Military Review

How Khrushchev sentenced the Russian village

100
Nikita Khrushchev began his activities with the destruction of agriculture, the Russian countryside - the basis of the life of the Russian civilization for thousands of years. For all the enemies of Russia and the Russian people, this move is an old proven classic. The Russian village is the basis of the economy, the reproduction of the Russian super-ethnos, its spiritual health. If a country cannot feed itself, it is forced to buy food, paying for it with gold and its own resources, which are necessary for the development of the country. Food insecurity is very dangerous in the context of the outbreak of World War I and can lead to famine.


Khrushchev, considering himself a great specialist in the field of agriculture, launched several destructive projects at once. At the end of the Stalin era and in the first years after his death, agriculture developed successfully. However, the successful rise of agriculture quickly came to an end. Khrushchev suddenly ordered the liquidation of state machine-tractor stations (MTS).

These state-owned enterprises on a contractual basis with agricultural collective farms carried out their production and technical services. Most of the collective and state farms did not have enough money to independently buy complex agricultural machines, tractors and ensure their uninterrupted work, to train the corresponding personnel. In addition, the technology in the first stages was not enough, and there was a need for its concentration and centralized distribution. The concentration of large-scale agricultural equipment in the MTS gave in such conditions a great economic gain. MTS also played a significant role in the general rise in the cultural and technical level of the peasantry. In the Soviet Union, a large layer of the rural technically literate population appeared - qualified tractor drivers, chauffeurs, combine operators, repairmen, etc. By 1958, there were about 2 million people in total.

Khrushchev eliminated the MTS and ordered the collective farms to buy agricultural equipment — tractors, combines, etc. Moreover, prices were set high. Collective farms had to spend all the savings that were left over for 1954-1956 for the purchase of equipment, which worsened their financial situation. Also, collective farms did not have the means to immediately create an appropriate base for the storage and maintenance of machinery. In addition, they did not have relevant technical specialists. They could not massively attract former employees of MTS. The state could allow workers in machine-tractor stations to pay more wages than collective farms. Therefore, the majority of workers began to look for more profitable niches and found another use for themselves. As a result, many machines without proper maintenance quickly turned into scrap metal. Continuous losses. It was a heavy blow to the economic potential of the Soviet countryside.

In addition, Nikita Khrushchev launched a campaign to consolidate collective and state farms. Their number was reduced from 83 thousand to 45 thousand. It was believed that they would unite into powerful "collective farm unions". Khrushchev was hoping to implement his old project on the creation of "agro-cities".

As a result, new giant, overwhelmingly unmanaged, farms, including dozens of villages, were created. The leaders of these “agro-cities” began to quickly degenerate into a food-marketing “mafia”, which dictated its rules to the authorities, including prices and volumes of supplies. Thus, the "collective farm unions" actually achieved the right to sell "their" products mainly in urban markets at inflated prices. In addition, this project required large capital investments, which the collective farms did not have. Collective farms and so have spent the last funds for the purchase of equipment. As a result, the enlargement campaign failed. By the middle of the 1980s, over 60% of state farms established in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period in the Russian Non-Black Earth Region turned out to be unprofitable.

Interestingly, even the pricing policy was directed against the Russian countryside. The state set minimum purchase prices for agricultural products precisely in the Non-Black Earth Region of the RSFSR. This policy was conducted from the end of 1950 to the end of the USSR. As a result, the national republics of Transcaucasia and Central Asia received an additional channel of stimulation and monetary support.

Sentence Russian village

Khrushchev struck another powerful blow to the village when he began the course of eliminating "unpromising" villages. Suddenly, all of a sudden, thousands of prosperous Soviet villages were declared unprofitable, "unpromising" and destroyed in a short time for such a fraudulent reason. The “experts” who came from where they began to evaluate which villages could be left and which had no prospects. Top descended instructions to search for "unpromising" villages. This process began in 1958 with the North-West region of the RSFSR, in accordance with the “closed” decision of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR.

In fact, the current Russian “optimizers” (“optimization” of rural schools, polyclinics, etc.) repeated the experience of Khrushchevites. The policy was aimed at the settlement of residents from small villages to large ones and concentrating in them the main part of the population, industrial and social facilities. The "reformers" proceeded from the false promise that highly concentrated forms of settlement should correspond to highly mechanized agriculture. It was assumed that in the future each collective farm (state farm) will include 1 or 2 settlements with the number of inhabitants from 1-2 thousand to 5-10 thousand people. Based on this, strongholds were allocated in the settlement network - promising villages. They planned to resettle residents from small, so-called unpromising villages, which ranked up to 80% (!) Of their total number. It was believed that such a change in the settlement structure would not only create opportunities for a more rapid development of the socio-cultural and household sphere of the village, bringing it closer to urban standards, but also reduce the flow of migrants from village to city.

The settlement and liquidation of “unpromising" villages were carried out in the form of an order, without taking into account the desire of the villagers themselves. Once in the “black list”, the village was already doomed, since capital construction stopped, schools, shops, clubs were closed, bus routes were liquidated, etc. Such conditions forced people to leave the well-lived places. At the same time, 2 / 3 immigrants did not migrate to their localities, but to district centers, cities, and other regions of the country. Residents of "unpromising" villages were resettled, villages and farms were empty throughout the Soviet Union. Thus, the number of villages in Siberia for 1959 — 1979. decreased in 2 times (from 31 thousand to 15 thousand). The largest decline occurred from 1959 to 1970 (35,8%). There has been a significant reduction in the number of small villages and the entire settlement network.

It must be said that this same policy, but by default, without centralized evacuation of people from their homes, was continued in the Russian Federation. Nobody declared “unpromising” villages, villages and settlements, but capital construction stopped, they began to “enlarge” schools (“optimize”, essentially liquidate), reduce polyclinics, hospitals, bus routes, movement of suburban trains-electric trains, etc.

Only by the end of the 1970-s, the policy of eliminating "unpromising" villages in the USSR was considered erroneous, but the tendency to reduce the number of small villages was already difficult to stop. Villages continued to die after the closure of this policy. Across the Urals, Siberia and the Far East for 1959 — 1989. the number of villages decreased 2,2 times (from 72,8 thousand to 32,6 thousand). In most cases, this policy adversely affected the entire socio-economic development of the village and the country as a whole. The country suffered serious demographic damage. The process of concentration has led to a decrease in the population level. The thinning of the network of populated areas in the eastern districts weakened and disrupted inter-settlement links and negatively impacted public services. The village lost one of its main functions - spatial development. The village lost the most active, young people, many of whom left their homeland forever. There were also moral negative consequences. There was a marginalization of a significant part of the population, people lost their roots, the meaning of life. No wonder then the village people were considered less spoiled by the vices of urban civilization. The defeated village began to "sink", drink too much. The incidence and mortality of the rural population in "unpromising" regions has sharply increased.

There was a sharp social aggravation of relations between the city and the countryside. The policy led to a strong overpopulation of cities, since the immigrants preferred to migrate not to the settlements determined for them, but to district centers, cities. This led to a constant fall in the price of labor, as well as skilled labor in industry and the extractive industries. Of course, this often led to conflicts with citizens, not to mention the so-called “sausage landings” of villagers in the cities.

This campaign, initiated by Khrushchev, caused terrible harm to the Russian countryside. No wonder the Russian writer Vasily Belov called the struggle with the so-called "unpromising" villages "a crime against the peasants." The first to suffer were the indigenous Russian regions of the Black Earth region, as well as the Russian rural population of Siberia. The damage was multifaceted and enormous: from damage to agriculture to a demographic attack on the Russian people. After all, it was the Russian village that gave the main increase to the superethnos of the Rus.

It is worth noting that the blow was struck precisely on the Russian people and the Russian village with its traditional agricultural sectors. After all, the national autonomy in the RSFSR, this campaign is almost not affected. And such measures were not provided for in the rural regions of the national republics of the USSR.

The consequences of this “reform” were very numerous and affected the Russian civilizations for decades. And still affect. So, the degradation of the village since the end of the 1950-s has been increasingly spread throughout the Non-Black-Earth of the RSFSR, especially the European one. As a result, by the second half of the 1980s, over 70% of all state and collective farms of the European Non-Black Earth Region of Russia proved to be chronically unprofitable, and the commercial yields of most crops and the productivity of pig farming with poultry were even lower than in the first half of 1950's. Similar trends manifested themselves in the Urals and Siberia.

