Military Review

How the Germans were going to reorganize the collective farms

54

This is approximately how the liquidation of collective farms began. On the leaflet you can read the heading: "Hardworking peasant - his own land!"


It seems that this question is not difficult. It is known that the Germans were going to dissolve the collective farms in the occupied territories. However, it is well known that they have retained many collective farms. As is now often explained, ostensibly convinced of their effectiveness. History Soviet agriculture is generally surrounded by a thick mythology, some of which I analyzed in my book “Stalin's Collectivization. Struggle for Bread "(Moscow: Veche, 2019). All these myths turned out to be partly plausible at best, but on the whole they completely misinterpreted the history of collectivization and the changes that took place in the agriculture of the USSR. And what is usually said about the attitude of Germans to collective farms is also a myth, also only partly plausible, but in its essence is incorrect.

An interesting document, preserved in a scattering of documents from the Reichsministry for the Occupied Territories, the Reichskommissariat Ukraine and Ostland, and other occupation bodies, shows how the Germans really treated the collective farms and what they were going to do with them. The document, printed on a badly broken typewriter and therefore difficult to read in places, dated 6 August 1941, is entitled “Abschrift von Abschrift. Aufzeichnung. Die landwirtschaftliche Kollektive in der Sowjetunion ". Translated: “Copy from copy. Recording. Agricultural collectives in the Soviet Union ". Among German documents, papers with the inscription "Abschrift" are quite common. These are copies of various important documents that were made for various departments and bodies, which were in charge of the issues discussed in this document. Many documents have survived in just such copies.

How the Germans were going to reorganize the collective farms
The document is really hard to read: bouncing font, badly punched letters. Apparently, this is a carbon copy.

The Germans were usually very punctual in the conduct of office work and indicated from which body the document originated, to which body it was intended, sometimes indicating a specific addressee. But in our case there are no such indications; it is not known who and where made it, to whom it was intended. Most likely, it was accompanied by a letter explaining where and from where this document is sent for information or for use in work. This cover letter is missing, it is not in the file. Probably, it was published in the office of the Reichskommissariat Ostland (formed on July 25, 1941), but this is only an assumption. In terms of content, the document is a recommendation for a policy in relation to collective farms that could have been worked out in Berlin.

But he is remarkable in that he briefly and succinctly outlines German policy towards collective farms with the rationale for the proposed solutions. As for the belonging, then maybe later either the original will be found, or another copy with more detailed information.

The fight against the Germans is the fight for collective farms


The Germans had a very good idea of ​​the structure of the collective farm system, better than many Soviet and Russian researchers of the history of agriculture. The document begins with the assertion that there is nothing in the USSR for the peasants, they are so hated that in agricultural collectives they are reduced to the position of underpaid agricultural workers without the right to free movement. Bad organization and bureaucratic methods drove them to starvation with millions of victims. “When we promised the peasant liberation from the Bolshevik yoke, he meant by this the dissolution of the collective farm and the return to private farming” (TsAMO RF, f. 500, op. 12463, d. 39, sheet 2).

German experts in Soviet agriculture, of course, could not do without Nazi rhetoric. However, in their assessment of collective farmers as agricultural workers, they were generally right. The Stalinist collective farm, especially in its original 1930 version, was indeed an enterprise in which the collective farm members had practically no economic rights; they had to plow and sow in accordance with a multi-year crop rotation developed by an agronomist; during field work with MTS tractors, collective farmers performed the role of auxiliary workers; harvest plans were applied to the harvest, which in essence deprived the collective farmers of the right to dispose of them. Such a collective farm was more like a state farm than a peasant association. In the version of the collective farm of the 1934 model, introduced after strong peasant resistance and hunger, firm norms of compulsory sale to the state (for cash, which should be noted) were imposed on the crop, norms of payment in kind for the work of the MTS for those collective farms that they served, and the remainder of the collective farm could dispose of myself. The rights to manage the harvest increased, and the delivery of products to the state acquired forms more acceptable to collective farmers. However, the collective farm still could not decide what to sow, how much to sow and when to sow.

This limitation, however, was dictated by the desire to obtain the highest yield of collective farm crops, since this depended on the correct crop rotation, the timing of sowing and harvesting, as well as the varieties of seeds and measures to preserve the purity of the crops sown. Seeds were cultivated, large fields were sown with them, and peasant "stripes" and inconsistencies in crops and varieties were eliminated at the very beginning of collectivization. The Soviet state categorically rejected the agrarian experience of the peasants and relied on agronomy and scientific agricultural technology. It was from this elementary agronomy that the transformation of peasants into agricultural workers took place.

The Germans well understood the difference between the collective farm as a peasant association and the collective farm created by the Soviet regime during collectivization. Behind the aforementioned moment, there is an explanation that in the first years of Soviet power, the peasants were united in collective farms, because, firstly, they understood that a large farm would give greater results than a small one, and, secondly, they did not have at their disposal what was necessary for private farming live and dead inventory. And this is also true. In the 1920s, especially in the first years after the Civil War, collective farms usually created the poorest peasants and saw this as a way to make money on the organization of their individual farms.

That is, there was a certain economic sense in the collective farms. However, the author or authors of the document immediately indulge in arguments of the following kind: “With such ideas, we would rob our own exclusive effective propaganda weapon". This means: if they recognized the economic importance of collective farms. And they explain that Soviet radio says that the Germans are dissolving collective farms, and the influence of this Soviet propaganda cannot be overestimated at all. A simple Red Army peasant is convinced that the struggle against the Germans is a struggle for the preservation of the hated collective farms and against individual farming.

