Military Review

Virgin epic Khrushchev

130
Virgin epic Khrushchev The course to eliminate "unpromising" villages took place against the backdrop of investing huge amounts of money and effort to develop virgin and fallow lands of the Volga region, southern Siberia, Kazakhstan and the Far East. The idea was correct, but it was necessary to conduct the case rationally, gradually, without a constant race and work in hand. The program was supposed to be long-term. However, everything was done in a hurry, everything turned into another campaign.


In 1954, the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted a resolution "On the further increase in grain production in the country and on the development of virgin and fallow lands." The USSR State Planning Committee planned to plow in Kazakhstan, Siberia, the Volga region, the Urals and other regions of the country at least 43 million hectares of virgin and fallow lands. As the second secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan recalled, J. Shayakhmetov: “There was a discussion: to develop agriculture in an intensive or extensive way. Arguments for the intensification were much more convincing, but the leadership of the Soviet country, represented by N. S. Khrushchev, preferred the extensive path of agricultural development. ”

The idea to quickly plow the virgin lands of Khrushchev and his supporters advanced even at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU in June 1953, but then they received a rebuff from both the party leadership and many agricultural scientists, primarily TD Lysenko. However, in 1954, Khrushchev was able to take up.

Accelerated development of virgin lands gave rise to several misfortunes. On the one hand, the development of virgin lands began without any preliminary preparation, with no infrastructure at all — roads, granaries, qualified personnel, not to mention housing and repair facilities for equipment. The natural conditions of the steppes were not taken into account: sand storms and dry winds were not taken into account, sparing soil cultivation methods and grain varieties adapted to this type of climate were not developed. Therefore, the development of virgin lands turned into another campaign, supposedly capable of overnight solving all problems with food. Avrahls and storming, confusion flourished.

They have invested a lot of money, money and effort into this hasty and ill-conceived project. So, for 1954 — 1961. virgin lands absorbed 20% of all USSR investments in agriculture. Because of this, the agrarian development of traditional Russian agricultural areas remained unchanged or even began to deteriorate. This money could be used more profitably. Thousands of specialists, volunteers and equipment threw themselves on the “virgin front”. According to the Komsomol assignments, young people were driven into the Kazakh steppes, they sent technical specialists, sent whole issues to teachers, doctors and agronomists. They also sent young collective farmers from "unpromising" places. In fact, it was a massive deportation of Russians from their indigenous lands, which at that time were deserted.

On the other hand, after a few years, vast areas of developed lands began to turn into desert and salt marshes. There was an environmental problem. Again, we had to invest a lot of money and effort, now to carry out rescue activities like plantations.

As V. Molotov later wrote: “Virginia began to master prematurely. Of course, it was absurd. In this size - an adventure. From the very beginning, I was a supporter of the development of virgin lands on a limited scale, and not in such enormous ones, which forced us to invest huge amounts of money, to incur enormous expenses instead of raising what was ready in the inhabited areas. But otherwise it is impossible. Here you have a million rubles, no more, so give them to the virgin lands or already to the inhabited areas, where there are opportunities? I offered to invest this money in our Non-Black Earth, and to lift virgin soil gradually. They scattered the means - and with this a little bit, and with that, but there is no place to keep the bread, it rots, there are no roads, it is impossible to take it out. And Khrushchev found the idea and rushes like a savras without a bridle! This idea solves nothing definitely, it can help, but to a limited extent. Be able to calculate, count, ask what people will say. No - come on, come on! He began to swing, almost forty or forty five million hectares of virgin otgryz, but it is impossible, ridiculous and not necessary, and if it were fifteen or seventeen, probably would have come more good. More sense. "

Tselina raised in just four years. This was announced in 1959 by Khrushchev, the main initiator and inspirer of the virgin-fallow campaign. Khrushchev himself at the XXI Congress of the CPSU in 1959, said that "thanks to the successful development of virgin lands, it became possible not only to significantly improve the food supply to cities and industrial centers, but also to set the task of surpassing the United States in terms of agricultural development." Total for 1954 — 1960 41,8 million hectares of virgin lands and deposits were raised. On virgin soil only in the first two years 425 grain state farms were created, agricultural giants were created and later.

