further increase in productivity is possible in a biological indicator due to the introduction of the achievements of scientific and technological progress.

Well, what a "NTP", when everyone just didn’t give a damn about no man's bread?

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

This is the right business approach.

ONCE AGAIN: biological yield recorded in statistics as REALLY harvested is a common FALSE cubed.

And before that, too, a lie and also with terrible consequences, for the rulers relying on it, did not understand -In what world do they live: Stalin, 1933:

"Harvest 1932 gode - NOT WORSE than the harvest of 1931 "

And after that, millions died "no worse".

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

with a combine operator, who tells what to twist and from a hectare a pood and a half to pour yourself. Or where the brigade rotting the harvested grain.

Pathetic arguments.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Unproven. And it contradicts the logic in the situation we are considering. The fact that in animal husbandry the same document honestly shows a two-fold fall is only a confirmation of this - they would lie, they would lie everywhere. They shoot the same.

And who said that the fall was ... two times, and not more?
And statisticians were proven to shoot, and how, no matter how they sucked up and yelled at his genius.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Therefore, there is no

It is objectivity and safety to be shot

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

1. That's why I wrote about private messages, I won't send my grandfather to the village)) Write in a personal message where and how to send - mail or whatever is more convenient, I will send the materials.

You said about the mail .... just now.

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Sorry, misled, I meant Peters,

And a good collection of documents from the Central Committee of the PR, where it was published, there are many interesting things, I liked the note about the built dacha on Lake Ritsa in 34000m3, a floating pavilion of 600m3, a hydroelectric power station to it, and in the famine-death 1847, a letter from a peasant about the unprecedented savagery of collective farm life and etc.

[Foul skeptic]

There was, practically, no growth in production, and this was the growth of the population.

In comparison with 1913 - the population is comparable. If the growth of the population in the 30s is considered, the growth of production is higher anyway. He was even in animal husbandry, although the situation there after narrow-minded citizens reduced the number of cattle by 38%, by 66% in the number of pigs, by 56% in the number of sheep was in a much more deplorable state (and this decline was not by 1932, but by 1931 year, so you will not fasten hunger). And in plant growing, I showed you the growth of gross harvest. Please remember that the whole controversy began with a comparison of the non-mechanized and the mechanized era. Mechanization is a technical phenomenon, not an administrative one. Therefore, the biological yield depends on mechanization, and not the granary. Therefore, there is no need to play with numbers. But even if we take the data not "from the liar Stalin," but from the "whistleblower Khrushchev," according to the "most correct method"

Here is the "barn harvest" of wheat.
Period 33-37 - 25,4 million tons
Period 09-13 - 19,9 million tons
Since the harvest is barn, this amount is not given for the services of MTS. We look at the rates of payment in kind in kg / ha with a yield of 7-9 c / ha for grain crops:
- for collective farms of the Uzbek SSR, the Turkmen SSR, the Azerbaijan SSR, the Georgian SSR and the Armenian SSR: raising the fallow, raising the fall, spring plowing, plowing for winter crops and two fallows - 115 kg; sowing - 12kg; 9% of grain from harvested by harvesters, 6% from threshed by threshers). Total: (115 + 12) / 700 = 18% (115 + 12) / 900 = 14%. (14 ... 18%) + 9% + 6% = 29 ... 33% is given by the collective farm MTS
- for the collective farms of the Bashkir ASSR, Buryat-Mongol ASSR, Crimean ASSR, Moldavian ASSR, ASSR Germans of the Volga region, Tatar ASSR, Altai, Krasnoyarsk, Krasnodar, Ordzhonikidze (except for the Karachaevskaya and Cherkessk aut.regions and the Kizlyar region of the Khabarovsk region), Primorskiy okr. , Voroshilovograd, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, Kirovograd (except for areas annexed from the Kiev region), Nikolaev, Odessa, Poltava (except for areas annexed from the Kiev region), Stalin, Sumy (except for areas annexed from the Chernigov region), Kharkov , Irkutsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Rostov, Stalingrad, Sverdlovsk (for areas annexed by Chelyabinsk and Omsk regions), Chita, Chelyabinsk, Chkalovsk, left bank of Kuibyshev and left bank of Saratov regions - the same amount only when harvesting is not 9%, but 8% , which means 28 ... 32% is given by the collective farm MTS
- for collective farms of the Byelorussian SSR, Kazakh SSR, Kirghiz SSR, Tajik SSR, Dagestan ASSR, Kabardino-Balkarian ASSR, Kalmyk ASSR, Mordovian ASSR, North Ossetian ASSR, Chechen-Ingush ASSR, Yakut ASSR, Vinnitsa, Zhitomir-Podsk, Kamenets Kiev, Kirovograd (for areas annexed from the Kiev region), Poltava (for areas annexed from the Kiev region.), Sumy (for areas annexed from the Chernigov region), Chernigov, Voronezh, Kursk, Oryol (for areas annexed from the Voronezh and Kursk regions), Penza, Ryazan (for areas annexed from the Voronezh region), Tambov, the right bank of the Kuibyshev and the right bank of the Saratov region, Karachaev and Cherkess auth. region and the Kizlyar District of the Ordzhonikidze Territory: raising fallows, raising a fall, spring plowing, plowing for winter crops and two fallows - 80 kg; sowing - 8kg; 6% of grain from harvested by harvesters, 5% from threshed by threshers). Total: (80 + 8) / 700 = 13% (80 + 8) / 900 = 10%. (10 ... 13%) + 6% + 5% = 21 ... 24% is given by the collective farm MTS.
I'll even take the lowest possible value - 21%
25,4 / (1-0,21) = 32,2 million tons
Growth of wheat production in 33-37 compared to 13-09 at 62% minimum.
And you will not be able to move out simply by discarding this calculation. For the simple reason that even forgetting about the payment of MTS, it turns out that 28% more wheat was received (25,4 / 19,9) during this period. And the population did not grow by 28% and exports did not grow by 28%. I have a presentiment that this is also a collection of the "wrong system" with the wrong numbers

[Olgovich]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

after narrow-minded citizens reduced the number of cattle by 38%

Citizens, they are just distant, survived and be fruitful for THOUSANDS of years, but the rulers who DRIED these citizens to cut out their own cattle of a million starvation and cannibalism are yes, not far-off and this is very mildly

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

In comparison with 1913 - the population is comparable. If population growth in the 30s is considered

What is this ... "population growth in the 30s?
We discussed this topic - a demographic CATASTROPHE with a failure of millions of people:
Stlain about 1933 - we are 168 million, 1939 census - population (without stupid postscripts - 167 million)

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Therefore, the biological yield depends on mechanization, and not the granary.

And do manual chains work for the barn-horse?

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

I showed you the growth of gross harvest in crop production.

You have been answered with the official statement of the Secretary General

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

As a barn crop, this amount without given for MTS services.