This is a very interesting point: the Germans viewed the collective farm problem mainly from a propaganda, not an economic point of view. They relied on those who hated the collective farms, which follows from their total stake on various anti-Soviet elements. In this case, Soviet propaganda worked for the Germans, kindly informing everyone that they intended to free Soviet peasants from collective farms. Where German radio and leaflets could not reach, Soviet agitprop did the work for them.

In general, the propaganda struggle during the war has been studied very little, especially in terms of the influence of propaganda from one side and the other on the minds of the army and the rear. In some cases, Soviet propaganda lost to German propaganda, especially at the beginning of the war. It can be assumed that the propaganda thesis that the Germans would dissolve the collective farms could be one of the reasons that prompted some of the Red Army men to surrender or even go over to the side of the Germans.

You can dissolve collective farms, but it costs money


However, the authors of this document thought about whether to carry out the dissolution of collective farms, how and when it should be done. The main part of the document and the final recommendations are devoted to this.

It was said against the collective farms that the collective farms used many tractors. The tractors were either mobilized into the Red Army, or rendered unusable when retreating. Agriculture, as we know from the previous article, lost the main part of its tractor fleet. New tractors cannot be brought in because the transport is busy with military transport. Where the tractors were, and were in good order, there was a very tense situation with fuel. In general, until the Caucasian oil is seized, there is no need to think about a sufficient supply of fuel to the tractor fleet. Therefore, as the authors of the document write, the planned management of a collective economy with modern machines will not work, and the advantages of collective farms (in the sense: collective farms without tractors and machines) over individual farmers are so small that this cannot be done without a propaganda effect.

This is a rather difficult passage to understand, since the document is drawn up in a very streamlined, even allegorical, hinting at circumstances well known to readers. And at this point the document departs quite far from the agrarian policy of the Nazis. Its compilers understood perfectly well that large-scale farming, such as a collective farm, is, of course, better and more productive than a peasant farm. But they could not declare this directly, because the Nazis doctrinally relied on the peasant economy, in particular on the famous "hereditary yards", and did not create collectives. They thought that it would be good to preserve powerful and productive collective farms, with tractors and machines, their efficiency would justify their existence, but ... both the tractors are out of order, and there is no kerosene, therefore it is better not to put on the collective farms in order to avoid disruption of such a successful propaganda war for them.

It would seem that the question is clear: there is no fuel, the tractors are broken and the propaganda machine must be turned, therefore, the collective farms must be disbanded. But don't be in a hurry. As it was difficult to create collective farms, it was just as difficult to dissolve them. An individual farmer needs at least 4-5 hectares of land for a plow, and a strong kulak economy needs 20-30 hectares. The collective farmers had personal plots of 0,5-1,0 hectares (this is noted in the document), and they needed to be increased. The dissolution of collective farms meant that tens of millions of hectares of land were interleaved. At the time of collectivization, land management and land demarcation in favor of collective and state farms took about ten years, from 1925-1926. until 1935, despite the fact that tens of thousands of people were thrown into land surveying work. Under the conditions of the war and the actual absence of German grassroots personnel, the Germans, with all their desire, could not pull off such a large-scale surveying in any short time. The peasants, for example, did not bother much; they themselves remembered, or knew from the stories of their fathers, communal redistributions and seizure land use. But the Germans were clearly embarrassed by this, since the allocation of land on paper and in kind is a land and income tax, it is an obligation to supply grain and meat. Letting the division of the land take its course meant reaping chaos, a struggle for land with fights and gunfire, numerous problems that the German administration would eventually have to resolve.

In addition, the Germans were going to give the land primarily to proven accomplices, and not to everyone. In addition, there were colonization plans and land allocation for German colonists. There were many factors influencing the decisions.

Then, the individual farmer needs horses, horse plows, horse harrows, seeders, reapers, and other equipment. Part of it could be taken from the collective farms, and in the actual division of the collective farm property, the peasants did so. But this was clearly not enough to provide a sustainable economy without tractors or with a minimum of them, if only because arable implements wear out quickly. This presented Germany with the problem of supplying the occupied territories with agricultural implements and simple agricultural machines suitable for individual farmers. In the RGVA, in the documents on the economy of the occupied eastern regions, a document was preserved, which states that from the beginning of the occupation to July 31, 1943, products worth 2782,7 million Reichsmarks (unprocessed) were supplied from the occupied regions of the USSR to Germany, while from Germany in the occupied regions of the USSR was supplied with equipment, machinery, fertilizers, seeds and so on in the amount of 500 million Reichsmarks, and prices were reduced by 156 million Reichsmarks (RGVA, f. 1458k, op. 3, d. 77, l. 104). Supplies amounted to 17,9% of the value of exported agricultural products, which is a lot. Note that this is in conditions when the supply of agriculture in the occupied territories was not at all among the priorities of the occupation authorities and economic departments of the Reich. Yes, the dissolution of collective farms for the Germans cost money.

Decollectivization methods


In general, after weighing everything, the authors of the document made the following conclusions.

Firstly, they still doubted the need to preserve the collective farms, but for the reason that this required a lot of oil products, millions of tons, which would be difficult to deliver along weak and badly destroyed railways, even if the Caucasus was captured, and also because that to manage collective farms a large administrative apparatus was required, which they did not even hope to create.