The first result of the development of virgin lands was a sharp increase in agricultural production: in 1954, the USSR collected 85,5 million tons of grain (including on virgin 27,1 million tons), and in 1960, already 125 million tons (including on virgin lands - 58,7 million Thanks to the extraordinary concentration of funds, people and equipment, as well as natural factors, new lands in the first years produced extremely high yields, and from the middle of the 1950-ies from half to one-third of all bread produced in the USSR. However, the desired stability, despite efforts, failed to achieve: in crop failure Even the sowing fund could not be gathered on virgin lands, as a result of ecological imbalance and wind and chemical soil erosion, dust storms became a real disaster. Only in 1956-1958 years of virgin lands 10 of millions of hectares of arable land were “blown out” Hungary or Portugal. The development of virgin lands has entered a crisis stage, the efficiency of its cultivation has fallen by 65%.

In addition, by 1959, the area under crops and industrial crops in the Russian Non-Black Earth Region, in the Central Black Soil Region of the RSFSR, and in the Middle Volga Region, was generally halved compared to the 1953 year, including sowing of traditional flax there three times

It should be noted that the problems of developing agriculture and ensuring the country's food security have always occupied an important place in the policies of the Soviet leadership and have become one of the main economic policies in the postwar years. This was due to the dire consequences of the war. The damage that Hitler's hordes caused to the agriculture of the Soviet Union was estimated at tens of billions of rubles. In former USSR, the territory of the USSR occupied by the Hitlerites produced (nationwide): 55-60% grain, including up to 75% corn, almost 90% sugar beet, 65% sunflower, 45% potato, 40% - meat products, 35% - dairy products. The Nazis destroyed or took out almost 200 thousands of tractors and combines, which was about a third of the country's agricultural machinery fleet in 1940 year. The country has lost more than 25 million livestock, as well as 40% of enterprises for the processing of agricultural products.

The situation was aggravated by the drought of 1946-1947. In addition, Moscow refused enslaving foreign loans and imports of agricultural products for foreign currency in order not to become dependent on the West. However, by refusing this channel of possible support for the economy, Moscow complicated the recovery of agriculture. It is also worth considering that, despite internal problems, in 1945-1953. The USSR provided free food assistance to East Germany, Austria, as well as to China, Mongolia, North Korea and Vietnam.

In 1946, the Soviet leadership instructed agricultural and research organizations to develop proposals for ensuring a long-term reliable supply of agricultural products, increasing crop yields and livestock productivity, as well as material incentives for productivity growth in the agriculture of the USSR. An interdepartmental commission was established under the leadership of academicians T. D. Lysenko and V. S. Nemchinov: she was given the task of developing long-term state agricultural policy. The commission existed until 1954. According to the decisions of the March plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, her work was declared unsatisfactory. Apparently, because of the negative attitude towards the initiative of Khrushchev and the Khrushchevites for the speedy development of fallow and virgin lands.

An attempt to start a virgin campaign was made under Stalin. Some scientists — the future advisers of Khrushchev — in the 1949-1952 years. literally “bombarded” with letters not only Lysenko and Nemchinov, but also many members of the Politburo, lobbying for the extensive development of the country's agriculture. They proposed the rapid development of new lands by the former agrotechnical methods and with the help of the massive use of chemical fertilizers and, accordingly, the redistribution of the acreage. That is what was later implemented under Khrushchev. However, an interdepartmental commission under the leadership of academicians Lysenko and Nemchinov did a great job and presented seven reports and recommendations to the CPSU Central Committee and the Council of Ministers, as well as personally to JV Stalin, which rejected the extensive development path of the agricultural sector.