1.The actual harvest, or granary harvest, there is an economically completed result of production. In terms of its size, it is less than the standing crop (Wнк) by the amount of losses P, namely

Wf = Wnk - P
All-no exceptions

2. Tell us about elevators ... MTS for BILLIONS of poods grains: quantity, volume, storage costs, andx reporting and pr

, [/ b]

Quote: Nefarious skeptic

Growth of wheat production in 33-37 compared to 13-09 at 62% minimum.

1.According to the collection "The National Economy of the USSR for 70 Years (Jubilee Statistical Yearbook). Finance and Statistics M. 1988 -
Grain harvest 1928,1935,1940ONE AND THE SAME -73 million tonnes - all NAME!

2. [b] Consumption bread-BELOW 1913 and in 1937 and in 1940 and later Report of the Central Statistical Administration of the USSR 1955

3 (blessed, according to your accounts, year) -massive swelling from hunger, hunger diseases and HUNGER MORTALITY in Russia
... Famine and in 1939 and 1940 - wild queues for bread

WHERE are your deceitful increase in ,, 62% ?!

[ccsr]

Quote: Olgovich

, but in the estates of large landowners, it was much HIGHER.

So why the hell do you then accuse Stalin of collectivization, if you yourself know very well that large agricultural producers have the best indicators for commodity production? Here are statistics on mechanization of that time, even on large farms:

The level of technical equipment of agriculture was low. More than 52% of peasant farms did not have plows, cultivating the land with plows and roe deer. In 1913, there were only 152 tractors in Russia (in the USA, Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, the number of tractors was in the thousands and tens of thousands). 80% of agricultural work was done by hand (although in 1908-1913 the agricultural machinery park grew significantly).

And where is progressive agriculture on large farms here?

Quote: Olgovich

Extensive farming is more important than Intensive methods to ensure production?

The development of virgin lands just showed that sometimes it is necessary to use extensive farming. What is criminal here if there was an urgent need to raise grain production? By the way, it was in tsarist times that the development of Siberia began through the development of new lands, i.e. clearly not an intensive path was chosen.

Quote: Olgovich

When you learn it, then it will come (but I'm not sure) that there is no more "marketable" grain, not because they began to produce much more bread, but because they began to take much more of it, for which the collective farms were created.

And already in tsarist times there was splendor, but such that even the term "crop failure" was introduced instead of "hunger":

England, France, Germany, producing grain of less than 500 kg per capita, were its importers. USA, Canada, Argentina, producing 800-1200 kg of grain per capita exported it. And only Russia, producing less than 500 kg (the norm of self-sufficiency in production grain) of grain per capita, exported it. Those. export went at the expense of dooming part of the population to malnutrition and hunger. Even tsarist officers and generals testified that 40% of conscripts at the beginning of the twentieth century. ate meat for the first time in the army.

[Olgovich]

Quote: ccsr

So why the hell do you then accuse Stalin of collectivization, if you yourself know very well that large agricultural producers have the best indicators for commodity production? Here are statistics on mechanization of that time, even on large farms:

Yes, because MILLIONS OF PEOPLE in the PEACEFUL YEAR 32-33 died in your collective paradise, it came, didn't it?
Swollen all 30 years, in the year of built socialism in 1937, g-massive swelling from hunger and hungry deaths

Quote: ccsr

And where is progressive agriculture on large farms here?

in LARGE farms, the urohayness in RI is HIGHER than in small ones. This is PROGRESS.

Quote: ccsr

The development of virgin lands just showed that sometimes it is necessary to use extensive farming. What is criminal here if there was an urgent need to raise grain production?

Got zilch-in relation to costs and losses.

In Ingushetia there was both development and INTENSIFICATION, because it was impossible to resettle 40 million of the "surplus" peasantry

Quote: ccsr

And already in tsarist times there was splendor, but such that even the term "crop failure" was introduced instead of "hunger":
England, France, Germany, producing less than 500 kg of grain per capita, were its importers, the USA, Canada, Argentina, producing 800-1200 kg of grain per capita and exported it. And only Russia, producing less than 500 kg (the rate of self-sufficiency in production grain) of grain per capita, exported it. Those. exports came at the expense of condemning part of the population to malnutrition and hunger. Even tsarist officers and generals testified that 40% of conscripts at the beginning of the twentieth century. for the first time in their lives they ate meat in the army.

In this regard, you must remember: with your idols, millions Died of hunger in 1921,22,24,25,28,32,33,37,39,46,47, and they were starving -all time.
This kind of starvation mortality in peacetime was not in AFRICA alone.

[ccsr]

Quote: Olgovich

Yes, because MILLIONS OF PEOPLE in the PEACEFUL YEAR 32-33 died in your collective paradise, it came, didn't it?

After 1991, millions went to the graves in our country and the population of Russia declined - why don't you cry your crocodiles if there was a steady increase in the country's population under the Communist Party?

Quote: Olgovich

Swollen all 30 years, in the year of built socialism in 1937, g-massive swelling from hunger and hungry deaths

There is no need to lie, because my grandfather was a "twenty-five-thousander" and went to the village of the Altai Territory, and no one there was massively fluff all the thirties. In some areas there were crop failures, but this happened repeatedly under the tsar, so what is Stalin to blame for? Or was he responsible for the weather conditions, and for the fact that in the central lane there are two poor crops for one harvest year?

Quote: Olgovich

in LARGE farms, the urohayness in RI is HIGHER than in small ones. This is PROGRESS.

Progress is determined by labor productivity, and in our pre-revolutionary farms it was too inferior to Western producers, and this cannot be hidden. Although I do not deny that there were examples of successful large-scale farms, their number in relation to the entire peasantry of Russia was insignificant.

Quote: Olgovich

In this regard, you must remember:

I have long remembered that you are an ardent anti-Soviet and your zoological hatred for the past of the USSR is on a par with former citizens who turned out to be not the Promised Land. So do not worry too much - I understand what drives you as well as you, and there is definitely no truth there. You can continue to tell everyone fairy tales about Africa, just better tell us what successes Moldova, free from the CPSU, has achieved - you broadcast from there to Russia, and are aware of the prosperity of this former republic of the USSR. We are waiting ...

[Olgovich]

Quote: ccsr

After 1991, millions went to the graves in our country and the population of Russia declined - why don't you cry your crocodiles if there was a steady increase in the country's population under the Communist Party?

From hunger -NIKTO did not die, patal, corpses and people-did not eat, as with yours in 1921,22,24,25,32,33,37,, 46,47,

Population growth is the legacy of RUSSIA, which yours squandered and DESTROYED in just 70 years,

Quote: ccsr

There is no need to lie, because my grandfather was a "twenty-five-thousander" and went to the village of the Altai Territory, and no one there was massively fluff all the thirties. In some areas there were crop failures, but this happened repeatedly under the tsar, so what is Stalin to blame for? Or was he responsible for the weather conditions, and for the fact that in the central lane there are two poor crops for one harvest year?