Secondly, they were attracted more by the state farms: "The grain that is necessary for our purposes, we will first of all take from large state farms (state farms), which in the entire Soviet Union produced about 11 tons of grain" (TsAMO RF, f. 000, op. 000, d. 500, l. 12463). The best wheat grain farms were in the Ukraine and the North Caucasus, just in those areas where the German troops rushed. And hence the conclusion: "The main attention of German economic authorities should be directed to state farms, which were called grain factories by the Soviets themselves" (TsAMO RF, f. 39, op. 3, d. 500, sheet 12463).

Thirdly, only those collective farms can be completely disbanded where there is sufficient equipment for running an individual farm. "Of course, the creation of unproductive dwarf farms is prevented," the authors of the document emphasize. In other words, if the collective farm can be divided into large, kulak, if you like, farms, then the collective farm is disbanded.

Fourthly, in other cases, the division of collective farms is carried out gradually, at least not earlier than the end of the harvest (meaning the 1941 harvest). The authors of the document believed that the gradual division of collective farms should be included in the general principle. It was also emphasized that the collective farm should not be bought out from the peasants in order to turn it into a state farm. Regarding the land issue in such collective farms, which were gradually divided, the authors proposed to give an addition to the household plot for one more hectare and to allow complete freedom of keeping livestock and poultry. The rest of the land was to be allocated according to economic possibilities (TsAMO RF, f. 500, op. 12463, d. 39, l. 5). Household land became the full private property of the peasant and was exempt from tax until the collective farm was completely liquidated.

Fifthly, in those cases when the inventory is clearly insufficient for running a sole proprietorship, but there are tractors, combines and fuel for them, the collective farms are preserved, and the peasants should understand this. In these cases, it was envisaged to increase their personal plots and allow them to keep more livestock and poultry than provided for by the charter of the collective farm. It was proposed to pay for work on the collective farm monthly in cash and in kind.


A well-known photograph. On the plate: "Collective farm. An enterprise under the temporary tutelage of the German army." It could be a kind of subsidiary enterprise of one of the Wehrmacht units, which repaired tractors and provided them with fuel.

These are the guidelines for decollectivization in the occupied territory of the USSR. At least in part, they were carried out in practice, some of the collective farms were disbanded. But this process has not actually been investigated, especially in detail (how exactly it happened).

In any case, the policy of decollectivization stretched out for many years, no one could guarantee its success, both due to internal peasant tensions over property and land issues, and due to the fact that different and conflicting plans were developed in Berlin. For example, the collective farms could have attracted the attention of the SS for the needs of the German colonization of the occupied territories. The collective farm could easily be divided into several hereditary courtyards given to German soldiers, or it could easily be turned into a large estate. The SS Sonderkommando would send all the peasants who disagree with this to the nearest ravine. This is because both collectivization was violent, and decollectivization promised to be a bloody event, associated with an armed struggle.

However, all these are just hypotheses. The Red Army relieved the Germans of all these worries and, in the final analysis, established the collective farm-state farm system in Germany itself.
Author:
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Megatron
    Megatron 29 October 2020 04: 50
    15
    What even the Germans did not do - the "reformers" did in 91.
    1. Alexander Suvorov
      Alexander Suvorov 29 October 2020 06: 39
      16
      With the stubbornness of a maniac, verhoturov continues to rivet his articles. The name alone makes it clear who the author is.
      I have only one question, who pays the author for all this dirt, or does he work from a pure heart and out of love for art?

      P.S. The author, I want to remind you that in the Russian Federation there is article 354.1 "rehabilitation of nazism" and all your opuses, upon closer examination, are quite suitable for it. Jump to the point that someone meticulous will hand over you with giblets to the Prosecutor General's Office. Honestly, I would do it myself with pleasure, but unfortunately there is no time for you.
      1. Mitroha
        Mitroha 29 October 2020 07: 10
        +3
        All these myths have proven to be somewhat believable at best,

        Uv. the author, there cannot be myths that are partly plausible, they are either myths or not, plausible (that is, similar to the truth) can be an explanation of something, a myth is a priori a fairy tale. That is, the word plausible is completely inappropriate here. The myth can either be confirmed or disproved by proving that this is NOT a myth, but a true story, albeit in part. Here the story can be plausible, that is, similar to the truth. But the myth is not
        1. wehr
          29 October 2020 11: 29
          +3
          A historical myth is the shortest retelling of history, for the needs of public education or among the people. Therefore, he still relies in part on truthful information, although he can distort events beyond recognition.
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 30 October 2020 00: 06
            +5
            could you comment on this:
            An individual farmer needs land, at least 4-5 hectares for a plow, and a strong kulak economy requires 20-30 hectares.