Scientists predicted: "Plowing for wheat about 40 of millions of hectares of virgin-fallow lands, radically different in their properties and the required processing methods from agricultural land of other regions of the USSR, will lead to chronic degradation of these lands, to negative changes in the ecological situation in the vast region of the country and, accordingly, to permanent increase the cost of maintaining the fertility of virgin soils. "

They also noted that in the short term, 2-3 of the year, there will be a sharp increase in yield. However, then, with the help of chemical means and an increase in the volumes of artificial irrigation, it will be possible to achieve only maintaining the level of productivity, but in no way further increasing it. Due to the peculiarities of the soil and climate in virgin areas, the yield there will be two to three times lower than that in traditional agricultural areas of Russia (Ukraine, Moldova, the North Caucasus, the Central Black Soil Region, some regions of the Volga region). The artificial increase in yield due to chemicalization and irrigation will lead to irreparable pollution, salinization and acid waterlogging of the soil, and, therefore, to the rapid spread of erosion, including natural reservoirs in the region with virgin lands. This trend will cause, in particular, the elimination of animal husbandry as the agricultural industry in the region from the Volga to the Altai inclusive. In the first 5-6 years, the reserves of the fertile soil layer - humus - on virgin lands will decrease by 10-15%, and further this figure will be 25-35% in comparison with the “pre-soil” period.

Soviet scientists wrote that for artificial irrigation of new agricultural land, it may take many kilometers to divert from the Volga, the Urals, the Irtysh, the Ob and, possibly, the Aral and the Caspian (with mandatory desalting of the water of these arteries). Obviously, this can lead to negative, and chronic changes in the water balance of many regions of the country and dramatically worsen the provision of water resources for agriculture, especially animal husbandry, in most parts of the USSR. A decrease in the level of the Volga, the Urals and other water arteries and reservoirs will adversely affect all sectors of the regional economy adjacent to virgin lands, especially in forestry, fisheries, shipping and electric power, and the ecological situation will worsen there.

If we continue the policy of increasing the grain yield on virgin lands in conditions of degradation of virgin soils and growing water deficit, then, along with the constant increase in the volumes of soil chemization, we will have to first completely reorient the lower and, partly, the average flow of the Irtysh, Volga, Ural rivers , Amu Darya, Syr Darya and Ob to northern Kazakhstan and adjacent areas. As a result, over time, the course and course of these rivers will have to be completely changed. These and related activities will lead to a constant increase in the cost of agricultural production, which will strike a blow to the entire economy and finances of the USSR.

It should be said that the commission did not reject, in principle, the idea of ​​developing the virgin and fallow lands of the USSR. But this required fundamentally new agrobiological and technical methods, including the development of breeding work, taking into account the specifics of the natural and climatic conditions of specific regions, and the peculiarities of the impact of chemical fertilizers on certain types of agricultural plants in specific regions of the USSR. No wonder Molotov noted the need to develop virgin soil on a limited scale.

The findings of the commission in the Khrushchev period remained in the USSR under the signature “Secret” or “For official use” and were not available to the general public. Only during the confrontation of the USSR with China and Albania (entirely Khrushchev’s fault) did they get to Beijing and Tirana, where they were given a turn.

Thus, even in the Stalinist period, Soviet scientists fully predicted the negative factors of Khrushchev’s virgin epic.

As predicted by the commission, in the first few years on virgin soil and, therefore, in the country, the collection of bread has increased significantly. But it was not the yield that increased, but the area of ​​crops: the share of virgin lands in the sown areas of wheat in the USSR to 1958 was 65% by year, and the share of these lands in the gross wheat harvest in the country almost reached 70% percent. At the same time, for six years after 1953, agricultural consumption of chemical fertilizers, according to official data, more than doubled: virgin lands demanded a growing amount of "chemistry", subsequently infecting both soil and grain, and reservoirs that damage livestock.

In addition, under Khrushchev, the grassland farming system was first criticized and then even banned. Moreover, the authorities have prescribed no further care for the forest shelter belts created under Stalin in the 1948-1953 years. and prevented in many regions, desertification, soil salinization, reduction of their natural fertility (for example, in the Ukraine).

At the same time, investment in agriculture increased. It was from the time of Khrushchev's rule that the agriculture of the USSR began to turn into a “black” hole, which sucked in more and more funds. And the greater their volume was, the faster their effectiveness decreased.