If you can't, don't torture!

Before you-BETTER eat, when it comes something ?! MILLIONS of hunger in years of peace -DON'T die!

Quote: ccsr

Progress is determined by labor productivity, and in our pre-revolutionary farms it was too inferior to Western producers, and this cannot be hidden. Although I do not deny that there were examples of successful large-scale farms, their number in relation to the entire peasantry of Russia was insignificant.

And who delivered bread abroad, and if not "Minor"?

Quote: ccsr

I have long remembered that you are an ardent anti-Soviet and your zoological hatred for the past of the USSR is on a par with former citizens who turned out to be not the Promised Land. So don't worry too much - I understand as well as you what drives you, and there is definitely no truth there. You can continue to tell everyone fairy tales about Africa, just better tell us what successes Moldova, free from the CPSU, has achieved - you broadcast from there to Russia, and are aware of the prosperity of this former republic of the USSR. ..

I am not an adviser, not an anti-adviser: these clichés side with me, I am a resident of the country that was ditched in 1917-1991, having turned Russian provinces (Bessarabian, Kherson, etc., etc.) in "moldavia", "Ukraine", "Kazakhstans, etc., and its people - in" Ukrainians "and so on and so forth, and putting him to the Russian Cross.

[ccsr]

Quote: Olgovich

Nobody died of hunger,

You're lying - here's an example from today's Moscow:

In Moscow, in one of the apartments of the house where the deceased 54-year-old singer Valentina Legkostupova lived, the bodies of a 58-year-old woman and her 93-year-old mother were found. According to media reports, the first died of a heart attack, and the bedridden pensioner from hunger and thirst. Neighbors noted that Muscovites lived in a cluttered apartment and led an asocial lifestyle.

https://news.rambler.ru/incidents/44808743/?utm_content=news_media&utm_medium=read_more&utm_source=copylink
In Soviet times, I certainly did not have such a thing - I remember that well.

Quote: Olgovich

I'm not a counselor

Don't wag, but rather tell me how you achieved success in Moldova, otherwise all your verbiage about a bad life in the USSR is not perceived against the background of the "prosperity" of Moldovan citizens.

[Olgovich]

Quote: ccsr

In Soviet times, I certainly did not have such a thing - I remember that well.

In Soviet times it was:

CA FSB RF. F. 2. Op. 11.D. 42.L. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78.
VOLODARSKY DISTRICT. In the village of Rudoye, leaving 3 small children at home, the sole owner I **** left the village. Having absolutely no food, by agreement with the older sister, A 9-year-old boy killed a 3-year-old girl (sister), after which they cut off her head and ate the meat of the corpse raw.
CHERNYAKHOVSKY DISTRICT. In the village of Andreev, poor Zh *** died due to malnutrition. 11 year old boy - cut open the belly of his deceased father with a knife, took out the insides and prepared them to boil

.
Etc.
Do you hear not?

In Russia, there was no such thing at all.

And the fact that a non-walking woman died without food is a tragedy, but she was left without her not because she was not, but because her daughter died and there was no one to bring.

Quote: ccsr

Do not wag, but rather tell me how you achieved success in Moldova, otherwise all your verbiage.

1.poke-your-wife

2. Everything is true, you cannot dispute anything.

[ccsr]

Quote: Olgovich

Etc.
Do you hear not?

On, read modern headlines, verbiage, and all this happened recently:

On Poetic Boulevard, homeless people ate a woman

Homeless cannibals impaled people and then ate them ... the brain

Bold and cold-blooded ... the serial killer turned out to be a cannibal

Now where do these come from? Couldn't there have been such things in the past?

Quote: Olgovich

2. Everything is true, you cannot dispute anything.

Truth cannot be embellished, nor can it be perverted, as people like you do. So it makes no sense to dispute your conclusions - you are just an inadequate person, obsessed with anti-Sovietism.

[Olgovich]

Quote: ccsr

Now where do these come from? Couldn't there have been such things in the past?

Are you - at all?

You are comparing SINGLE cases of SICK of descended non-humans with MASS cannibalism of CONVENTIONAL hard-working people brought to this insane state by the IMPOSSIBILITY to earn bread?

Quote: ccsr

Truth cannot be embellished, nor can it be perverted, as people like you do. So that challenge your conclusions do not make sense - you are just an inadequate person, obsessed with anti-Sovietism.

You just -NO .... you can ! (dispute) That is ....

on anti-Sovietism

You love ... build.

And I love-COUNTRY

I am sincerely sorry for you ...

[EvilLion]

I understand that I have read a lot about the RCMP, but no one will tear off an individual peasant, for example, from a community, or from a farm where there is an owner and many hired workers. And any power. But the community is not only easier to rob, it is easier to help it. It is impossible to give out a tractor to an individual peasant. And the collapse of agriculture in the 3s showed this, as a result, when everyone was reformatted, they came to the same Stalinist model, when there is an agricultural holding, that is, the structure is even larger than the collective farm, which either has a powerful fleet of equipment, or rents it has analogues of Stalin's MTS.

but on the estates of large landowners, it was much HIGHER

It was they who gave marketable bread, which was then chased for export, or for vodka, while the bulk of their peasants often bought bread. And then these same peasants were driven to the front line, some straits were taken away from the Ottomans, so that it would be even easier for the landowner to carry grain.

[Beringovsky]

Quote: Olgovich

К NEP In 1928, the indicators of food consumption almost reached the level of 1913, but in the thirties, during the muhanization and collective farms, everything collapsed in the consumption of meat, milk, eggs, butter, etc.

Andrey, it should be so.
In order to saturate agriculture with machinery and fertilizers, all this must be done. To produce all this, an industry is needed that is capable of doing it. To build an industry, i.e. to carry out industrialization, we need workers, many workers. Which could only be taken from the village. Accordingly, the outflow of workers from the countryside, while the structure of agricultural production remains unchanged, will inevitably lead to a drop in production. It's as easy as two and two.
Simply put, part of the workers left the village to build the plant. Will the remaining ones produce the same amount, all other things being equal? Obviously not.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Beringovsky

Andrey, it should be so.
In order to saturate agriculture with machinery and fertilizers, all this must be done. To produce all this, an industry is needed that is capable of doing it. To build an industry, i.e. to carry out industrialization, we need workers, many workers. Which could only be taken from the village. Accordingly, the outflow of workers from the countryside, while the structure of agricultural production remains unchanged, will inevitably lead to a drop in production. It's as easy as two and two.
Simply put, part of the workers left the village to build the plant. Will the remaining ones produce the same amount, all other things being equal? Obviously not.

Obviously YES, but with a GOOD guide: see the world around you.