            Anyone who studies at least a little who the "kulaks" are, learns that a "strong kulak economy" needs a village, a usurer who will drive the whole village into debt and a moneylender's gang that will knock out these debts. what does this crime have to do with agriculture?
            1. wehr
              30 October 2020 00: 28
              +4
              At the same time, the kulak also runs his own household; he does not plow and sow himself; for this he has laborers. Bread for sale or on a loan with subsequent processing. In the kulak economy, everything is closely intertwined: laborers, loans, grain trade.
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 30 October 2020 00: 39
                +4
                Quote: wehr
                In the kulak economy, everything is closely intertwined: laborers, loans, grain trade.

                but this is already according to the Ost plan, which was to be carried out after the defeat of the USSR. so yes ... a German and his Slavic slaves, but definitely not 41 years old request on 41 then everything is unambiguous, everyone is in the Wehrmacht, everyone is in Germany.
                oh yes, Lokot Republic .. but this is not even a rare, but the only case and very dubious request
      2. ee2100
        ee2100 29 October 2020 09: 48
        +5
        There is propaganda, but there is information based on documents and this must be distinguished. If you don't like the topic the author is writing about - don't read it!
        In fact, it is very interesting to find out what the Germans planned to arrange and what they did in the occupied territory.
        And then we have 2 extremes or "sausages with Bavarian" or almost 100% eviction and destruction.
        At least from the articles of the author it is clear that the plans were at odds with reality.
        "What is good for a German, for a Russian - death." Most of the occupied population did not accept the Germans as "liberators", and some actively fought.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 29 October 2020 11: 09
          -2
          Quote: ee2100
          Most of the occupied population did not accept the Germans as "liberators", and some actively fought.

          Yes, it was no longer about the method of management, but the very survival of the people and he stood up for the Fatherland, as in OV 1812 (by no means the peasants stood up for serfdom) and other wars.
          1. ee2100
            ee2100 29 October 2020 11: 26
            +7
            The Patriotic War of 1812 began to be called only 50 years after its end. There are conflicting opinions about the peasants who took up the pitchfork and smashed the French. Vasilisa Kozhina is known with a detachment. That's probably all.
            Europe, occupied by the Germans during WW2, 100% accepted their "rules".
            Why didn't most of the population of the USSR do this? Most likely it is a belief in a new system, where there was more JUSTICE than there was under the tsar and even under capitalism.
            1. Ryazan87
              Ryazan87 29 October 2020 11: 49
              +5
              The Patriotic War of 1812 began to be called only 50 years after its end

              Much earlier (and this is in addition to Glinka's notes). Own, already during the campaign of 1812, such references are found.
              Vasilisa Kozhina is known with a detachment. That's probably all.

              Gerasim Kurin and Yegor Stulov look at you in bewilderment. However, it is enough to read the French documents. Or any Russian memoirs, for example N.N. Muravyov-Karsky. True, there will be a lot of unappetizing details.
              Europe, occupied by the Germans during WW2, 100% accepted their "rules".

              This, sorry, is a lie.
              Why didn't the majority of the USSR population do this? Most likely it is a belief in a new system.

              The main reason is the preservation of the Soviet state and an efficient army. Most of the population in the occupied territories was preoccupied with the issue of physical survival, which is absolutely normal.
            2. Olgovich
              Olgovich 29 October 2020 15: 08
              +1
              Quote: ee2100
              Patriotic War of 1812 began to be called only after 50 years after its end

              Victims of EG: F.N. Glinka: “The exploits of Count M.A. Miloradovich in Patriotic the war of 1812 "was published in Moscow in 1814 g.), and in 1816 his article appeared in the journal "Son of the Fatherland" - "Discourses on the need to have a history Patriotic war 1812 ".
              Quote: ee2100
              There are conflicting opinions about the peasants who took up the pitchfork and smashed the French. Vasilisa Kozhina is known with a detachment. That's probably and that’s it.

              The victims of EG have everything, but for normal people these are Chntvertakov, Vasiliev, Kuchin, Samus, etc., this is the people's militia, these are the peasants in Kutuzov's army who fought to the death
              Quote: ee2100
              Why didn't most of the population of the USSR do this? Most likely it is a belief in a new system, where there was more JUSTICE than there was under the tsar and even under capitalism.

              The people stood up for the Fatherland: as well as 100 and 200 and 300 and 1000 years before the Second World War.

              And no one stood up for the system in 91 g.
              1. ee2100
                ee2100 29 October 2020 16: 51
                -1
                Are you a propagandist?
            3. The comment was deleted.
        2. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 30 October 2020 00: 33
          +5
          Quote: ee2100
          There is propaganda, but there is information based on documents and this must be distinguished.

          sorry, but this article is based on the "Veles ledger" confidence level document request Does this bother you?
          1. ee2100
            ee2100 30 October 2020 07: 25
            -3
            Why should I be confused by the documents given in the article? Are they contradicting something? There were plans and there were realities. You are not confused by the documents of the party congresses according to which we should have lived under communism for a long time?
            Comparison with the Veles ledger is absolutely inappropriate, although it is also a document.
            1. wehr
              30 October 2020 21: 30
              -1
              By the way. And where is communism? I was supposed to be born under communism, and instead I have to squirm in the hell of capitalism. laughing
      3. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 29 October 2020 10: 01
        0
        ... with the tenacity of a maniac. .....
        but to look through the book. ..... take your time to buy.
        What if in the library?
      4. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 October 2020 14: 14
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
        With the stubbornness of a maniac, verhoturov continues to rivet his articles. The name alone makes it clear who the author is.
        I have only one question, who pays the author for all this dirt, or does he work from a pure heart and out of love for art?

        P.S. The author, I want to remind you that in the Russian Federation there is article 354.1 "rehabilitation of nazism" and all your opuses, upon closer examination, are quite suitable for it.