This was a blow to the food security of the empire. If, under Stalin, products were exported from the USSR, then since the end of the 1960-ies there has been a bet on the import of agricultural products from the Eastern European socialist camp and Cuba. These were the long-term implications of Khrushchev’s agricultural and rural policy (including virgin and "corn") epics. It came to the point that articles about the inexpediency of the cultivation of sugar beet in Russia (!) Were published in 1970-s in view of the "guaranteed supply of raw cane sugar from fraternal Cuba." By the middle of 1980, the share of Eastern European and Cuban imports in the supply of RSFSR cities with meat (including poultry meat), sugar and fruits exceeded 70%, and the villages reached 60%. It was a shame and a disaster. The huge Soviet power, which had traditionally strong agriculture, could not provide itself with food!

Thus, the USSR was placed on food supplies from the outside, although Russia-the USSR, both at that time and now has all the possibilities for independent and full provision of food. All these are the consequences of the policies of Khrushchev and his followers, including modern Russian liberals. Not surprisingly, the Russian village since that time in chronic agony, and the policy of Gorbachev - Yeltsin - Medvedev practically killed her. And in Russian stores we see meat, milk, vegetables and even berries from all over the world: from Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Israel, China, etc.

How Khrushchev sentenced the Russian village

Nikita Khrushchev (left) drinks Pepsi-Cola, Richard Nixon (center) is watching him. American exhibition in Moscow, July 1959 of the year

Impact on population reproduction

As already noted, Khrushchev’s experiments in agriculture caused great harm to the Soviet countryside, leading to its bleeding. Another blow to the people was the decree that allowed abortion. In 1936, due to the difficult demographic situation, abortion operations were banned under penalty of criminal responsibility. Decree of the CEC and SNK of the USSR on June 27 1936 "On the prohibition of abortion ..." The resolution also increased material assistance to women in childbirth, established state assistance to multi-family, expanded a network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens, etc. At the same time, abortions could be carried out for medical reasons.

23 in November 1955 of the Year by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR "On the abolition of the prohibition of abortion", the operation of the artificial termination of pregnancy allowed all women in the absence of medical contraindications. It should be noted that the USSR was an advanced country in this matter. In all developed Western countries, abortion was still banned. In 1920, the Soviet Republic became the first country in the world to legalize termination of pregnancy at the request of a woman. It should be noted that in the 1920 year, the Trotskyists prevailed in the Soviet government. In 1955, the course that led Russia-USSR to destruction again prevailed, and the Russian people to extinction. For comparison, a similar law in Great Britain was adopted only in 1967, in the USA - in 1973, in France - in 1975, etc.

On the one hand, the “reforms” of Khrushchev were chaotic and disorderly, on the other - they were systematic. The essence of this system is destruction. With all their apparent confusion and irregularity, with all the broadest spectrum of Khrushchev inventions, one can always single out one common pattern. All reforms led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet project as a whole.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Khrushchev "perestroika"

Enemy blow to the Soviet civilization
As Khrushchev, the Soviet armed forces and law enforcement bodies were trashers
100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. venaya
    venaya 17 February 2016 06: 19
    22
    Khrushchev's “reforms” were chaotic and erratic; on the other, they were systemic. The essence of this system is destruction

    You can arbitrarily criticize the article, but in the main the author is right - all the activities of Khrushchev turned out to be aimed at the final destruction of the country. At the same time, it doesn’t matter at all what Khrushchev himself wanted, what matters is what came of it as a result.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 17 February 2016 07: 14
      27
      Quote: venaya
      All Khrushchev’s activities turned out to be aimed at the final destruction of the country.

      One can criticize Khrushchev arbitrarily, only the activity on the destruction of villages has not stopped so far in the form of optimization, efficiency, expediency, etc. Recall closed FAPs, elementary schools, etc. request
      1. venaya
        venaya 17 February 2016 07: 38
        0
        Quote: Vladimirets
        activities on the destruction of villages have not stopped so far in the form of optimization, efficiency, expediency, etc.

        Constructive ideas are interesting, for this they are necessary: ​​1) Identify errors 2) Find solutions 3) Find the necessary capabilities for this. Now, in this article, we consider only errors, further actions will require discussion of other articles of a different orientation. If you have any suggestions, then this is wonderful.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Tatyana
          Tatyana 17 February 2016 09: 04
          +1
          The author confuses the causes and effects regarding abortion policy in the country. And this is unacceptable!
          Khrushchev was in many ways sinful, but not here.

          See http://topwar.ru/76913-abort-rozhat-ili-ne-rozhat-pravoslavie-i-nacionalnaya-bez
          opasnost-rf-statya-2.html
          Quote from the article.
          Artificial abortion has existed in all countries and at all times. Abortion is a pragmatic social way of economic self-regulation of the composition and size of the family: from a complete and incomplete family to the number of children and their gender in the family. And this sexually hidden side of the economic life of the cell of society has always been in the sphere of political control and influence from those in power.
          For the first time in the world, abortions were allowed in Russia in 1920. ... In Russia, post-war, post-revolutionary famine and devastation reigned.
          And in the 1936 year, by a resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of June 27, abortion in the USSR was completely prohibited.
          As a result, the effect of an increase in the birth rate from the ban on abortions was short-lived, but the maternal mortality rate increased markedly.
          For example. In the USSR as a whole in the 1937 year, 568 thousand abortions were recorded (!), In the 1939 year - 723 thousand, in the 1940-m - 807 thousand. an average of about 700 thousand per year. Of which the number of so-called “Community-acquired” abortions amounted to about 92%, or even more. At least over 1,5 million abortion women from 15 to 49 years 4 years before the war were clearly convicted. Maternal and abortion mortality in cities immediately increased 2-3 times. (There were no records in rural regions.) In total, in the 1940 year, maternal mortality among the urban population was almost 329 per 100 thousand births (for comparison: in the 2000 year in Russian cities, 35 per 100 thousand births). And at the beginning of the 1950's. this mortality exceeded 452 by 100 thousand births. Moreover, these data are incomplete and greatly underestimated due to the bribery of doctors and officials to hide the fact of a crime. And the birth rate quickly returned to almost the previous level. The number of infanticides has also increased. - http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2005/0221/reprod01.php#_FN_1
          In 1945, men returned home from the war - and so on. “Out-of-hospital” abortiveness in the devastated and crippled USSR began with a new force and with results, as in 1940 year. The ban on abortion in the USSR was abolished in the 1955 year, as ineffective, erroneous. In total, only abortion women were convicted in the 1936-1945 years of the order of 3,5 million.
          1. Belogor
            Belogor 17 February 2016 10: 10
            +1
            be silent, woman. they didn’t give you a word.
          2. abrek
            abrek 17 February 2016 16: 55
            +9
            "A total of about 1936 million women abortions alone were convicted in 1945-3,5."
            Do you yourself believe in the nonsense that you wrote? Why 3,5 million, but not 35 million. Solzhenitsyn's laurels do not give rest?
            "And in the early 1950s this mortality rate exceeded 452 per 100 births." - this is 0,5%, even if you believe in such a figure, it is understandable. Most of the mothers were children or adolescents in the Second World War - they starved, worked for 12 hours, weak honey. maintenance, etc., and the restoration of the destroyed oilfield also did not have a beneficial effect on reducing mortality. But your source - Isupov V.A. - is a well-known layman paid by the Anglo-Saxons, see where the data comes from - Source: Avdeev A., Blum A., Troitskaya I. L'avortement et la contraception en Russie et dans l'ex-URSS: histoire et présent // Dossiers et Recherches. No. 41. Paris, INED: 1993: 69-72.
            When the brains turn on ???
            1. Tatyana
              Tatyana 17 February 2016 18: 12
              +2
              abrek
              "But your source - Isupov V. A - is a well-known layman, paid by the Anglo-Saxons, see where the data comes from - Source: Avdeev A., Blum A., Troitskaya I. L'avortement et la contraception en Russie et dans l'ex-URSS : histoire et présent // Dossiers et Recherches No. 41. Paris, INED: 1993: 69–72.
              When will you turn on your brains ??? "

              Sorry, but you are absolutely incorrect in your criticism in scientific terms.
              First, I provided a link to the article from which this quote was taken.
              "See http://topwar.ru/76913-abort-rozhat-ili-ne-rozhat-pravoslavie-i-nacionalnaya-bez
              opasnost-rf-statya-2.html
              Quote from the article. "
              There is another link inside this quote - http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2005/0221/reprod01.php#_FN_1