[EvilLion]

In the village, then it was already determined. there was an oversupply of people. That is, it was possible to seize several million. However, before that they had already confiscated, having put 2 million men at the front and not having achieved a fig.

[Igoresha]

everything collapsed on the consumption of meat, milk, eggs, butter, etc.

maybe someone ate more, who fought with the enemies of the people

[Olgovich]

Quote: Igoresha

everything collapsed on the consumption of meat, milk, eggs, butter, etc.
maybe someone ate more, who fought with the enemies of the people

not only: a closed system of free distribution of products and manufactured goods in the Central Committee and the tp - was closed only in 1947

[EvilLion]

So it influences that if the yield is good, then it becomes unclear what all these people are doing in the village. You cannot consume more bread than you need. And to export grain from Russia, do you know such an occupation against the background of the productivity of European regions with a more favorable climate. It is not surprising that when WWI began and exports (which came not from peasants, but from mechanized landlord farms) from Russia stopped, no one in Europe noticed this.

Well, the 30s, it’s like 10 years, and 1930, when the country was rebuilt, and was looking for any resources to purchase industrial. equipment, and the kulaks burned down the collective farm barns, and in 1939, when the kulaks were finally pressed down, and the industry gave results, these are 2 different eras. We have a beggar post-Yeltsin 2000 and a stable well-fed Putin (or Medvedev) 2010 do not differ so much.

As for the NEP, there was no NEP, there was an end to the war and the lifting of military restrictions, including on food trade. This is nothing new. You need to come up with something new. Of course, there was some growth during this period, well, as it was, in the cities of figs what you can buy, and the townspeople demanded something to be done with the kulaks who strangle the city. In fact, the Soviet government spent several years engaged in nonsense, trying to cope with grain speculation by purely economic methods.

[naidas]

Ol'govich is lying again, with the yield you have already been caught by your own link.
Here's your backfill, what is the yield in 1913,1937,1940, 1928, 1913? In XNUMX, they almost reached XNUMX.
In your RI half of the years where the yield (conducted since 1881) as in the hungry 1932,33.

[Olgovich]

Quote: naidas

Ol'govich is lying again, with the yield you have already been caught by your own link.
Here's your backfill, what is the yield in 1913,1937,1940, 1928, 1913? In XNUMX, they almost reached XNUMX.

you can only catch yourself, see the yield here:

The national economy of the USSR for 70 years (Jubilee statistical yearbook). Finance and statistics M. 1988 p. 208, 210

Shame ...

[naidas]

The last time the link was to Rastyannikov, it didn’t give a ride, the people looked there. And for the gifted in the USSR National Economy for 70 years (Jubilee Statistical Yearbook). Finance and statistics М. 1988 S. 208, 210 cannot be viewed 1913.
[quote] Olgovich (Andrey)
14 March 2019 14: 32

3. learn the facts in the academic monograph: Rastyannikov V.G., Deryugina I.V. Productivity of grain in Russia. M., 2009 .. and not stupid propaganda. If that's enough, yes. [/ Quote]

[quote] roar (NIKOLAI)
14 March 2019 13: 07
Quote: Olgovich
... As for productivity, it is generally ridiculous: yields of the level of 1913 were reached only by .... 1956 (except 1937) ...
Your entire comment is a collection of rather strange statements. Some of them are just lies, some indicate your misunderstanding of what you are writing about. [/ Quote]

[quote] (Alex)
14 March 2019 11: 54
As for productivity, it’s generally funny: yields of the 1913 level reached only by .... 1956 (except 1937)

Blatant nonsense.))) [Quote]


[quote] naidas (naidas)

14 March 2019 15: 48
Quote: Olgovich
Learn the facts in an academic monograph: Rastyannikov V.G., Deryugina I.V.

Olgovich, you would at least look at what you are referring to; according to them, the yield was 1931-6,7 in 1932-7,0 in 1933-6,7 in the USSR (Russia), which exceeds half of the years in yield under the tsar. 1932 there was a famine, what happened every second year under the king, where is the yield lower? (Higher and also 7,0 -10 years from 1895, the remaining 12 years the yield is worse than 1932)
naidas (naidas) [quote]

[quote] Vile skeptic (Timur)
14 March 2019 17: 44

What an interesting table III-6 in this book.
Grain harvest, mln tons Grain export, mln tons
1911-1913 66,8 11
1928-1930 76,2 1,7
How interesting to figure something out.
There was grain in the country
in 1911-1913 66,8-11 = 55,8 million tons
in 1928-1930 76,2-1,7 = 74,5 million tons
Country Population
1913 163,7 million hours
1929 154,2 million hours
We get that per person (excluding the class nature of the difference in consumption in the Republic of Ingushetia) it turned out
in 1913 55,8 / 163,7 = 340 kg
in 1929 74,5 / 154,2 = 483 kg
It turns out not "only" in 1956 there was the same amount of bread as in 1913? How is that? Or where did the bread go? Burned, like overseas, or what? Or did the party leaders pour themselves into their cellars and chew at night? Where did he have to go so that people did not get it.
5) Another interesting application 3.1 in this book.
Nobody ever takes the yield for a year when something is compared with something - the influence of climate will make a big inaccuracy. Therefore, let's check the average yield over seven years, even taking on faith the data on the annual yield (see paragraph 2 above). Why "seven-year plans"? At the end of the book in the notes it is said - about "short" eight-year cycles of climate influence, so you need to take less than 8, so as not to fall on the second lower extreme of the cycle. so
Cycle Average Yield
1894-1900 6,7 c / g
1901-1907 6,6 c / g
1908-1914 7,4 c / g
1923-1929 7,6 c / g
1930-1936 6,8 c / g
1937-1942 6,9 c / g [quote]

[Olgovich]

[quote = naidas] Last time the link was to Rastyannikov, it didn’t give a ride, the people looked there. And for the gifted in the USSR National Economy for 70 years (Anniversary statistical yearbook). Finance and statistics М. 1988 S. 208, 210 cannot be viewed 1913.
[quote] Olgovich (Andrey)
14 March 2019 14: 32

3. learn the facts in the academic monograph: Rastyannikov V.G., Deryugina I.V. Productivity of grain in Russia. M., 2009 .. and not stupid propaganda. If that's enough, yes. [/ Quote]

[quote] roar (NIKOLAI)
14 March 2019 13: 07
Quote: Olgovich
... As for productivity, it is generally ridiculous: yields of the level of 1913 were reached only by .... 1956 (except 1937) ...
Your entire comment is a collection of rather strange statements. Some of them are just lies, some indicate your misunderstanding of what you are writing about. [/ Quote]

[quote] (Alex)
14 March 2019 11: 54
As for productivity, it’s generally funny: yields of the 1913 level reached only by .... 1956 (except 1937)

Blatant nonsense.))) [Quote]