        Comrade Epishev, re-login. smile
        Yes, what Verkhoturov writes about does not coincide with the official history, in which the entire Soviet people as one person rose to fight with a fascist force, a dark, cursed horde - and only a few renegades denigrated the bright name of the Soviet man, embarking on the criminal path of cooperation with the enemy.
        But here's the problem: the official number of partisans is well known, the official number of traitors is also well known. And these figures are much less than the population that ended up in the occupied territory. And about how the ordinary population lived and survived, the official history says practically nothing. And in exactly the same way, this story bypasses the peculiarities of the German economy in these territories, although in the memoirs of the same partisan commanders the preservation of the collective economy by the Germans in the countryside is mentioned.
        1. Plastmaster
          Plastmaster 29 October 2020 19: 05
          0
          I apologize. I still didn't get it. And who are you for?
          1. hjvtp1966
            hjvtp1966 30 October 2020 19: 52
            +1
            For the truth, I suppose .... for this and science - History!
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 29 October 2020 06: 38
    15
    However, all these are just hypotheses. The Red Army relieved the Germans of all these worries and, ultimately, established the collective farm-state farm system in Germany itself.
    ... Now, collective farms have been replaced by agricultural holdings, where agricultural workers work on lands belonging to one person or a small group of people, for a small share and "nishtyaks" under a collective agreement, and even then not everywhere, sometimes for a small share, guest workers work, without a collective agreement. which have an owner, but the land is not cultivated ..
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 29 October 2020 06: 41
      -2
      There are many lands that have an owner, but the land is not cultivated ..

      Yeah there is a master ... no serfs ... disorder in the Russian state.
      Although why are they needed? ... After all, record grain harvests have become the norm in recent years ... someone grows them.
      And the article is interesting ... thanks to the author for the work. hi
      1. Daniil Konovalenko
        Daniil Konovalenko 29 October 2020 08: 07
        +7
        Land has now become a commodity. Record harvests are not given by single farmers, agricultural holdings, they have more opportunities. I will remember Thatcher in the 90s, canceled subsidies for farmers, their place was taken by agricultural holdings.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 29 October 2020 08: 45
          +6
          Moreover, the agricultural holding is organized according to the Stalinist principle, it is either very large in order to have its own MTS, or it simply rents equipment. That is, just the next step in relation to collective farms.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 29 October 2020 13: 19
            +4
            Quote: EvilLion
            Moreover, the agricultural holding is organized according to the Stalinist principle, it is either very large in order to have its own MTS, or it simply rents equipment. That is, just the next step in relation to collective farms.

            Rather, not to collective farms, but to state farms — for hired workers.
    2. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 29 October 2020 07: 23
      +7
      Quote: parusnik
      ..... There are many lands that have an owner, but the land is not cultivated ..
      that's why he is the owner am his land, what to do with it, what he wants. If he wants - he will process it, he wants - he won't. Or he may want to ---- make a dump of anything there, a waste storage negative very different. A very profitable activity. Sarcasm-sss sad
      Kapitaklizm-sss
      1. BAI
        BAI 29 October 2020 09: 11
        +8
        that's why he is the owner of his land, what to do with it, what he wants.

        Nothing like this. On agricultural land, you cannot, for example, engage in construction. In the Vladimir region, when they began to observe this law, a lot of plots for cottages immediately stood up, at the stage of marking and laying communications. The fact that this law is violated everywhere is another topic (here the occupation regime would be useful - for violation, immediately shooting, without democratic corruption). When agricultural land is idle, by the way, the plot should be withdrawn (theoretically). But again, this is not (practically).
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid 29 October 2020 09: 54
          +3
          Quote: BAI
          ..... The fact that this law is violated everywhere is another matter ...
          , I'm just talking about this, this is the end result of the entire system. We have ----
          Quote: BAI
          that's why he is the owner of his land, what to do with it, what he wants.

          ........ When agricultural land is idle, by the way, the plot should be withdrawn (theoretically). But again, this is not (practically).
          By the way, if the owner does nothing in gardening, then not indifferent neighbors can get into trouble. And what about the big landowner? Who! What are we talking about.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Ravik
    Ravik 29 October 2020 07: 55
    +4
    Free up living space for the Germans.
    All Slavs to the nail - that is, to destroy.
    What are German collective farms?
    1. Plastmaster
      Plastmaster 29 October 2020 19: 12
      0
      On the other hand, it was necessary to fix the future labor force. Until the times of victory. And it's not a sin to take off the harvest. So I fully believe in the semblance of German collective farms.
  5. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 29 October 2020 08: 03
    +5
    Hitler's goal was to conquer living space. And in this space there is no place for "aborigines", well, or as slaves. An article on the topic: "If the Germans won, they would now drink Bavarian and eat German sausages." Although, in principle, this has been happening since the 90s ...
  6. EvilLion
    EvilLion 29 October 2020 08: 42
    13
    Or you can ask a simple question, how many rights did a hired worker have at the same time, and how many are now? A worker, for example, in principle, does not dispose of the result of his labor, and is super-rigidly limited in movement. And the liberties that they could afford on the collective farms in terms of working days for the industry. enterprise is impossible to imagine.

    and a strong kulak economy requires 20-30 hectares.


    It was 2020, Verkhoturov still does not know the definition of the word "fist".

    On the whole, for some reason, it does not occur to the author that collective farmers were the most loyal to the Soviet regime during the Second World War. Because they understood perfectly well that their whole more or less decent life that had just begun was due primarily to the MTS and the tractors in them. MTS, however, can only be served by large enterprises, that is, a collective farm / state farm, or a large farm, that is, the same state farm is only private. It's like the basics of collectivization.