              And secondly, this is data that is recognized by the Russian State Archive of Eclonomics! And there are NO other scientifically recorded demographic data for these periods!
              Can you offer something else ?! Presumably NO!
              What claims can be to me? That is why your criticism is scientifically untenable and therefore incorrect.
      2. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 17 February 2016 09: 31
        +1
        Actually, here I do not agree with the author and you. The Soviet government promised to provide everyone with social services such as education and health. And how do you build a school if there are only a dozen houses in the village? In those days, there were no buses in sight. My mom went to school for kilometers 7 round trip, in winter skiing, and there are wolves in the area balls. . . So there really was a choice: either to leave illiteracy and disorder in small villages in the country, or to carry out enlargement. Well, there was still an option, like the Chukchi, to send children to boarding schools before graduation, would you like it more? In general, this event was in line with the Soviet ideology aimed at turning the peasant into a rural proletariat. For this, the authorities needed to drive a person from the village to the city, albeit a small one.
        1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
          Uncle VasyaSayapin 17 February 2016 11: 15
          12
          My father went to school in the nearest villages for 40-50 km in the 5-7s, and in different years in different years. In schools, 1 foreign, each in its own. As a result, he did not know a single foreign language at all.
          It is not realistic to solve the problem of equal access of the population to education, medical care, modern infrastructure without enlarging the population centers. And in the absence of a culturally educated, honest "bosses" at the district level, it was possible only by force, one size fits all, by a decree from the center.
          Under Stalin there was a general education - 7 classes and a school (courses), and under Khrushchev 11 classes + institute or technical school (I judge this by my parents). They opened a bunch of institutes for which there weren’t even any teachers, thereby lowering the bar of higher education. From our time it seems that if we did everything gradually, wisely, the effect would be higher. But who would do that?
          And about Khrushchev - as my friend's father said: "an initiative goof is worse than a fool." And we still have such boobies all the time. Sometimes you look - how did it come up?
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. atalef
            atalef 17 February 2016 13: 31
            11
            Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
            It is not realistic to solve the problem of equal access of the population to education, medical care, modern infrastructure without enlarging us.

            so it’s not a big question, but how did you solve this problem in the decaying West and in the States?
            So farms and farms did not seem to be consolidated and the people did not die out and did not remain illiterate.
            Everything is very simple, there was personal transport (affordable) and public transport, and everyone knows about yellow school buses.
            And that's all.
            Only peasants lived in such conditions. that not only a car. The motorcycle was a luxury item.
            My father-in-law told me how, after the war, their village was simply evicted and all gathered in one village (Strugi Krasny, Pskov Region) and passing through a huge training ground, he told me - there was such a village. and here it is.
            nothing left . not a village. nor the peasants.

            Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Under Stalin, universal education was - 7 classes and school (courses), and under Khrushchev 11 classes

            There were no 11 classes of universal education ever.
            8 - summer compulsory, further optional
            Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
            And about Khrushchev - as my friend's father said: "an initiative goof is worse than a fool." And we still have such boobies all the time. Sometimes you look - how did it come up?

            Yes, for some reason Rogozin Khrushchev reminds me. I don’t know why.
            1. go21zd45few
              go21zd45few 17 February 2016 19: 56
              +3
              And how many villages were drowned when creating reservoirs.
          3. go21zd45few
            go21zd45few 17 February 2016 19: 53
            +1
            Under Khrushchev there was an incomplete secondary education (7) grades, 10 grades a complete secondary education, vocational school, secondary technical education (technical schools) and higher education. This education system was effective until our brainless ones interfered in the reconstruction of Russian education reformers.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. RUSS
          RUSS 17 February 2016 13: 19
          +1
          Quote: Nikolai K
          Actually, here I do not agree with the author and you.

          The author of the article, Alexander Samsonov, simply "straddled" the now fashionable and largely unsuccessful direction in exposing Khrushchev, it is generally fashionable to expose and denigrate it, remember, under the Union, the tsars and tsarism in general (Nicholas II still) the state was rampant destanization, well, and now all the dogs on Nikita!
          1. ava09
            ava09 18 December 2016 09: 13
            +1
            Quote: RUSS
            until recently, almost at the state level there was a general de-stylization, well, now all the dogs on Nikita!

            Did you notice that when there was "general de-Stalinization," the Trotskyist-Khrushchev was not touched? However, like Gorbacherta together with the Drunkard ... If you have even rudimentary logic, you can compare: Time - Who broke through to the trough (power) - Who is "criticized". Judas-liberals (they don't pull the liberals, they quite loved their homeland) carried out de-Stalinization not even because he fought with their ancestors, for whom literally, for whom - ideological, real Criminals. But because they are terribly afraid of Stalin's truly popular ideology. The 1936 Constitution alone shook this public toilet to such an extent that the stench still lingers ...
        4. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 17 February 2016 14: 46
          +3
          Quote: Nikolai K
          The Soviet government promised to provide everyone with social services such as education and health. And how do you build a school if there are only a dozen houses in the village?

          Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
          To solve the problem of equal access of the population to education, medical care, modern infrastructure without enlarging our points is not realistic.

          So it turns out a vicious circle: for the sake of a village of ten courtyards no one will do anything, but how to live in it, give birth to children, if there is no treatment, no place to learn, and sometimes you can’t buy bread. request
          1. ava09
            ava09 18 December 2016 09: 29
            +1
            Quote: Vladimirets
            So it turns out a vicious circle: for the sake of a village of ten courtyards no one will do anything, but how to live in it, give birth to children, if there is no treatment, no place to learn, and sometimes you can’t buy bread. request

            We must remember - under what circumstances the village began to degrade ... And do not behave the same way. The destruction of the village is the dream of any enemy of mankind. Indeed, in a megalopolis it is easiest to grow insects in a hive. Ideology is a zombie creature, and even on a stairwell, neighbors do not always know each other. And then we are surprised - where are the criminals in power from among the deputies and other Pribluda generated by the rejection of the patrimonial traditions. They had to not be destroyed. and transform taking into account the reality of today. If the People want to Survive and Preserve their Culture, in any case, they should take into account the Wisdom of the Ancestors and the Traditions of the Kind ...
        5. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 17 February 2016 14: 54
          0
          Quote: Nikolai K
          this event was in line with Soviet ideology aimed at turning the peasant into a rural proletariat. For this, the authorities needed to drive a person from the village to the city, albeit a small one.

          With the passage of time and the development of technology, it simply became not necessary that much labor in the countryside (if we take agriculture), but vice versa in industry. I also remember how much DT and MTZ crawled out to plow, now a pair of John Dirov or New Hollands with an eight-body reversible plow will plow more in a day than they do in a week. The same story with livestock stalls, feed technology, etc.
          1. bubalik
            bubalik 17 February 2016 22: 18
            +2
            Vladimir (1) RU  Today, 14: 54 ↑ I also remember how many DT and MTZ crawled out to plow,
            ,,, plowed at MTZ ?,, well, if the collective farm had a lot of money, then please. EMNIP Plowed on the T-150, K-700, DT-75. MTZ tractor support (cultivate, sowing, distribution of feed and removal of collected from the fields, housing and communal services) ,,, hi
            1. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets 17 February 2016 23: 08
              +1
              Quote: bubalik
              ,,, plowed at MTZ ?,, well, if the collective farm had a lot of money, then please. EMNIP Plowed on the T-150, K-700, DT-75. MTZ tractor support (cultivate, sowing, distribution of feed and removal of collected from the fields, housing and communal services) ,,,

              Well, I exaggerated, of course, the point is that the current technology is many times more effective. hi
              1. bubalik
                bubalik 17 February 2016 23: 50
                +1
                Vladimir (1) RU  Today, 23: 08 ↑ Well, I have exaggerated, of course, the point is that the current technique is many times more effective
                ,,, you are right, it is not only effective, it is probably only the only one ,,, fields 40 km from the city, the collective farm was a millionaire, the forest has already grown in the fields for 20 years, all this is sad, people have no work (although the land How much money is needed to take the land into circulation?
          2. The comment was deleted.
        6. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 17 February 2016 15: 17
          +1
          Quote: Nikolai K
          Actually, here I do not agree with the author and you.