[quote] naidas (naidas)

14 March 2019 15: 48
Quote: Olgovich
Learn the facts in an academic monograph: Rastyannikov V.G., Deryugina I.V.

Olgovich, you would at least look at what you are referring to; according to them, the yield was 1931-6,7 in 1932-7,0 in 1933-6,7 in the USSR (Russia), which exceeds half of the years in yield under the tsar. 1932 there was a famine, what happened every second year under the king, where is the yield lower? (Higher and also 7,0 -10 years from 1895, the remaining 12 years the yield is worse than 1932)
naidas (naidas) [quote]

[quote] Vile skeptic (Timur)
14 March 2019 17: 44

What an interesting table III-6 in this book.
Grain harvest, mln tons Grain export, mln tons
1911-1913 66,8 11
1928-1930 76,2 1,7
How interesting to figure something out.
There was grain in the country
in 1911-1913 66,8-11 = 55,8 million tons
in 1928-1930 76,2-1,7 = 74,5 million tons
Country Population
1913 163,7 million hours
1929 154,2 million hours
We get that per person (excluding the class nature of the difference in consumption in the Republic of Ingushetia) it turned out
in 1913 55,8 / 163,7 = 340 kg
in 1929 74,5 / 154,2 = 483 kg
It turns out not "only" in 1956 there was the same amount of bread as in 1913? How is that? Or where did the bread go? Burned, like overseas, or what? Or did the party leaders pour themselves into their cellars and chew at night? Where did he have to go so that people did not get it.
5) Another interesting application 3.1 in this book.
Nobody ever takes the yield for a year when something is compared with something - the influence of climate will make a big inaccuracy. Therefore, let's check the average yield over seven years, even taking on faith the data on the annual yield (see paragraph 2 above). Why "seven-year plans"? At the end of the book in the notes it is said - about "short" eight-year cycles of climate influence, so you need to take less than 8, so as not to fall on the second lower extreme of the cycle. so
Cycle Average Yield
1894-1900 6,7 c / g
1901-1907 6,6 c / g
1908-1914 7,4 c / g
1923-1929 7,6 c / g
1930-1936 6,8 c / g
1937-1942 6,9 c / g [quote] [/ quote]

What a stupid compilation of nonsense?

[naidas]

This is the answer of the commentators who went to your link to your lies.
stop producing fakes.

[Olgovich]

Quote: naidas

This is the answer of the commentators who went to your link to your lies.
stop producing fakes.

I have given FACTS, but in response .... stupid "comments", such as:

Your entire comment is a collection of rather strange statements. Some are just lies, some are testifying

AGAIN for tankers, SOVIET (i.e., knowingly with fraudulent self-manipulation)) top-secret Report of the Central Statistical Administration of the USSR, including 1913 g

, from which it is clear that your liars had a deep a (pit) with the grain, despite the manipulation, collection and heroic "battles for bread / garlic".

The meat is also very significant ...
Like eggs, milk.
People saved from death-potatoes-see. tab.

1937 is the ONLY year with a large harvest for almost 40 years of great "battles" and "victories" in the agricultural sector.

At the same time, this year is a year of MASS swelling, eating PATALI, surrogates and HUNGRY deaths and diseases - see. Special messages of the NKVD on Istmath

Do you hear, no?

[EvilLion]

Come on, you won't lie about agriculture. Before the collective farms, Russia was seriously starving every few years. And if in the country 85-90% of the population is peasant, this only means that the population can hardly feed itself. And only when tractors appeared, the population from villages began to move en masse to cities. It did not know then that, it turns out, they were forbidden to him, and there were no passports. The latter, however, really did not exist among the peasants, since they were not even under the tsar, due to the impossibility of giving them to everyone.

[Olgovich]

Quote: EvilLion

And let's not lie about agriculture. Before collective farms, Russia was seriously starving every few years.

Poke your wife.

And neither Russia nor the world knew such WILD famines, with millions of victims, massive cannibalism and corpse-eating in the PEACEFUL years
А

Quote: EvilLion

lskoe economy. Before the collective farms, Russia was seriously starving every few years. And if in the country 85-90% of the population is peasant, this only means that the population can hardly feed itself. ...

Much better than under "democracy"

Quote: EvilLion

And only when tractors appeared, the population from villages began to move en masse to cities.

Quote: EvilLion

The latter, however, really did not exist among the peasants, since they were not even under the tsar, due to the impossibility give them all

It's impossible to even comment on this nude, it's funny.

[EvilLion]

I understand that you grew up already in the post-Soviet years, when a sheet of paper, even of very high quality, and a print generally cost about nifiga. But at the beginning of the 20th century, the situation was a little different and it was banal to print hundreds of millions of documents, and it was technically unrealistic to print on expensive, wear-resistant paper. Accordingly, a peasant was issued a passport in strictly defined cases, when he moved somewhere. A passport is a document that gives the right of passage, as the name suggests. In the 30s, for this there were certificates from the village councils.

Well, and the most obvious thing is that the level of bureaucratization of all processes that exists now is simply impossible when half of the country is absolutely illiterate, and everyone who has finished 2 classes is enrolled in the other half. It was only later, in the 60s and 70s, they began to demand a lot of papers from everyone, and universal certification became a necessity.

And neither Russia nor the world knew such WILD famines, with millions of victims, massive cannibalism and corpse-eating in the PEACEFUL years

You should start with millions. I am afraid that historical facts have little to do with Goebbels' propaganda. According to the same Holodomor, the maximum estimate is 1.8 million people. and there are also diseases. And so several hundred thousand under the tsar-father every 4-5 years died of hunger just on the way.

[BAI]

1. The goals of the Germans were perfectly clear.
Even before the German attack on the Soviet Union, on May 2, 1941, Adolf Hitler's secretariat developed recommendations for Alfred Rosenberg as the future supreme ruler of the occupied Eastern regions:

"1. The war should be continued only if in the third year of its conduct the entire Wehrmacht will be supplied with food from Russia.

2. At the same time, undoubtedly, tens of millions of people will die of hunger if we take out of the country everything we urgently need. "

2. Some of the peasants greeted Hitler with joy (from the report of the partisans in the fall of 1941):

“On the whole, the society was split. Part of the population, both offended by the Soviet power, and lost, lost faith in the successes of the Red Army, believed in the victory of Nazi Germany and hoped to receive everything that the Germans promised in their proclamations. The majority took a wait-and-see attitude, but even they, according to partisan intelligence reports, believed that it would be better, after all, if there was an individual farm. "

3. In each division carrying out the protection of the area, economic teams were created. The team leader was assigned the following tasks:

1. Identified stocks of bread, potatoes, vegetables and other products, the presence of livestock, mills, bakeries, dairy farms, etc. Provided the protection of the discovered stocks and objects and reported them to the headquarters of the division.