    If the Germans did not want to allocate fuel to the collective farms and MTS, then the question is no longer in the collective farms, but in the fact that the peasant is left without equipment and will again plow with a plow, as under Catherine. It's just that people who were born in the 50s are so accustomed to the fact that there is always to eat that, in principle, they do not understand what it is like without tractors. But the peasant of the 40s understood, and therefore he was even ready to go partisans into the forests, just to help the Red Army drive out the German fascists.

    Private ownership of land among peasants, you know, it will be interesting for American migrant farmers, or Western European landowners to listen to, but the Russian peasant, I remind you, lived in a community, and all Stolypin's attempts to destroy this community ended in nothing. Because its destruction assumed that someone would become rich, someone a farm laborer, the rest, and tens of millions would simply die. In Europe and America, this process of de-peasantization went on for 200 years and cities or colonies could accept former peasants, but someone would die, it’s insignificant. Russia was 100 years late with this.

    Well, in 1941, the Germans had to get a harvest, and not engage in reorganization. Then they could do some kind of action within the framework of their ideology. However, without equipment and fuel, in conditions where people are forced to survive as best they can, collective farms would begin to disintegrate themselves, along with the atomization of society in the occupied territories.
    1. Lynx2000
      Lynx2000 29 October 2020 09: 07
      +3
      Quote: EvilLion

      Because they understood very well that their whole more or less decent life, which had just begun, was primarily due to the MTS and the tractors in them. MTS, however, can only be served by large enterprises, that is, a collective farm / state farm, or a large farm, that is, the same state farm is only private. It's like the basics of collectivization.

      Machine and tractor stations belonged to the state, in other words, they were subordinate to the local executive authority (District Committee). The equipment was allocated (not free of charge) to collective farms for the sowing / harvesting period. In modern terms, equipment, plows, harrows, seeders, mowers and combines were not on the balance sheet of collective farms, but were in the MTS.

      Quote: EvilLion

      Private ownership of land among peasants, you know, it will be interesting for American migrant farmers, or Western European landowners to listen to, but the Russian peasant, I remind you, lived in a community, and all Stolypin's attempts to destroy this community ended in nothing. Because its destruction assumed that someone would become rich, someone a farm laborer, the rest, and tens of millions would simply die. In Europe and America, this process of de-peasantization went on for 200 years and cities or colonies could accept former peasants, but someone would die, it’s insignificant. Russia was 100 years late with this.

      I agree that the land plots (wedges) were the property of the rural community. The allotments were distributed among the courtyards depending on the number of souls.
      1. alstr
        alstr 29 October 2020 09: 35
        +8
        We must also understand that MTS is not only equipment, but also the people who served them. Moreover, agronomists were often assigned to them.
        And MTS was a necessary measure, since equipment was sorely lacking. Just statistics: in 1928 about 1,3 thousand units were produced, in 1940 - 42 thousand. And this is for the entire USSR.
        The creation of the MTS allowed a minimum of trained personnel and a minimum of equipment to serve the largest amount of land, i.e. the technique did not simply stand idle.
        But even in the years of stagnation, when there was already enough equipment, it was still practiced to transfer equipment from one area to another.

        Plus, to raise yields and cultivate new crops, new agricultural technologies were needed, and simply the desire to apply and grow these methods and crops. And all this was needed to feed the city and take workers to the factories.
        So, in the community and private trader it was impossible (at least on a national scale). Therefore, the collective farm (the same community) allowed these methods and crops to be applied and grown, i.e. to break consciousness - this is how our fathers and grandfathers did and we will do.
        But we, as always, get it according to the saying "Make the fool pray to God - he will break his forehead."
        Plus, the lack of education of the leading party and economic cadres did their job.
        This situation is very well shown in the series "Eternal Call" - when the chairman, instead of sowing wheat, sowed rye.
        And after that we remember Khrushchev's corn.
        1. Lynx2000
          Lynx2000 29 October 2020 11: 21
          +3
          Quote: alstr
          We must also understand that MTS is not only equipment, but also the people who served them. Moreover, agronomists were often assigned to them.
          And MTS was a necessary measure, since equipment was sorely lacking. Just statistics: in 1928 about 1,3 thousand units were produced, in 1940 - 42 thousand. And this is for the entire USSR.
          The creation of the MTS allowed a minimum of trained personnel and a minimum of equipment to serve the largest amount of land, i.e. the technique did not simply stand idle.
          But even in the years of stagnation, when there was already enough equipment, it was still practiced to transfer equipment from one area to another.

          Of course, machine operators, mechanics, electricians, locksmiths were listed in the MTS. I don't know about agronomists, but I think that in the 20s and 30s. there might not even be one agronomist per district. This was already in the 60s, when the collective farms were united into state farms, an agronomist was listed in the state farm administration (there was also a party organizer), the state farm included several farms, which were divided into brigades. In the district committee, in the administration, in the agricultural department there was the chief agronomist of the district ...
          At the end of World War II, my grandfather was transferred from Czechoslovakia to the Moscow military district, and in 1949 he was demobilized from the army, sent to the Altai Territory, to restore agriculture, they said: from there he was called up, there you will establish a peaceful life. He returned, led two MTS.
          There is an old card at home, my grandfather in breeches, a T-shirt, in a cap sits on the Tsundappe (heavy with a stroller) near the plow.