Thus, the virgin epic was another strong blow to the Russian countryside and agriculture. Food abundance did not take place; the agrarian sector began to turn into a “black hole”; Russia-USSR began to sit down to import food; there was a sharp outflow of the able-bodied, skilled and young population from the Russian village and the forced redistribution of material and technical resources in favor of the new agricultural regions, which became one of the leading factors, along with the course to eliminate "unpromising" villages, which led to the degradation of agriculture in the central and the northern part of Russia (in the indigenous Russian lands).

In addition, after the collapse of the USSR, millions of Russians became hostages of Khrushchev’s policy, losing their large homeland. Many were forced to leave the cities and developed lands founded by their ancestors, fearing the nationalist policies of local authorities.
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
How Khrushchev sentenced the Russian village
130 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. venaya
    venaya 18 February 2016 06: 30 New
    11
    virgin saga was another strong blow to the Russian countryside and agriculture. Food abundance did not take place

    It seems that the party leadership intentionally did not pay attention to the recommendations of the scientific community. How can this be regarded? This phenomenon has already been given many definitions.
    1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 18 February 2016 11: 11 New
      +7
      When a person reaches power, he considers himself smarter than he really is - after all, he achieved, outwitted everyone, that he was a scientist. Initiative booby - worse than a fool.
      The development of virgin lands has killed vast areas of land, potentially highly effective for agriculture. The fertile layer after the destruction of the structure by plowing was blown away by the winds. Invested money, labor, enthusiasm, and almost in vain. This is perhaps the most serious crime of Khrushchev.
      First, it was necessary to plant forest plantations, which in the steppe do not very quickly stretch upward, but only after 15-20 years to plow. "What? The engine won't start? Fuck it with the engine, let's go, you will start on the road!" Stupid bastard.
      1. the villain
        the villain 18 February 2016 15: 28 New
        +2
        Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Initiative booby - worse than a fool.

        Let me correct a little: "THE FOOL'S INITIATIVE IS WORSE than DIVERSION" so, in my opinion, it will be more correct. hi
    2. sherp2015
      sherp2015 18 February 2016 11: 24 New
      +7
      Quote: venaya
      venaya (2) Today, 06:30 AM
      virgin saga was another strong blow to the Russian countryside and agriculture. Food abundance did not take place
      It seems that the party leadership intentionally did not pay attention to the recommendations of the scientific community. How can this be regarded? This phenomenon has already been given many definitions.


      Khrushchev (Perlmutter) was a real petty tyrant, and, according to Stalin, also an obliging moron
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. RUSS
        RUSS 18 February 2016 11: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: sherp2015
        and according to Stalin, also an obliging moron

        So why didn't Stalin send him to the "backyard"?
        1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
          Uncle VasyaSayapin 18 February 2016 11: 40 New
          +2
          Many times I tried to understand, but so far I could not. Can someone tell me?
          1. GAF
            GAF 18 February 2016 13: 01 New
            +8
            Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Khrushchev (Perlmutter) was a real petty tyrant, and, according to Stalin, also an obliging moron

            He acted as "his own" man on the board.
            Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
            So why didn't Stalin send him to the "backyard"?

            Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Many times I tried to understand, but so far I could not. Can someone tell me?

            Judging from publications based on archival materials, Stalin did not have the full power of an absolute dictator. It is a myth. It was necessary to constantly maintain a fragile EQUILIBRIUM between warring factions in the Politburo. An example is the story of the adoption of the 1936 Constitution, especially regarding the conduct of elections, with the subsequent defeat of the "opposition" of party barons, who imagined themselves to be "untouchable" appanage princelings - initiators of the creation of "troikas" to clean up unwanted localities. Etc.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. RUSS
              RUSS 18 February 2016 13: 12 New
              +6
              Quote: GAF
              with the subsequent defeat of the "opposition" of the party barons, who imagined themselves to be "untouchable" appanage princelings - the initiators of the creation of "troikas" for cleaning out unwanted localities.