          And I am with you the same way: I lived in the village and I can say that the reading peasant is like a stuffed animal in the garden in sunglasses. He also knew the type of peasant who had one book in his house and he read 32 pages from school to 22 years. I quote him myself. To fall asleep, he picked up this book and after three four sentences he fell asleep. He could read one page a week! And if the time was hard, then he could fall asleep without a book, then a page in a month. Every peasant, if he does not want to, should be able to limit his education. Because of such people in the village 80%, the rest 20% are young people. And do not drag him to these schools forcibly, because he does not need it by nature.
          1. bubalik
            bubalik 17 February 2016 22: 39
            +1
            shasherin.pavel (1) RU  Today, 15: 17 ↑ And I am with you the same: I lived in the village and I can say that the reading peasant is like a stuffed animal in a sunglasses garden. He also knew the type of peasant who had one book in his house and he read 32 pages from school to 22 years.
            ,,, and what is only one ?,, or are you judging one by one ?,, You may have never been in a village either?
          2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. RUSS
        RUSS 17 February 2016 10: 51
        +1
        Quote: Vladimirets
        You can criticize Khrushchev arbitrarily

        From Samsonov already what an article in the style of "dekhrushchevanization" laughing , completely drove Khrushchev under the nail wassat
      5. kalibr
        kalibr 15 December 2016 07: 15
        0
        The process of peking off is global and objective. He cannot be stopped. Another thing is that it can go in different ways. It is possible by clever methods, it is possible ...
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 17 February 2016 12: 42
      +9
      Quote: venaya
      You can arbitrarily criticize the article, but in the main the author is right - all the activities of Khrushchev turned out to be aimed at the final destruction of the country.

      You can criticize. And perhaps in many ways, criticism will be fair.
      But ... What is, that is - Nikita was the not-so-distant first leader of the party and state, he did a fair amount of harm.
      However, in history and life there is no single color at all.
      Also, some opposition of Khrushchev and Stalin is not entirely correct. Say, under Stalin, it was good, but then Khrushchev flew from the moon and ruined everything ...
      The author is probably well aware that Stalin kept Nikita in his immediate circle for many years - "the chick of Joseph's nest." wink
      So, I considered it quite a competent comrade ...
    3. Andrey Petrov47
      Andrey Petrov47 17 February 2016 13: 04
      +7
      Khrushchev (in Russian - the May bug) - nomenclature of its ... (As the way, and Gorbi.)
      And his sons are the same: the oldest was shot at the verdict of a military tribunal for the murder of a colleague, and the youngest, not without the patronage of his dad, became director of the rocket factory, dumped for permanent residence in the United States.
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 17 February 2016 19: 42
        0
        They did not shoot Khrushchev’s son, how much can this bike be repeated.
      2. siberalt
        siberalt 17 February 2016 21: 19
        0
        Khrushch in a scientific way, actually a flour bug. Do not read "wik", open a regular dictionary, I beg you!
    4. siberalt
      siberalt 17 February 2016 21: 15
      0
      Again a jig at the graves of the dead. We are always to blame for those who are already gone. And what, the author is weak to delve into the living, who continue to ruin Russia. Or don’t they give money for this? Even the same Yeltsin said that Chubais was to blame. laughing It seems that there is a "preparation" for the removal of Lenin and the next split in society.
      1. siberalt
        siberalt 17 February 2016 21: 34
        +2
        Khrushchev was laughed at only in the USSR. He even composed jokes about himself, so what? But with him they began to lose the habit of the fear of the "black funnel" passing at night. And thief officials were punished with death. The transition period from a military economy to a peaceful life is very difficult. And Nikita got it. But he was not a dictator. All issues were decided by the Politburo, including the issue of his resignation. Actually, the topic is not for the forum. Here you can’t take it out. Eat what they give, and press on the keyboard.
    5. g1v2
      g1v2 17 February 2016 22: 38
      +1
      I can’t stand Khrushchev, but I don’t agree with the author here. The resettlement of peasants in cities, urbanization, consolidation of collective farms and industrialization are quite natural and logical processes. If now the use of automation and the achievements of science and technology make it possible to obtain the required amount of food with less effort and cost, then these processes will still occur. This is a continuation of collectivization and dispossession, which led to the industrialization of the country and the disappearance of such a phenomenon as mass starvation of peasants in the Russian Empire. Moreover, now these processes are also going on - the construction of robotic farms, for example. Th outflow of people to the city will continue. On the other hand, there are many disadvantages - people are holding on to their land less, UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL IS GROWING, and so on. On the other hand, you can direct the free population to the settlement of Siberia and the Far East, for example. That is, people are becoming more mobile and more willing to go for the long ruble wherever the country needs. hi
    6. tihiy
      tihiy 14 October 2016 20: 55
      +3
      Quote: venaya
      All Khrushchev’s activities turned out to be aimed at the final destruction of the country.


      Was this Perlmutter (Khrushchev), who worked under the fool, but really insidious?
    7. siberalt
      siberalt 19 December 2016 12: 42
      0
      How so? The author accuses the murder of agriculture, but cites the 80s as an example and calls it the "Khrushchev-Brezhnev" period? Well yes. I crossed a hedgehog and a snake. laughing
      But it’s not so simple. One can argue about the elimination of MTS for a long time. But there is a downside to this. Rural youth received passports and rushed to storm urban industrial enterprises and universities.
  2. Korsar4
    Korsar4 17 February 2016 06: 21
    +5
    Nikita has done a lot.
    1. tegezen
      tegezen 17 February 2016 11: 19
      +1
      Dumb and energetic crest. Destructive mixture.
      1. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter 17 February 2016 11: 24
        +1
        I remember the army of hohlodonts laughing
        The whole story was about adidas sneakers, like mom sent and there was one question for selling sycoca?
        Wax as a result of the "auction" laughing sold for 62 rubles there wassat
      2. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 17 February 2016 19: 41
        0
        Russians live in Kalinovka.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 17 February 2016 22: 00
      +2
      But he also plowed the virgin soil, and fed the country with bread. Why is it obligatory only shitty? Is it really not clear that the article is ordered? Why is our history being dragged only from old garbage dumps? Well, Khrushchev did not like idlers dudes in their cock-like guise; he liked military bands more than "hoarse saxophones" from Western culture. But he didn't forbid anything! He said that he thinks without any shit tolerance alien to us. He is also the first fighter against piderasts "from art". Maybe that's why some of our writing contemporaries are pecking at him? Who knows.laughing Think guys, think. hi
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 15 December 2016 07: 21
        0
        Quote: siberalt
        custom article?


        Why are you all obsessed with custom articles? Well, who orders them: Why? What can one article do? By golly, it’s ridiculous to read this. As always, there are excellent journalists, there are good guys, there are threes. And the latter also write ... No need to order anything from them.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. sa-ag
    sa-ag 17 February 2016 06: 58
    -1
    Well, yes, this is a regularity, the message is interesting, did it start with the "atomic bomb"? Then it looks like a kind of conjuncture
  5. inkass_98
    inkass_98 17 February 2016 07: 29
    16
    Alexander, I won’t even comment on anything, it’s just useless.
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 17 February 2016 07: 55
      +4
      Only here the question of Pilate arises. And each has its own vision of the history of the country. Yes, there was a flight into space. They say that in the canteens, bread on the table lay for free. The press on people probably declined.

      But how much is skewed - in most industries.

      Do not judge, but just look around: "Kamo is coming?"
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 17 February 2016 10: 07
        +4
        Quote: Korsar4
        They say that in the canteens, bread on the table lay for free.

        I didn’t lie very long. And the cost of this product was included in the prices for other dishes.
        1. gunya
          gunya 18 February 2016 15: 18
          0
          Do not compose, dear!
          Free bread in the canteens appeared under Stalin, and as you say, went down in prices around 1958.
          Sometimes, as a student, you would take a glass of tea and calmly "have lunch." And you can't include bread in the "tea rate"!
      2. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 17 February 2016 15: 26
        0
        Quote: Korsar4
        . And each has its own vision of the history of the country

        Quote: Korsar4
        bread on the table for free lay.

        The price of bread was invested in the cost of a complex lunch, you take two slices of bread or you take nothing but stewed fruit, and you pay for bread.
        1. siberalt
          siberalt 17 February 2016 21: 41
          +2
          What is lying? Bread, mustard and salt in the eateries were free. Want to eat right there, but don’t take home. If there was no money for lunch, then they paid only 2 kopecks for tea, and even then after the monetary reform. The boys and I often ran to the canteen for such a snack while the parents were at work.
      3. goose
        goose 17 February 2016 18: 19
        0
        Quote: Korsar4
        The press on people probably declined.