          Quote: alstr

          So, in the community and private trader it was impossible (at least on a national scale). Therefore, the collective farm (the same community) allowed these methods and crops to be applied and grown, i.e. to break consciousness - this is how our fathers and grandfathers did and we will do.
          But we, as always, get it according to the saying "Make the fool pray to God - he will break his forehead."
          Plus, the lack of education of the leading party and economic cadres did their job.
          This situation is very well shown in the series "Eternal Call" - when the chairman, instead of sowing wheat, sowed rye.
          And after that we remember Khrushchev's corn.

          recourse
          I do not know how things were with agriculture in Central Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, but in the South of Western Siberia I know that the peasants united in "cooperatives", in Biysk and Barnaul it was opened under Stolypin Agricultural or Artelny bank (I don’t remember exactly), gave out loans, bought agricultural implements together.
          Immigrants from the central and southern provinces brought new methods of crop rotation, the culture of growing new vegetables and fruit trees.
          Yes, they sold surplus agricultural products. During the break between agricultural periods, they were engaged in additional trades: they were engaged in the transportation of goods along the Irkutsk and Chuisky tracts; hunted; engaged in logging and sawing for the sale of commercial timber.
          Particularly enterprising people built mills (water, wind and even steam). Artisanal creameries and cheese factories were created ...

          Regarding the Vechny Zov t / s: local and regional executive authorities could be well-educated agronomists or economic chairmen of collective farms, but they did not always go against the "party instructions" or made a party career to the detriment of local agriculture.
          By the way, there was no Shantar region. But there are Shantar Islands in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk (Reserve). wink

          P.S. We often remember Khrushchev, especially when you accidentally stumble into a hogweed ?!
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 29 October 2020 14: 42
            +2
            Artel bank (I don't remember exactly), issued loans, bought agricultural implements together


            This is called a collective farm. The question there was in labor accounting and, accordingly, in payment. Under the Bolsheviks, they did not come up with the collective farm itself, but the organization of work in it. Not without the help of the so-called. "twenty-five thousandths", with their experience in organizing prom. production.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 29 October 2020 14: 49
          +4
          In general, there were cultured people among the peasants, and the peasant can be very flexible in matters of his own survival, it was in the late Soviet years that smart people left the village, only a drunkard remained. So the peasant will willingly accept the successful actions of his neighbor. The question is about the possibilities of their implementation without machines.

          MTS, like any large tech. the center is also a place for training personnel, which cannot be said about the collective farm tractor driver who repairs his tractor as best he can.

          As for the personnel, Stalin's genius is that he somehow managed to rule a country in which the level of literacy of middle-level managers was below the floor. And these very managers in connection with industrialization were required much more than under the king.
          1. Lynx2000
            Lynx2000 29 October 2020 23: 47
            +1
            Quote: EvilLion
            In general, there were cultured people among the peasants, and the peasant can be very flexible in matters of his own survival, it was in the late Soviet years that smart people left the village, only a drunkard remained. So the peasant will willingly accept the successful actions of his neighbor. The question is about the possibilities of their implementation without machines.

            I do not agree with you, smart people can organize a profitable business in the countryside.
            There are examples when an enterprising person was elected the head of a state farm by its participants, kept production, set up production of agricultural products, and set up its implementation.
            There are enough "drunks" in the cities, there are many reasons, but this is not an excuse, no one pours a person into his mouth by force.

            Quote: EvilLion

            MTS, like any large tech. the center is also a place for training personnel, which cannot be said about the collective farm tractor driver who repairs his tractor as best he can.

            Later, the equipment was transferred from the MTS (not free of charge) to collective farms / state farms. On the basis of large MTS in each region, branches of "Selkhoztekhnika" were created through which the state provided state farms with agricultural machinery, spare parts and services (warranty / overhaul).
            Regarding the rural machine operator as poorly trained, I disagree with you. Skills depend on experience, as well as a natural craving for mechanics. In the city, special equipment can be “killed” in several trips.
            In late Soviet times, in state farms, each farm had a repair shop with a locksmith shop, repair boxes and warehouses for spare parts. There were 1-2 technical assistance vehicles on duty. The farm was headed by the chief mechanic of the state farm. There were also 1-2 repairmen in the brigades. In addition, in each regional center there were vocational schools with a material base. The state farms had summer labor camps where young people were trained in agricultural work, the use of agricultural machinery and equipment.

            Quote: EvilLion

            As for the personnel, Stalin's genius is that he somehow managed to rule a country in which the level of literacy of middle-level managers was below the floor. And these very managers in connection with industrialization were required much more than under the king.

            I want to say that in those days there was a motivation to get an education (not bad), while working.
        3. Ua3qhp
          Ua3qhp 30 October 2020 08: 25
          0
          Quote: alstr
          But even in the years of stagnation, when there was already enough equipment, it was still practiced to transfer equipment from one area to another.