2. Organized the supply of potatoes, meat, vegetables, milk and dairy products to their part until the need was fully satisfied.

3. Ensured the uninterrupted performance of field and garden work, the preparation of hay. They carried out repressions if peasants sabotaged agricultural work.

4. Keep records of horses and draft animals left after the evacuation of their owner

etc.
Generally. it can be concluded that the work on accounting and production of agricultural products in the Wehrmacht was carried out very seriously.

4. Looting was generally condemned, but no one was usually punished.
From the order for the 112th Infantry Division of August 5, 1941

1. Taking cattle and horses without any payment, moreover, threats with weapons are applied to the owners.

2. Pointless destruction of potatoes on the ridges, although one could easily be convinced that the potatoes are still completely unsuitable for food.

3. Removal of unmilled sheaves from the fields, apparently for use as bedding.

4. Removal of agricultural implements (braids, sickles), which complicates the harvest.

5. Breaking open locked doors and taking away household items from peasants.

[parusnik]

The author apparently does not know this.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

It may be said that the Germans raked out all the grain cleaned up. This can only be done once.

It was this question that I asked my father, who, as a teenager (born in 1934) with his mother and younger brother, was in the occupation (Khislavichesky district, Smolensk region) - how did they live? What did you eat?

What is remembered from his story.
As soon as the Soviet troops left, and the Germans had not yet approached - the people immediately took the collective farm property away from their homes - they carried away everything they could, even the ledger.
The troops passed the village quickly, without stopping.
Then the occupation authorities appeared, appointed a headman, policemen (who were joined by local drunks) and appointed a harvest plan that the village had to collect and hand over. The headman was responsible for everything.
The collective farm land was distributed among the yards and appointed how much each must hand over the harvest.
Here at this place - how much they took, the father, being a boy, could not say. He remembers that he was hungry all the time - boys.
His mother raised two sons and it was not easy for them to feed themselves, mainly potatoes from the garden. After the harvest, the three of them collected each spikelet from under the snow, went to the forest for nuts and mushrooms, and fished in the river. Chickens remained in the farm, the cow was requisitioned.
Families with a horse and a plow cultivated allotments of land, they had grain and bread, they lived better than under collective farms.

In the fall, my grandmother dug under the wall of the barn, where the grain was stored, and tried to steal half a sack of grain to make porridge and feed the children. A sentry caught her and was taken to shoot her. Father and younger brother were sitting in a hut, a neighbor came running for a year: "Run Volodka - they want to shoot your mother."
They clung to their mother's skirt and bellowed ... Maybe they wanted to scare them that they would shoot them, or maybe they saved the desperate crying of the children - they didn't shoot them.
It was evident how hard it was for the father to give the story - he was only eight years old then and for him it was the most tragic day in his life when his mother could be killed for half a sack of grain.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

younger brother, was in the occupation (Khislavichesky district, Smolensk region.)

Also the Smolensk region, Temkinsky district, a grandmother with 5 children was kicked out of the hut - they lived in an earthen black bath - in the wall of a ravine - from October 41 to March 43.

Winter 41-42, the main food - "nausea" (from frozen potatoes from unharvested fields).

Spring, summer, berries, potatoes, quinoa, nettles, fish, reeds, snares, some grain. They plowed (with a plow) - on my grandmother - in my garden.

I have not heard about work in some other fields ..

Winter 43g- grandmother I sewed bags for myself and for the children Ida...

In March 43 ours came, everyone managed to survive ...

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Therefore, it is unlikely that the Germans took more than 25-30% of the gross harvest of individual farmers and abandoned collective farms.

Rather closer to 50-60% - by the end of the first winter of occupation in the village (Smolensk region), grain remained only for sowing, even for those who had a horse and allotted land. It was impossible to exchange grain for eggs or potatoes. Only the policemen, the headman and families with horses and allotments of land lived well in the village.
Those who did not have a horse did not have land, they fed from the gardens and picked up spikelets from under the snow.

But famine did not come under the Germans - in 1944, when the Germans were driven out, the food detachments of the Red Army requisitioned the remnants of the grain, the cattle that the Germans did not hijack (they hid them from them), horses - then famine came.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

... food detachments of the Red Army requisitioned the remnants of grain, those cattle that the Germans did not hijack (they hid them from them), horses - and then famine came.

Look how it is - food detachments in 1944? Armed requisition of livestock ... Commissioners in dusty helmets ... 'Whites come - to rob. The Reds come ... Where can the peasant go? ' ©

[pmkemcity]

"Record", according to the author, grain procurements in 1941, are explained by abandoned, but already sown fields and carryover stocks, including strategic ones, which were seized by Hitler.

[Undecim]

The author touched upon a topic little known to the "general public", although historians have been studying it for a long time and a lot of materials can be found. In this regard, the author's approach to the topic and his attempts to build a question around one "small but very informative reference" is incomprehensible.
Similar information, moreover, in much more detailed, about Germany's plans for the economic robbery of the occupied territories, as well as, let's call it "economic activity" in the occupied territories, can be found in the historical literature.
For example, an article in the magazine "Voprosy istorii" No. 6 for 1965 "The failure of the agrarian policy of the Nazis in the occupied territory of the USSR", Norbert Müller's book "The Wehrmacht and the Occupation (1941-1944)", "Criminal goals are criminal means. Documents on the occupation the policy of fascist Germany on the territory of the USSR (1941-1945) ".
For those who speak German, there are even more sources. Moreover, German authors do not hide the real state of affairs.
It would also be nice to find German data on the population of the occupied regions (they registered the population and had to collect this statistics) and on the number of horses. The area under crops, the population and the number of horses allows, in a rough approximation, to calculate the grain-feed balance.
There are no particular difficulties here. I think that it will not even be necessary to "calculate in a rough approximation". you can find the exact data. For example, data on how many and in what sectors of the economy the population is involved in Ukraine in 1942.

Data from the article Penter, Tanja: Arbeiten für den Feind in der Heimat: der Arbeitseinsatz in der besetzten Ukraine 1941 - 1944, in: Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 2004, 1, S. 65-94.

[wehr]

Don't you realize that you are now engaged in a gross twitching?

[Undecim]

And where did I roughly distort?

[wehr]

In the table you gave information about the employed only in industry, but asserted that this was supposedly accurate data for the entire economy.
A cheap trick for simpletons.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Dmitry, I, frankly, doubt that such data (the exact number involved in agriculture) can take place. Well, for example, in the census of the economic inspectorate "Center" (this is Belarus and adjacent regions of Russia) of July 42nd, the number of people employed in industry, handicrafts, Todt organization, railway, etc. is given. about 500 thousand people, which was 1/5 of the employed agricultural workers in 42-43 economic years. I think you can only operate with approximate figures.