              They have not gone anywhere, recall the "princelings" of the 80s from Central Asia with their "cotton affairs"
              1. GAF
                GAF 18 February 2016 15: 05 New
                +3
                Quote: RUSS
                They have not gone anywhere, recall the "princelings" of the 80s from Central Asia with their "cotton affairs"

                Partocrats. "Their name is legion, their number is darkness." "They are put out the door and they are out the window."
              2. ivanov17
                ivanov17 21 November 2016 18: 05 New
                0
                There was more propaganda at the command of Andropov. In the late 80s these two Jewish investigators Gdlyan and Ivanov were put on trial for their tricks, but the collapse of the Union saved them. There were a lot of such princelings in the RSFSR. Take the Medunov case, or the Black Sea resorts ,Stavropol region.
            3. Uncle VasyaSayapin
              Uncle VasyaSayapin 18 February 2016 14: 08 New
              +4
              Not all quotes are mine.
              It's clear with balance, we've seen this. But still, for some reason, I can't believe that chance brought this "miracle" to the very top. Usually, not the best people go upstairs, but the smartest. And this is either not smart or sincere conscious pest.
              1. GAF
                GAF 18 February 2016 14: 56 New
                +1
                Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
                Not all quotes are mine.

                I apologize. It seems he took quotes from different authors, but somehow they all appeared under your name. Did something wrong?
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 18 February 2016 14: 20 New
      0
      In Samsonov he stuck to the late Khrushchev, like a leech! The third day exudes bile through the bald man. He at least first named his middle name or something. Alexandrov Samosovykh half of the peasantry. Could it be that his parents, even then, on the queue in the "Khrushchev" were thrown for truancy and drunkenness, when millions of ordinary workaholic moved to them for free from barracks, trailers and dugouts. Or did he not present his hat (who knows)? laughing In Russia, it is not customary to spit in the graves of the deceased. Well, at least this can be followed? Or one of us has paranoia.
    4. andj61
      andj61 18 February 2016 15: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: venaya
      It seems that the party leadership intentionally did not pay attention to the recommendations of the scientific community. How can this be regarded?

      One of the leaders of these scientific circles was Lysenko with his completely unscientific theories, for example, on the degeneration of birch into aspen under certain conditions and the categorical denial of genetics, and even genes as carriers of hereditary information. In fact, he also denied Mendel’s generally accepted laws, arguing that the influence of the environment does not allow these laws to manifest in real nature.
      The development of virgin lands in those days largely solved food issues. That's just the development of virgin land went through one place! They wanted the best, but it turned out, as always ... First, it was necessary - according to a well-thought-out plan - to plant forest belts, and only then, after 5-10 years, start plowing the land. Protective forest belts would provide snow retention in the winter, and would protect against weathering of the soil in the summer. It would be necessary to introduce subsurface soil cultivation methods, to provide zoned seeds, and not to arrange practically military operations for the development of virgin lands.
      Yes, it should have been done in relative proximity to roads and railways. And then there were often cases when the grown crop was simply rotten: there was nowhere to store it, and it was not realistic to take it out.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. siberalt
      siberalt 18 February 2016 15: 23 New
      0
      Yeah. I look forward to another article by Samsonov - "How Khrushchev drove all the people into the" Khrushchevs ". It will be another horror! belay Spielberg is resting. laughing
      1. Professor
        Professor 18 February 2016 15: 24 New
        0
        Quote: siberalt
        Yeah. I look forward to another article by Samsonov - "How Khrushchev drove all the people into the" Khrushchevs ". It will be another horror! belay Spielberg is resting. laughing

        good
      2. veteran66
        veteran66 18 February 2016 20: 58 New
        0
        Quote: siberalt
        "How Khrushchev drove all the people into" Khrushchevs ".

        laughing good good good
      3. ivanov17
        ivanov17 21 November 2016 18: 09 New
        0
        why offend the idol of the liberal intelligentsia and others. Professor Khrushchev is already applauding. Your idol proposed building multi-storey buildings in our region from adobe bricks. Nobody thought of this before. Khrushchev, the forerunner of Gorbaty and Yeltsin
  2. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 18 February 2016 06: 52 New
    -4
    Skakly began their subversive activities already, it turns out, a long time ago. By introducing your agent of influence into the leadership of the union!
    1. Beaver
      Beaver 18 February 2016 07: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: VNP1958PVN
      it began, it turns out, long ago