          This is still being practiced. At least the transfer of grain harvesters. It's more profitable this way.
  7. Blacksmith 55
    Blacksmith 55 29 October 2020 09: 02
    -8
    Bread is grown in the Russian Empire, and in modern Russia, there is enough bread, hunger was quite a rare occurrence.
    In the USSR, they may have grown enough bread, but they sold it abroad and "gave" it to "friends" around the world.
    The collective farm demanded to fulfill the plan and ... to overfulfill.
    I know from experience, they even swept out the waste, then the farms bought (at a different price) the same waste for livestock feed.
    Although the topic of the article is different.
    The fact that in the Soviet Union the collective farmer was a second-class person has long been known, the situation began to change in the mid-sixties.
    Well, the Nazis understood that if the population was not allowed to grow bread, then it would have to be fed. And in Germany there were also big problems with bread.
  8. BAI
    BAI 29 October 2020 09: 03
    +4
    Listing 5 reasons for the preservation of collective farms, the author missed the sixth:
    It is much easier to deal with one large farm than with dozens or even hundreds of individual farmers.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 October 2020 13: 52
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      Listing 5 reasons for the preservation of collective farms, the author missed the sixth:
      It is much easier to deal with one large farm than with dozens or even hundreds of individual farmers.

      Perhaps this is one of the main reasons - the possibility of simplifying centralized accounting and control, as well as the seizure of agricultural products. It is easier to unload collective farm warehouses than to arrange another dispossession of individual farmers.
  9. Konogon
    Konogon 29 October 2020 10: 16
    -2
    Well yes. Well yes. They didn't know what to do. First you should study "Mein Kampf" - I think all questions will disappear by themselves.
    1. wehr
      29 October 2020 11: 42
      0
      By the way, what does it say about collective farms? repeat
  10. valdissumy
    valdissumy 29 October 2020 12: 12
    +6
    I want to share my thoughts on this issue, which are made from stories in the 60s - 70s of the 20th century by my relatives and friends, as well as from the documents of the Sumy regional archive, especially looking through the newspapers of the occupation period (1941-1943), exposed for free viewing in electronic form on-line.
    Having occupied the territory of Ukraine, the Nazis were pleasantly surprised that a well-oiled system of securing the labor force for agricultural producers in the form of collective and state farms had already been created here. The "new owners" do not need to run around many small agricultural producers and collect taxes and food for the Reich, as was the case in Europe. All people are gathered in one place and it is easy to control them. The entire harvested crop is also concentrated in one place and this makes it easier to export. This was sometimes used by the partisans.
    All the collaborationist newspapers published orders from the occupation authorities on the mandatory registration of the entire working-age population with the occupation authorities and on going to work. For failure to comply with an order, at best, sending to work in Germany, a concentration camp or execution.
    The leaders of such enterprises, and their structural divisions (brigades, farms, etc.), were very often appointed former chairmen of collective farms, foremen, agronomists. The most severe measures for refusal to cooperate.
    In collaborationist newspapers "the military labor of agricultural workers was glorified" and nowhere was there even a note that the collective farms would be closed. Perhaps in the more northern regions that were occupied, collective farms were disbanded, but Ukraine and the Kuban were serious suppliers of food to the Reich. So, I do not quite agree with the author of the article.
    Now off topic. It is very interesting to read the collaborationist newspapers of the occupation period, especially information from the front. In each issue "the Wehrmacht troops are heroically advancing, crushing the regiments and divisions of the Red Army and capturing large territories", but in the following issues they begin their offensive more and more from the western positions. During the fighting on the Kursk Bulge, the newspaper published data on the daily losses of the Red Army in tanks and aircraft from 3 to 10 thousand units of equipment per day. For a week of battles, this number turned out to be 5 times more than was produced in the USSR during the entire war. After Kursk, the publication of newspapers was stopped due to the liberation of the territory of Sumy region.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 30 October 2020 08: 32
      +2
      It is very interesting to read the collaborationist newspapers of the occupation period, especially information from the front.

      I agree, very informative. Once I read the German "Bulletin of Air Defense" for 1942-1943, there, without comment, the front line of the times of the Battle of Stalingrad was given. And not a single comment, because they had nothing to say.
  11. Astra wild2
    Astra wild2 29 October 2020 13: 38
    +9
    Colleagues, off topic. Today is the birthday of RKSM-Komsomol.! Congratulations to all former Komsomol members!
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 29 October 2020 17: 26
      +3
      On the topic, on the topic ... But blurred laughing Happy Holidays! drinks
      1. Astra wild2
        Astra wild2 29 October 2020 19: 07
        0
        Thank you for your understanding, and that is, individuals who seem to be ironic or laughing, and themselves beg for cheap ones +
    2. Hantengri
      Hantengri 29 October 2020 19: 49
      +5
      Thank you, Sentyabrinka Hon! To be honest, I have already forgotten about such a holiday. And, after all, once, he was a Komsomol organizer of a group, then a course, then an instructor of the Central Komsomol of the UzSSR ... It's a shame, yes! repeat
      Mutual congratulations to you and a bush of wild saintbrinks, as a gift! hi
      1. Astra wild2
        Astra wild2 29 October 2020 19: 56
        0
        Han, thank you for your attention.
  12. Plastmaster
    Plastmaster 29 October 2020 18: 59
    +1
    Quote: Olgovich
    And no one stood up for the system in 91 g

    But now 90% of those who did not get up regret it. If only I knew .......
    1. Essex62
      Essex62 30 October 2020 07: 28
      +4
      Why, they got up, but not many. Most did not understand where this would lead.
  13. hjvtp1966
    hjvtp1966 30 October 2020 20: 10
    0
    Quote: wehr
    By the way, what does it say about collective farms? repeat

    Mein Kampf Written before collectivization.