        Khrushchev also introduced destructive taxes on personal farming, in fact, eradicated it. No more than 1 cows, so many sheep, rabbits, hens, apple trees, otherwise the tax is large.
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 17 February 2016 19: 46
          +2
          The norms for keeping livestock before Khrushchev were introduced. By the way, there were no restrictions on the number of hens, either before, during, or after Khrushchev. Taxes on fruit trees, mandatory supplies of eggs, milk, etc. from personal subsidiary plots were also introduced before Khrushchev. Under Malenkov and Khrushchev, they were first reduced, and then canceled altogether.
    2. Ostwest
      Ostwest 17 February 2016 08: 50
      -3
      The truth is that Khrushchev was an incomplete Trotskyist who was originally sent from the United States to Russia to:
      -weakening of Russia, better than destruction;
      -use it for the initialization of the world revolution, the role of a bundle of brushwood;
      -the United States must be at the head of the globalization of the world.
      Khrushchev most likely did not think so easy to fall in front of the United States, but he ramped up the price, pursued the policy of the Trotskyists, perhaps without understanding. The instinct of the living subject. Definitely had a reflection before the American. The same Pepsi Cola. The photo shows his inner need to feel the taste of the American, especially against the perplexed Voroshilov: our lemonade was the best and healthiest drink in the world at that time.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 17 February 2016 11: 01
      +1
      Commenting is really useless; the Stalinists cannot be persuaded. They even came up with a new trick - to declare Khrushchev a liberal (well, he drinks Coca-Cola along with Nixon) and a traitor, so that against his background, Stalin would be even more white and fluffy.
      Personally, I believe that the industrial breakthrough that the USSR made in the middle of the last century was caused not by the policies of individual Soviet leaders, but by the cruel exploitation and deprivations that the entire Soviet people endured for this. And Khrushchev began to pursue a policy of "liberalization" not out of stupidity or betrayal, but simply the people forced him. In the thirties of the last century, people suffered hardships in the hope of a bright Soviet future. In the forties, they suffered hardships in anticipation of the Great Victory. And now, the fifties came, the war ended, people are proudly called the victorious people, and the privations did not disappear anywhere. Moreover, many could see with their own eyes how the losers lived in their "decaying" West under the capitalist exploiters. Yes, and learned to handle weapons. So the patience of the Soviet people began to come to the end. Khrushchev, as a politician, felt this trend and realized that the people did not intend to live with the expectations of a bright future any longer. So he had to let go of Stalin's slugs and let people breathe a little with their free chest: build apartments, hospitals, increase salaries, reduce labor exploitation. He cut even the army not because of a good life, but because the country could no longer support so many unproductive citizens. People WANTED FINALLY to live well and Khrushchev HAD to take this into account.
      And I bow my head to our grandfathers and grandmothers who were born at the beginning of the 20 century. This is the generation whose childhood fell on dashing revolutionary years, youth coincided with the most difficult times of collectivization and industrialization, whose maturity and perseverance allowed the country to win the Great War. For all that, they managed to give birth and put on their feet seven children, they revived from the ashes and brought our country to the first places in the world. These are the real HEROES to which we all owe, of which we must write. And politics is like that, trash ascended to the top.
    5. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 17 February 2016 11: 21
      -3
      Judging by practice, I think that most people don’t understand your picture. You did not draw a piece of sausage? laughing
  6. parusnik
    parusnik 17 February 2016 07: 30
    +8
    All reforms led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet project as a whole.
    ..I guess, yes..
  7. Dimy4
    Dimy4 17 February 2016 07: 38
    +4
    An example of what happens when you get up at the helm (characteristic of Stalin). And an example of the work of a fool on a smaller scale at my work before my eyes.
  8. fa2998
    fa2998 17 February 2016 07: 56
    +9
    Quote: Korsar4
    Nikita has done a lot.

    And especially touched by the phrase ".. the policy of Gorbachev-Yeltsin-Medvedev practically finished it off .." So in the first cases, one person is called the state, and the last is the second. And, in order not to substitute the state.Medvedev, you can put a minister of agricultural ! The author of the article found an interesting twist! laughing hi
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 17 February 2016 08: 10
      +1
      The fact that the King plays the suite has not yet been canceled.
      1. fa2998
        fa2998 17 February 2016 08: 42
        +3
        Yes, I, too, "FOR", let's remember the Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers under Gorbachev, and Yeltsin (especially the last one), and write in an article! Or else we have only Yeltsin and Medvedev to blame, have you forgotten anyone? laughing hi
    2. kalibr
      kalibr 15 December 2016 07: 35
      0
      "Political Correctness in Samson's Way"
  9. Scud
    Scud 17 February 2016 08: 06
    +7
    What I saw with my own eyes. In each collective farm of the Kherson and Dnepropetrovsk reg. from 1958 to 1968 there were own mills for processing sunflower seeds, honey apiaries, plantations of vineyards, orchards, forges, silkworm workshops. MTS did not work everywhere though until 1968. Each school had its own land, and schoolchildren raised rabbits. Yours faithfully!
    1. Dimy4
      Dimy4 17 February 2016 08: 10
      +3
      And there were mills and forges, now there are no forges in the area, not to mention blacksmiths.
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 17 February 2016 19: 49
      0
      Obviously, these were no longer MTS, but RTS repair and technical stations. MTS were abolished everywhere in 1958.
  10. Belousov
    Belousov 17 February 2016 08: 08
    15
    "The politics of Gorbachev-Yeltsin-Medvedev ..." Wait a minute, since when has Medvedev been an independent figure? Someone seriously believes that he is independent in making decisions? We must look not at Medvedev, but at the one who is behind him.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 17 February 2016 11: 53
      +8
      Quote: Belousov
      Wait a moment, and since when has Medvedev an independent figure?

      The author is afraid to call HIS, the very one whose name cannot be mentioned in vain when it comes to involvement in the destruction of the country, otherwise comrades from above will not understand ...
  11. semirek
    semirek 17 February 2016 08: 17
    +8
    I completely agree with Mr. Samsonov, in my opinion, we have three anti-statesmen in history: Khrushchev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin. On the merits, the Siberian father graduated from the agricultural school after the war, worked as an agronomist, he suddenly enlarged, got to work for 20 km, abandoned everything , left for Kazakhstan on virgin soil. And to take the forcible seizure of garden land (homestead), requisition of cattle - these extremes threw ordinary people ten years ago.
    Khrushchevsky slogan: the collective farmer is a rural proletarian who goes to work on the collective farm-slogan senility. But what is most surprising, the party nomenclature worked ahead of the curve, it’s worth the secretary general to open his mouth as soon as reports are poured out that everything is done and overfulfilled, a kind of new Goloshekiny, take the thesis and overtake America by meat - adventurism, thank God there were decent people in the party, I mean Brezhnev and his entourage, tired of watching the country collapse, threw this rot from the throne, which is interesting - the party apparatus that supported Khrushchev’s time in the fight against Malenkov (practically the heir to Stalin), here he surrendered his boss with offal at the plenum of 64 years.
  12. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 17 February 2016 09: 03
    +8
    Quote: venaya
    You can arbitrarily criticize the article, but in the main the author is right - all the activities of Khrushchev turned out to be aimed at the final destruction of the country. At the same time, it doesn’t matter at all what Khrushchev himself wanted, what matters is what came of it as a result.

    Well, can anyone name the ruler of the creator in Russia after Joseph Vissarionovich ???
  13. atos_kin
    atos_kin 17 February 2016 09: 06
    -4
    I agree with the author. Putin is the Khrushchev of our time. The "unexpected" Crimea does not distinguish it, rather characterizes it more accurately.
  14. Nikolay K
    Nikolay K 17 February 2016 09: 07
    +5
    By the Decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of 27 on June 1936 “On the Prohibition of Abortion ...” The Decree also increased financial assistance to women in childbirth, established state assistance to multi-family, expanded the network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens, etc.