[Undecim]

Well, you are not a simpleton, you cannot be taken for a cheap trick!
And where does it say "for the whole household"? It is written - "for example" - and a detailed link to the source. And if you had bothered to look at the specified source, you would have found about agriculture.
Die Mehrzahl der Beschäftigten arbeitete in der Landwirtschaft. Im RKU waren im Juni 1943
6,1 der insgesamt 7,5 Millionen Beschäftigten in der Landwirtschaft eingesetzt. 36 Laut einer
Statistik der "Chefgruppe Arbeit des Wirtschaftsstab Ost" arbeiteten Ende 1942 20,8 Millionen
Menschen in den besetzten Ostgebieten in der Landwirtschaft, aber nur 1,1 Millionen in der
Industrie. Hinzu kamen weitere Millionen Arbeitskräfte, die beim Bau von Eisenbahnverbindungen, Straßen, Flugplätzen, Brücken und Befestigungsanlagen beschäftigt waren sowie Hunderttausende, die im Gefolge der Fhrmchen, al.
Entladekolonnen or Hilfswillige) eingesetzt waren. Die über eine Million Arbeitskräfte der
gewerblichen Wirtschaft arbeiteten zum größten Teil in Nahrungsmittelbetrieben (25 Prozent),
in der Forst- und Holzwirtschaft (19 Prozent), in der Eisen verarbeitenden Industrie (9 Prozent)
und im Bergbau (9 Prozent) (siehe Tabelle 1)
Do you want to translate or Können Sie deutsch?

[wehr]

To calculate the grain-feed balance, you need the entire population: local, agricultural and urban, the Germans - the Wehrmacht, the administration and all kinds of settlers, as well as allies. Everybody ate bread. There may be various unexpected moments.

Well, yes, they plan to throw workers' hands on roads, bridges and fortifications. But the workers also need to be fed. Everyone they recruit for work is supplied with food from German supplies. Therefore, the study of occupation agriculture, in particular, where and how much grain was harvested, procured, transported, and so on, is important, because it had a direct impact on the course of hostilities.

[Foul skeptic]

Victor Nikolaevich, hello. It seems to me that it is difficult to call the author's operation more than "an exercise for the brain without regard to the usefulness of this exercise". About what part of the product was collected, how much it was from the estimated fees, etc. etc. painted back in the 60s in the three-volume "Ukrainian RSR at the Great Victory in the Radiansky Union 1941-1945 rr."

[wehr]

A good trick is to refer to a book that, most likely, no one will look for or look at. To hit the mouths and you can hang noodles on your ears.
So, you're out of luck. I found and looked through this book.
Of course, there was no data on plowing, harvesting and harvesting under the German occupation. All relevant sections were maintained in the spirit of "the Germans plundered, burned, killed". For me, this was not a discovery, since I already know very well what they could write in Soviet literature about this. Well, what can they write in the section "Hitler's" New Order "and the Robbery of Ukraine" (vol. 2, pp. 141-159) in the chapter "The Monstrous Atrocities of the Invaders in Ukraine in 1943"?
The only interesting mention is that in 1941, about 900 thousand tons of grain remained at the captured grain procurement points (vol. 1, p. 285).

[An64]

Belarus took the last place on this list because in the summer-autumn of 1942 the partisans staged a defeat of the occupation agriculture there.

It remains a mystery to me how logistical support was established in the partisan detachments. Especially food. There are no warehouses and refrigerators, people need to be fed every day and not once. And these are not five people in a week's campaign, these are large detachments (company, battalion), and Kovpak has a division.

[Foul skeptic]

And they made warehouses, and they kept their flocks, and they made glaciers, in which they kept them. The caretaker in a large partisan detachment shared the second place with the party organizer according to his position.

[An64]

Did you sow bread and grind flour too? Cereals, vegetables and fruits ... Can you imagine how much food is needed to feed 100-200 people? (or 1500, like Kovpak)?
Therefore, it is not clear how they lived, if in "1942 defeated occupation agriculture in Belarus".

[Foul skeptic]

There are a lot of partisan memoirs. Economic life is also affected in them.
Partisan groups and detachments constituted partisan formations. The Germans were squeezed out of the territory occupied by the formations, partisan territories and republics were formed. With the establishment of a Soviet-style administration in settlements in the controlled territory. Therefore, there is nothing unusual in conducting a full-fledged economic life.
And regarding the connection of Kovpak, I had a living witness - my mother-in-law. She talked about the raids and how many carts followed the detachment with provisions and other things.

[Lewww]

The Germans were squeezed out of the territory occupied by the formations, partisan territories and republics were formed.

isolated cases

Therefore, there is nothing unusual in conducting a full-fledged economic life.

[Lewww]

Therefore, imagine, yes, there is nothing unusual in leading a full-fledged economic life in these parts, otherwise hundreds of thousands of people will not be provided.

no one disputes that the population during the occupation was engaged in economic activities, including plowing and sowing, raising livestock.
And this long-suffering population was forced to provide food for both fascists and partisans.
Because if you don’t give it to the first, they will hang, and if you don’t give it to the second, they will call it an accomplice to the enemy and shoot, or, at best, let the red rooster go.
It's amazing how the villagers were able to survive in these harsh conditions.
But when a whole region (a dozen villages) provided food ONLY partisans - an extremely rare case

[Undecim]

And warehouses did
And where did they take them to the warehouses?

[Foul skeptic]

From the fields, stealing in uncontrolled territory (with the help and without local residents), directly from local residents in the controlled territory, from repulsed German convoys. Near Rostov, the warehouses of the detachments were replenished for some time due to the previously created storage bases before the surrender of the territory.

[Undecim]

From the fields
Where did it come from in the fields?

[Foul skeptic]

I don’t understand, is this some cunning plan behind these questions? ))
Lead to the answer, what did the peasants grow?
This is already clear. And you know that too.
I do not understand the surprise of the commentators that the peasants in the occupied territory were growing something. This is how evolution made sense of what people eat.

[Undecim]

There is no cunning plan. I explained everything in the comment below.

[Undecim]

You see, this question is neatly bypassed in Soviet historiography. Yet the history of Russia - the USSR in the last 100 years has been at least intensively used for propaganda purposes and is used today.
But in November 1942, when Germany seized the maximum territory of the USSR, almost 80 million people lived on it before the war. There are no exact statistics, but even if half are left, it is 40 million. And these people somehow had to survive under occupation, feed themselves and their children.
To this day, they love to write about partisans and policemen in books. But they are very reluctant to write about those who are neither partisans nor policemen. I admit that the author of the article is trying to do this, but somehow it turns out crookedly.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Undecim

You see, this question is neatly bypassed in Soviet historiography. Yet the history of Russia - the USSR in the last 100 years has been at least intensively used for propaganda purposes and is used today.

In historiography, it is possible. But in the partisan memoirs, you can find all the options for supplying food: the warehouses left by the Red Army (the first year of the war), raids on German warehouses, collecting food from the local population. As soon as the detachments grew, they immediately began to recapture a "food base" for themselves, forming first partisan zones, and then partisan lands with Soviet power and collective farms. After that, the supply more or less improved.
But there was one problem: in the event of a punitive operation by the Germans against such an edge, the partisan unit, as a rule, changed its place of deployment, escaping the blow (because the Germans were not stingy in attracting forces for such operations). But the civilian population remained - and took over everything that the Germans prepared for the partisans.

[hohol95]

And how did the Soviet censorship allow the figure of Private Glebov in the film "Aty-Baty, there were soldiers ...". After all, he plowed for the Germans and received rations from the Germans.
And his phrase said to junior lieutenant Suslin - "You did not starve, you did not starve ..."
Or in one of the stories about the war (I forgot both the author and the name) there was a character who played the French horn in a restaurant under the Germans. And who became the culprit for the death of the unit, but did not incur punishment for this because of the transfer from signalmen to buglers!
Maybe there were not many such characters in the cinema and literature, but one cannot say that they were not at all.
Likewise, Western countries do not try to show their work in films for the needs of the Third Reich. Bypass this topic.

[Undecim]

Well, how about such a topic and without your fiery speech. True, I was talking about historiography, and you tell me about cinema, don't you think that these are somewhat different things?
But okay, since you remembered the movie and the character who played in the restaurant with the Germans, do you know the story of the Soviet film actor Nikolai Kryukov?

[hohol95]

Well, how about such a topic and without your fiery speech.

You are completely right.
Each container has something to take out ... Or open, you know.

do you know the story of the Soviet film actor Nikolai Kryukov?

I didn't know. But he was taken out by the Germans and was not drafted into the ranks of the Red Army.
And the literary character was called upon after the liberation of the city.
Historians may have tried to get around this topic, but no, no, and even slipped into literature or cinema.
Ordinary people did not read the historical works of venerable scientists.
But we will not consider ordinary Soviet citizens to be completely dark either.

[hohol95]

Poddubny Ivan Maksimovich in the city of Yeisk, with the permission of the occupation authorities, kept a billiard room! But at the same time he walked with the Order of the Red Banner of Labor on his chest. The order was presented to him in 1939 by Kalinin.
Norwegians are proud of the fact that they wore paper clips on their jackets and jackets as a "sign of resistance to the occupation."
Some went with paper clips, some ferried Jews to Sweden for money, and some plowed the land for rations. Everywhere it was different.
But the city of Berlin was taken by Soviet soldiers!

[BAI]

Here it is
Gogun A. Stalin's commandos. Ukrainian partisan formations 1941-1944. - M .: Russian political encyclopedia, 2012 .-- 554 p. - (History of Stalinism). - Circulation 1000 copies. - ISBN 978-5-8243-1634-6
But from the title it is immediately clear against whom the book is directed. M. b. hence Aleksievich gave rise to the assertion that the partisans were worse than the policemen.

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: BAI

Here it is
Gogun A. Stalin's commandos. ...

Because of the name alone, I wouldn't read.

[Lewww]

It remains a mystery to me how logistical support was established in the partisan detachments. Especially food.

They ate mainly from the "gifts of nature" (hunting, fishing, mushrooms, berries, roots, etc.) and the help of the local population. Sometimes they attacked German food carts. Large units, in addition to the above, received food from the "mainland" or very isolated ones at the expense of their own sown areas.
The overwhelming number of partisan detachments in the winter and spring lived almost from hand to mouth

[EvilLion]

If somewhere there is a partisan division, then there is Soviet power for several tens of kilometers. Simply because of the existence of this division and the impossibility for the Germans to destroy it, or drive it out.

[Kostadinov]

The population in the occupation of the territory of the USSR beat less than before the occupation - 10 million were evacuated to the East and a million left for the Red Army, especially young men. Then the Germans drove additional millions of Ostarbeiters to the Reich. In their place came the occupation army, which had to participate in agricultural work.

[hohol95]

In their place came the occupation army, which had to participate in agricultural work.

Enlighten the ignorant. Where does this interesting information come from? And what kind of agricultural work in which "employees of the occupation armies" participated?

[Pamir]

Here, here, the author of the article Dmitry, this article is real, in essence. Here is a thoughtful, mature reflection, what can I answer? Respect. Do not pay attention to the harshness of judgments about some of your articles. Here it is often passed on to the individual, including myself. I apologize. Some of your articles are in essence, but some are simply fantastic, sorry. In this question, about our daily bread, respect.
For example, even take more modern conflicts, for example, soldiers of the OKSVA in Afghanistan, what were conscripts supposed to eat? Yes, in a country where for +50? Dry ration? Weeks? Months? And that for each platoon there is a three-compartment refrigerator? Crammed with meat and cheeses and fruit? No, the generals think about it least of all. They do not eat from the common pot. What do we think, the soldiers at the exits did not slaughter other people's livestock? or spell heavenly punishment, it is useless. Soldiers, they are soldiers everywhere, especially when in foreign territory. In a war in foreign territory, only the rights of the strong work.

[wehr]

Thank you!

Everything that I write, in one way or another, is based on some kind of military or military-economic experience. He can be extravagant and unusual. You can choose any article that you consider to be fiction, and I will tell you what it is based on.

The soldiers, of course, resorted to "self-procurement". Therefore, the situation in the rear of the armies, especially in areas where the armies stood for a long time, where there were intense battles, and areas passed from hand to hand, there agriculture was ruined. The Smolensk region, where for two months, from July 10 to September 10, 1941, four Soviet fronts and the German Army Group Center were cut, of course, was ruined. Not to mention the fact that it is not known whether they managed to harvest the crop, if so, how much.

[immobile2008]

Quote: ROSS 42

It is too early to put an end to this study. The matter is far from over.

The end of this study was put in 1945. And the fact that the fascist army had more options for the "stick" and only one version of the "carrot" - life, so it was known for a long time.
Another fact is interesting, why until the 50s in Ukraine there were bandit formations in the form of a well-known organization? And why did they fight with them for so long?

Did not fight, the police were the very ones you are talking about

[Kostadinov]

Quote: hohol95

In their place came the occupation army, which had to participate in agricultural work.

Enlighten the ignorant. Where does this interesting information come from? And what kind of agricultural work in which "employees of the occupation armies" participated?

1. Information about: that the mobilization in the Red Army beat, that during the retreat workers of factories with their families were evacuated, that then the Germans sent people to work in Germany, that the death rate of the population was high and thus the population in the occupied territory was significantly reduced and left alone old people, children and women. No one has disputed this before you.
2. At the same time, the units of the occupation army accounted for approximately 40-50% of its total number, in addition, there were all kinds of working units like the Tod organization and the like. Maybe they weren't used for agricultural work? What do you think?