    Well, yes, only the author forgot to indicate that already in the 1938 year, Comrade Stalin himself abolished many of the benefits. So the duration of maternity leave was reduced. And only in the 1956 year this vacation was returned again until the 112 days. By the same Decree, women were allowed to go on parental leave for 3 months without pay. Here's a gift for women from the Soviet government. My mother-in-law told me how in 3 of the month she was forced to go to work and leave the child under the supervision of a half-blind grandmother. And as in the lunch break literally ran 15 minutes from work home to breastfeed, and then ran back. And if a woman did not go to work after the birth of a child, then she was considered a parasite with all the consequences. Only in 1968, parental leave was increased to one year.
    In general, in the article, as usual, distorting the facts, all achievements are hung on Stalin, forgetting about his mistakes, and Khrushchev is charged only with errors, such as dispersal of the MTS. Primitive propaganda technique. Personally, I’m not interested in reading this.
  15. verb
    verb 17 February 2016 09: 22
    +5
    And I remember how in 62-63. bread was delivered home in trolleys, despite the fact that the bakery was in the next house. A person was supposed to have half a bar, half rye or "gray" (we called him "Khrushchev") bread. By the way, "Khrushchev" could not be cut with a knife - It crumbled and stale in a day - one cornmeal was. The same rationing system.
  16. fomin
    fomin 17 February 2016 09: 31
    +4
    Unfortunately, the author judges many things in which he does not understand, take at least moaning about the "collapsed" MTS. Imagine a district, in the region there are two dozen collective farms and one MTS begins sowing (in all 20 farms at once), naturally, no matter how powerful the MTS is, its resources are not enough for the whole district at once the running around begins, the offerings of the "magrychs" are a simple tractor driver from the MTS who runs after several collective farm chairmen become "rural intelligentsia". This was not normal and significantly delayed sowing and harvesting times. As the financial situation improved, the collective farms that could afford to purchase MTS equipment became unnecessary and were naturally closed.
    As for the lamentations about the enlargement of the villages. And the author at that time lived in a small village, he worked in the Stalinist collective farm for "sticks" (workdays) and the collective farmers were not even given a passport so that they could not escape from there, it was not possible to organize a modern infrastructure in every village, it was necessary to take into account the gap between living conditions in the city and in the countryside. Therefore, we began to enlarge the villages in order, thanks to this concentration, to bring the social conditions of life in the village closer to life in the city.
    As for Khrushchev’s activities, I can say that practically none of his decisions were canceled (amended) by other general secretaries and presidents, and the glorified corn is still the main feed crop in our country. And if we talk about the collapse of the village, we need to talk about the present time, because the collapse of the state farms is not present. There are practically no collective farms that still purposefully bankrupt and sell. to replace a collective farm that had thousands of heads of cattle and small cattle on its balance, that’s why we are eating kangaroo, stinking buffalo soon the crocodiles will be sold if the sanctions are not lifted, what is Khrushchev to blame?
    1. Villon
      Villon 17 February 2016 11: 50
      +1
      Quote: fomin
      Therefore, they began to enlarge the villages in order to bring social conditions in the village closer to life in the city thanks to this concentration.

      Let it be so. Just asked who among the villagers, did they want this approach of life in the village to life in the city? Why was forced relocation a grief for most people? Rural living conditions were more than sufficient compensation for the lack of benefits of urban living. And these very conditions were taken away. We have many such "benefactors" who take away their blood money in order to "benefit".
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 17 February 2016 19: 53
        +1
        Actually, many wanted to. I judge by my relatives.
    2. gunya
      gunya 18 February 2016 22: 05
      0
      fomin RU

      Unfortunately, the author judges many things in which he does not understand, take at least moaning about the "collapsed" MTS. Imagine a region, in the region there are two dozen collective farms and one MTS begins sowing (in all 20 farms at once), naturally, no matter how powerful the MTS is, its resources are not enough for the whole region at once the running around begins, the offerings of the "magrychs" are a simple tractor driver from the MTS who runs several collective farm chairmen became "rural intelligentsia". This was not normal and significantly delayed sowing and harvesting times.


      It is immediately clear that the author of this "creativity" "somewhere, something" heard about the agricultural and watched from the window passing by in a car.
      Does he know the concept of MTS zoning, that the size of the serviced areas and the location of the MTS were taken not according to the Fonarev-Potolotsky reference book, but based on the calculations of practitioners?

      As the financial situation of collective farms that could afford to acquire MTS equipment improved, they became unnecessary and naturally closed.
      As for the lamentations about the enlargement of the villages. And the author at that time lived in a small village, he worked in the Stalinist collective farm for "sticks" (workdays) and the collective farmers were not even given a passport so that they could not escape from there, it was not possible to organize a modern infrastructure in every village, it was necessary to take into account the gap between living conditions in the city and in the countryside.

      What kind of "financial improvement" did you see in 1956-1958?
      If during the first enlargement of 1950, they tried to unite two or three nearby villages, which in total amounted to about 200 households, then at the time of the second enlargement, previously enlarged farms were united and a collective farm of households of 600-700 was obtained, with which scattered over the territory of several rural councils , which created additional difficulties. Not all farms were successful, not everywhere there were chairmen who were primarily concerned with the collective farm and collective farmers, so it's better not to talk about "financial improvement".

      "the author at that time lived in a small village, he worked in the Stalinist collective farm for" sticks "


      I wonder how old the author is. I have 3/4 behind me and I remember those days as a preschooler and schoolboy.
      In the early 50s, the village already sighed a little. MTS began to receive new equipment, smart chairmen found opportunities to support collective farmers by creating on-farm facilities. The construction of household and administrative facilities has begun.
      As an example: in the village where he lived in 1949, a new horse yard, a seven-year school, an extension club to the board were built.
      three private houses were erected, and then 78 yards were in the village.


      Therefore, they began to enlarge the villages in order to bring social conditions in the village closer to life in the city thanks to this concentration.
      As for Khrushchev’s activity, I can say that practically none of his decisions were canceled (amended) by other general secretaries and presidents, and the glorified corn is still the main fodder crop in our country.

      In the early 50s, villages were not yet enlarged; collective farms were enlarged. Until social conditions approached, she sat down to urban then only dreamed, but science fiction writers.
      It all started in the 60s.
  17. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 17 February 2016 09: 56
    +6
    Never in the history of the Russian state has a people lived so well as part of it in the XNUMXs!
  18. V.ic
    V.ic 17 February 2016 10: 19
    +5
    Trying to whitewash Khrushchev is not grateful and noble work. He gave vent to the party apparatus, those who carried it in their hands and lordly whims demolished. Hands driver-tongue thresher, corn Khrushchev, in a word. A plus article.
  19. Aleksander
    Aleksander 17 February 2016 10: 22
    21
    Suddenly, for no reason, thousands prosperous Soviet villages announced

    Thriving ?! belay I am an eyewitness to a completely different village.
    1965 year, Smolensk region, a village 20 km from the village GAGARINA (200 km from Moscow). The village lives in the middle Ages, as with Alexei Mikhailovich: -even there is still no lightas there is no gas (in cylinders), roads, shops, NOTHING. Houses under a plank, a tyn of hundreds of aspen trees, a wooden rake without a single piece of iron, century-old grapples, cast iron, from "civilization" - glass on the windows, an ax, and a postman bringing the regional newspaper "Zarya. And also, horrible poverty, patches on clothes and linen, senseless work on a collective farm for sticks of worthless workdays, then work in your almost subsistence economy after collective farm work until late at night. at homesomething you eat. Moreover, they were not allowed to mow, and my grandfathers and I walked through forest glades, edges, slopes of ravines, mowed, and then dragged ourselves for a kilometer-two-three. Almost no one had money. And the worst thing is NO clearance ahead. Therefore absolutely all village by all means and ways shoved their children into the city, this was the meaning of people's lives. Where is prosperity, from whom? From the good, do not run! And they ran and 30-x, and in 40-x, and in 50-60-70x-with all the general secretaries. Although they held the light in the 66 year,, in the 75 year, gas was already imported in cylinders, some money appeared from people, but it was too late. Only peasants born at the beginning of the century remained in the village, and as they began to die at the beginning of the 80's, so the village began to die. By the middle of the 80, percent on 40 was empty, all the deep old men, today there is nobody (there are summer residents). And so it was everywhere around. The only thing I can say is that poverty was somehow worthy and tidy — everything was cleanly washed, scraped off with a shard of glass to white, thoroughly whitewashed. Our old men themselves the great wise Russian peasants, never complained about anything and pulled, pulled us, the collective farm, the country, as much as they could ....
    Minus.
    1. tegezen
      tegezen 17 February 2016 11: 38
      +7
      All right. I confirm. But there were rich villages, in Ukraine, in the Baltic states, asphalt, gas, white huts. Under the Union, in the regime of centralized distribution, all of these Ukraine and Georgia were sponsored at the expense of the Russian Federation, and now they are rubbing us that the Russian peasant is a drunk in a quilted jacket, and they all work there all at home. Russians then drank more from hopelessness. Yes, and the cities of Russia and the Baltic states of the same, and Ukraine. I sometimes think that it’s good that the Union fell apart, otherwise Khan would come to us, would suck all the juices. And not only Russian, and Tatars and other residents of the Russian Federation.
      1. RUSS
        RUSS 17 February 2016 12: 40
        +6
        Quote: tegezen
        I sometimes think that it’s good that the Union fell apart, otherwise Khan would come to us, would suck all the juices.

        Perhaps you are right- "Sometimes you need to disperse for a while, so that later converge for life .."
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 17 February 2016 20: 04
        -1
        There were rich villages and villages in several regions of the RSFSR, and in the same Tatarstan in particular.
    2. Yura
      Yura 17 February 2016 14: 03
      +5
      Quote: Aleksander
      Thriving ?! belay I am an eyewitness to a completely different village.

      I confirm that I, too, am an eyewitness to this, I’ll add only to leave the village there were two options - to study or to the Komsomol strike building (accessible, legal opportunities), in these cases they could give the collective farmer a passport and even then not always, but without a passport and a work book outside the collective farm for a person there are no options.
    3. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 17 February 2016 20: 01
      +2
      I'm a plus. The only thing I want to note. In the Smolensk, Pskov, and some other regions of the RSFSR, the situation in the countryside was worse than the average union and the average Russian level. This was partially recognized even by the authorities at that time. In a number of other areas, the RSFSR was still better. I think that in the Smolensk and a number of other areas, the situation in different districts, and in different collective farms and state farms of one region could be somewhat different. In state farms in most cases they lived better than on collective farms. And also in those villages and villages were better, which were located near the district and regional centers. Or in which there were distilleries.))
    4. kalibr
      kalibr 15 December 2016 07: 42
      0
      I was a teacher in the village from 1977 to the 80th ... then for several years I had nightmares that they again sent me there. Although ... people lived.
  20. Hort
    Hort 17 February 2016 11: 05
    0
    the enlargement of villages, the curtailment of the program of heavy tank building, the "reforms" in the navy, which almost killed him, attempts to cut the aircraft ... Nikita was still a contraceptive
  21. Fox
    Fox 17 February 2016 11: 15
    +2
    Quote: Aleksander
    Suddenly, for no reason, thousands prosperous Soviet villages announced

    Thriving ?! belay I am an eyewitness to a completely different village.
    1965 year, Smolensk region, a village 20 km from the village GAGARINA (200 km from Moscow). The village lives in the middle Ages, as with Alexei Mikhailovich: -even there is still no lightas there is no gas (in cylinders), roads, shops, NOTHING. Houses under a plank, a tyn of hundreds of aspen trees, a wooden rake without a single piece of iron, century-old grapples, cast iron, from "civilization" - glass on the windows, an ax, and a postman bringing the regional newspaper "Zarya. And also, horrible poverty, patches on clothes and linen, senseless work on a collective farm for sticks of worthless workdays, then work in your almost subsistence economy after collective farm work until late at night. at homesomething you eat. Moreover, they were not allowed to mow, and my grandfathers and I walked through forest glades, edges, slopes of ravines, mowed, and then dragged ourselves for a kilometer-two-three. Almost no one had money. And the worst thing is NO clearance ahead. Therefore absolutely all village by all means and ways shoved their children into the city, this was the meaning of people's lives. Where is prosperity, from whom? From the good, do not run! And they ran and 30-x, and in 40-x, and in 50-60-70x-with all the general secretaries. Although they held the light in the 66 year,, in the 75 year, gas was already imported in cylinders, some money appeared from people, but it was too late. Only peasants born at the beginning of the century remained in the village, and as they began to die at the beginning of the 80's, so the village began to die. By the middle of the 80, percent on 40 was empty, all the deep old men, today there is nobody (there are summer residents). And so it was everywhere around. The only thing I can say is that poverty was somehow worthy and tidy — everything was cleanly washed, scraped off with a shard of glass to white, thoroughly whitewashed. Our old men themselves the great wise Russian peasants, never complained about anything and pulled, pulled us, the collective farm, the country, as much as they could ....
    Minus.

    and what? ... in ours, too, they conducted light only in 65. but there was no poverty and lack of enlightenment. the coolest thing is that when the Union was destroyed, the "poor and hungry" peasants had at least 20 thousand on the books on the collective farmer. for comparison, I had 3000 thousand burned down ... I worked at the VAZ for that ...
  22. Grigorievich
    Grigorievich 17 February 2016 11: 33
    +7
    The author did not mention the struggle with personal farming in the villages: excessive taxes on livestock, which led to mass slaughter of livestock, cut back on household plots (my grandfather was cut off half) And instead of a cow he kept a goat, etc.
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 17 February 2016 14: 10
      0
      Well, then they lived under socialism, which implies public ownership of the means of production. Private cow, as a means of production, did not fit into this ideology. So the claims are not against Khrushchev, but against Marxist-Leninist philosophy.
  23. iouris
    iouris 17 February 2016 11: 48
    -2
    The essence of the process of building socialism is the industrialization and preparation of the country for inclusion in the processes of globalization of the economy and trade as a source of natural resources and a consumer of goods. Industrialization requires capital. Capital is not only money, but also the proletariat, technology.
    Technologies came from the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany. They were bought for gold, bread and wood. Another foreign intelligence service, but it’s also not free.
    Gold is taken from the exploiting classes and the church, bread and the proletariat from the village. The forest is from the Gulag. Before the revolution, 90% of the population of Russia - peasants, who lived, in fact, subsistence farming. After the revolution, masses of people were forcibly moved from the village to the city.
    Started in the 1920s by the Bolsheviks, industrialization continued in the 1960s, but in the form of an arms race and in space. If in the USA the arms race was used to develop technologies that were then introduced into the production of goods, then in the USSR the results of the work of the military industry were classified. The flow of technology even between branches of the military industry was difficult.
    Since the salary is spent on the purchase of industrial products of group B (the production of consumer goods), which in the USSR was always underdeveloped, and food, the low prices for food were supported by the over-exploitation of the village. Therefore, serfdom actually acted in the village. People tried to escape to the city, where it was an 8-hour working day and gave apartments.
    The decline in the quality and quality of the population in the countryside was the result of the toughening of the CPSU policy towards the collective farm peasantry. This is not the "merit" of Khrushchev alone, but the victory of a certain point of view in the Politburo.
    The dogmatists from the CPSU viewed the peasantry as "a petty-bourgeois element that often gives birth to capitalism" (a quote from Lenin - from memory). Therefore, the village was "condemned", but not only by Khrushchev.
    Khrushchev went down in history as a voluntarist ("I ask you not to express yourself in my house" - a quote from "Prisoner of the Caucasus", from memory). He aggravated all the contradictions. However, it was not only because of this. Brezhnev, who replaced Khrushchev, expressed the interests of the military, whom Khrushchev feared. Moreover, he was even more afraid of the Chekists. In short, upsetting the balance of interests, he lost his post. But this could not radically affect the state of affairs in the village.
    Thus, industrialization in Russia-USSR was carried out at the expense of the Russian peasantry, i.e. of the Russian people. Since the peasantry is the salt of any people, the Russian people are "condemned" together with the peasantry.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 17 February 2016 14: 32
      +2
      I completely agree. Accelerated development requires investment in capital goods, but where to get it in a poor country? Only if we reduce the production of consumer goods in favor of the means of production. By the way, China also entered during the cultural revolution. So we owe all the successes in industrialization to the merciless exploitation of Soviet man, especially the peasant. This was heard on the radio about the great achievement of the Soviet regime - the 8-hour working day (by the way, in the USA from 1938 the working week was limited to 44 hours), and in the village the peasant after the working day on the collective farm had to work on his land and in his economy to feed the family and even pay taxes to the state. I think the blacks in the states at that time worked much less. My grandfather also left the village from the village as soon as he could get a passport (serfdom in the 20 century), dug a dugout and lived with his family there until he built a house from adobe with his own hands. Apparently, it was better to live in a dugout in a city than in his own house in a village. Therefore, the USSR had to buy grain over time, because the peasant could not stand such exploitation and either left for the city or began to work from under a stick, and who completely drank.
  24. tolancop
    tolancop 17 February 2016 12: 38
    +9
    I will not undertake to evaluate ALL the activities of Khrushchev, but I will make some comparisons with the activities of one next leader ...
    At one time, I had to study the "party programs", both Khrushchev's and Gorbachev's. So ... against the background of Gorbachev’s program, Khrushchev’s one looks very good, it’s a rather specific document - goals are defined (what to do), tasks are set (when and how). Something was received, something was not, we could not, but that is another question. Against this background, Gorbachev's program is a collection of empty declarations.
    By the way, one of the frequently kicked characteristics of "Khrushchev" is the small size of the kitchen. The answer about the reasons was found precisely in the Khrushchev program, which provided for a very broad development of the catering network - a Soviet person should not waste time searching for food and cooking, but eat mainly from canteens and cafes. And the kitchen, so ... to drink some tea, and have a light snack, therefore, large sizes are useless.
    Another point is somehow overlooked. The Secretary General, although he was the chief executive, is not the only one. All guidance documents came out in the guise of government decrees, i.e. the leadership was nevertheless collegial. And if the secretary general drove too far into the wrong steppe (he pulled the blanket over himself), then he could very well cease to be the secretary general.
    Incl. all the dogs on Khrushchev (Stalin, Brezhnev, etc.) should not be hung up, the entire party-Soviet elite was "in business."
  25. Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 17 February 2016 14: 24
    +8
    I waited for the end of this episode for Alexander Samsonov. Allow me to insert your "five kopecks" too.
    I admit that during the time of N.S. Khrushchev, one of the author's relatives was offended. Perhaps completely undeserved and he has personal motives. But, the uncontrolled outpouring of bile does not paint the author: everything that was good in Khrushchev's time is the realization of what was previously conceived; all that was bad was his personal sabotage initiative. It doesn't work that way. Stalin's closest associate and disciple is declared a Trotskyist. As Khryun Morzhov said: "Powerfully pushed in, inspires."
    His own Samson terminology hits the ear: Soviet civilization, Russian superethnos, and the third (fourth) world war. What does it mean?
    Reduced the armed forces. All developed states did this — it is impossible to maintain an army of such a size in peacetime economically and inexpedient from a military-political point of view.
    In no way do I idealize N.S. Khrushchev. In my opinion, it had more minuses than pluses. But one cannot fail to see the "thaw" (by the way, Stalin himself recognized the existence of the personality cult, explaining it by the lack of culture and education of the population). It is impossible not to see the mass resettlement of people from basements and communal apartments (remember at Vysotsky "there is only one restroom for thirty-eight rooms"?).
    Even the monument to Khrushchev at the Novodevichy Cemetery was made by E. Unknown of white and black marble. And the author has a yellow article (color of bile) with a distortion of the facts and without arguments.
    1. Villon
      Villon 17 February 2016 18: 02
      0
      Quote: Army 2
      The closest associate and student of Stalin is declared a Trotskyist.

      Why aren't you negotiating? Not only Stalin's associate, but also the man who betrayed Stalin. And do not be indignant at the fact that the author calls Khrushchev a Trotskyist. The fact that Khrushchev was a Trotskyist is a well-known fact. During the period of the exposure of Trotskyism, he repented. In addition, he studied with his wife Stalin. Stalin believed him and did not touch him in Trotskyist affairs.
    2. iouris
      iouris 17 February 2016 18: 40
      -2
      Quote: Army 2
      Even the monument to Khrushchev at the Novodevichy Cemetery was made by E. Unknown of white and black marble

      The head of state should be reflected in the memory of the people only in the form of a plus or minus sign.
      Ernst's assessment is an artistic assessment. In addition, thanks to Khrushchev, the Unknown became famous, went to the West and did not live in Russia anymore. He has nothing to do with the peasantry and the Russian people.
      I would erect a monument to Khrushchev in the form of a red radish cut into two unequal parts so that the thickness of the skin can be estimated. And away from the Novodevichy cemetery.
  26. RUSS
    RUSS 17 February 2016 15: 00
    +2
    Quote: Army 2
    But, uncontrolled outflow of bile does not color the author

    What does it start right with the title of the article.
  27. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 17 February 2016 15: 22
    +2
    Quote: Army 2
    And the author has a yellow article (color of bile) with a distortion of the facts and without arguments.

    But the arguments were enough for those who in the comments brought their memories of life and being under the reign of Nikita Sergeevich! By the way, let’s not forget about his stormy (or crimson) activity as the party’s first secretary in Ukraine, and Novocherkassk shouldn’t forget the same thing. And by and large, each of the general secretaries made his own contribution to the collapse of the country! Excessive personal ambitions, irresponsibility and shortsightedness were inherent in each of them.
    The floor of the planet is probably overwhelming over us and wonder at how it is possible to live poorly in such a rich country ?!
  28. fomin
    fomin 17 February 2016 15: 38
    +4
    Quote: Villon
    Rural living conditions were more than sufficient compensation for the lack of benefits of living in the city.

    The author is clearly an urban man and does not know at all the specifics of village life. In the village, bring water from the well (column), bring it (every day), bring firewood from the forest, cut it down, lay it, you need two firewood for the whole winter, milk the cow, feed the cattle, remove the manure, plow the garden, plant, process, remove, etc. it’s all only in the early morning and late evening because all day on the collective farm at work. Is this rural compensation for the lack of benefits of living in the city?
  29. Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 17 February 2016 16: 14
    +4
    Absolutely true and correct article. Khrushchev did everything to destroy the country, breaking the backbone of the country - the peasantry. The liberals scolded Stalin for his collective farms and dispossession, but the Stalinist people's commissars never tried to destroy the village. But Khrushchev did. Therefore, the two leaders of the country stand all the more monuments in Russia: Khrushchev in the form of village names that remained only on old maps, and Yeltsin in the form of exorbitant cemeteries. Unfortunately, the current rulers are no better in relation to the peasant.
  30. Villon
    Villon 17 February 2016 18: 46
    -3
    Quote: fomin
    The author is clearly an urban man and does not know at all the specifics of village life. In the village, bring water from the well (column), bring it (every day), bring firewood from the forest, cut it down, lay it, you need two firewood for the whole winter, milk the cow, feed the cattle, remove the manure, plow the garden, plant, process, remove, etc. it’s all only in the early morning and late evening because all day on the collective farm at work. Is this rural compensation for the lack of benefits of living in the city?

    Explain what a "city man" is. Otherwise, I suspect that you are using a term that you yourself do not understand. As for the specifics of "village life", then you take an unprofitable version of it with the exploitation of a collective farm and apparently backbreaking work, forgetting to mention one of its most important features - your own house, your own farm. This is what Khrushchev took away. But he did not remove the operation.
    If you really want to compare rural life with urban life, then there should be not only a description of rural life, but also urban. Describe city life. And then you can compare and draw a conclusion. Or do you have no idea what life is in the city?
    Maybe you do not exploit the city for days? And where to go in the evening? There is no cattle to care for her, there is no place to chop wood, there is no well to get clean water out of it. There is no garden to plant anything. Where are the children to play? There is no court. It remains to go to the tavern or watch TV. But this good is enough in the countryside.
  31. Olfred
    Olfred 17 February 2016 20: 16
    -1
    we are still reaping the fruits of the optimizer beetle, with its useless corn, but after it there were also "personalities" with their own reforms, from which there were only drawbacks. By starting small, he destroyed an entire well-established and effective system.
    Nikita Khrushchev (left) drinks Pepsi-Cola, and Richard Nixon (center) watches him.
    sorry did not choke hi
    1. RUSS
      RUSS 17 February 2016 21: 12
      -1
      Quote: OlfRed
      with his useless corn

      The most interesting thing is that many fields in Russia were sown with corn until the 90s, and not only in the south, but also in central Russia, and the fact that under Khrushchev it was sown almost beyond the Arctic Circle in this way at that time only Give a cry, and each chairman and the "head" understood it in their own way, so they sowed corn to please "Moscow" throughout the Union.
    2. Olfred
      Olfred 18 February 2016 07: 15
      0
      judging by the minuses, fans of khrushchev are clearly sitting here, it’s shitty when the truth is pricking, is not it? hi
  32. bubalik
    bubalik 17 February 2016 23: 21
    +2
    RUSS (3) RU  Today, 21: 12 ↑ The most interesting is that many fields in Russia were sown with corn until the 90s, and not only in the south, but also in central Russia,
    ,,, and what's wrong with that, in the fall silos poured, rammed DT. Silo is better than straw. Vitamin. And what corn grew in Kuibyshev, more than 2x meters! Cows for a sweet soul chewed them. Here the question is different, why for the livestock complex cost approx = 1200000 rub. the money built in 1989 was dragged to a brick until 1994.?
    1. RUSS
      RUSS 18 February 2016 09: 26
      +1
      Quote: bubalik
      ,,, and what's wrong with that, in the fall silos poured, rammed DT. Silo is better than straw. Vitamin. And what corn grew in Kuibyshev, more than 2 meters!

      It’s just that Khrushchev is unjustifiably accused of the fact that he sowed everything with corn, and by the way the culture is very necessary, by the way, the Americans will soon sow the floor of Ukraine ...
      Quote: bubalik
      Here the question is different, why for a livestock complex costing approx = 1200000 rub. money, built in 1989, pulled to a brick until 1994.?

      This topic is no longer under this article.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  33. kalibr
    kalibr 15 December 2016 07: 45
    0
    Quote: Army 2
    His own Samson terminology hits the ear: Soviet civilization, Russian superethnos, and the third (fourth) world war. What does it mean?

    This means that VO is a popular site where it is possible. In the journal "Voprosy istorii" this is not possible.
  34. The comment was deleted.