      Much earlier. Leiba Davidovich Bronstein was also a native of what is now Ukraine, from the family of a large landowner. yes hi
  3. qwert
    qwert 18 February 2016 07: 14 New
    +6
    Quote: venaya
    virgin saga was another strong blow to the Russian countryside and agriculture. Food abundance did not take place

    Strong, but not so much as the blow of 90's - 2000's, which were killed and boarded up the lid of a Russian agricultural town, burying at the same time several thousand villages. Khrushchev was the berries. And naturally, all the critics of Stalin turned out to be bullshit business executives, whose overall results for the country are equal to the results of any war.
    1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 18 February 2016 11: 38 New
      +1
      Keeping people in villages that cannot be reached with a road, gas, Internet, water supply, opening a post office, school, kindergarten, shop, dispensary is, to put it mildly, inhumane. Or someone wants to drive the population into the Middle Ages? As one old American researcher told me: "You have a complicated business. You only have residents of this village, and they only have you." It is inconvenient for neither people nor business. People should have the opportunity to choose employment, and not think about the harvest, fuels and lubricants, fertilizers, spare parts, etc. it's better to spit.
      All fields lie in the same place, they do not run around the globe. Drive them into the global orientation system once, into the harvester and the tractor - the program and go. One operator in the UAZ and a mobile repair team. "The troubles are forgotten, the run is stopped, robots are working, not a man." The villages will not be needed. There will be only villages of "summer residents" working remotely or on a rotational basis. And it will be soon.
      But the destroyed fertility, accumulated over millennia, to restore - a hundred years is not enough.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 18 February 2016 07: 34 New
    +4
    As V. Molotov later wrote: “They began to develop Tselina prematurely. Of course, it was an absurdity. In such a size - an adventure. ... And time has shown that Molotov is right ... Russia, now, without Ukraine, Kazakhstan ... the largest grain exporter ... An interesting fact, flocks of starlings do not fly abroad in the winter ... we hang out on the roads in ports ... Grains it’s full on the sidelines .. Even in frosts, which sometimes happen .. in packs, friend, friend squeeze .. warm themselves ..
    1. RUSS
      RUSS 18 February 2016 09: 35 New
      0
      Quote: parusnik
      As V. Molotov later wrote: “They began to develop Tselina prematurely. Of course, it was an absurdity. In such a size - an adventure

      And now a new picture, and how to understand? Re-master virgin soil or what? laughing
      1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Uncle VasyaSayapin 18 February 2016 11: 59 New
        +3
        we press plowing with a wheel tractor, impairing fertility, but the woman on the tow hitch is no longer needed, which pleases.
        It’s hard to tell where the machine operator went. Maybe out of need, or maybe the boss with the photographer saw, went out.
        Allegedly "dry grass" in the photo may turn out to be the stems of last year's harvest, so it is unlikely to be virgin soil.
        The tractor is not new, they have not been released for a long time, but the photo may be the same.
        In the background, not acacia, then not Kuban, not Stavropol and not RO.
        It became clearer?
      2. andj61
        andj61 18 February 2016 15: 19 New
        +4
        Quote: RUSS
        Re-master virgin soil or what?

        Mastering ... request Only now it is already necessary to master the abandoned fields of central Russia long overgrown with forests and bushes.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. RUSS
          RUSS 18 February 2016 15: 23 New
          +1
          Quote: andj61
          We master ... Only now we have to master the abandoned fields of central Russia long overgrown with forests and bushes.

          No, it’s unnecessary to cut down forests and shrubs, but where will I go for mushrooms? laughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Wheel
      Wheel 18 February 2016 09: 37 New
      +3
      Quote: parusnik
      Russia, now, without Ukraine, Kazakhstan .. the largest exporter of grain.

      On the one hand, it seems to be good ... and on the other hand, Russia is the largest importer of beef ....
      Two sides of the same coin ...
      1. andj61
        andj61 18 February 2016 15: 23 New
        +2
        Quote: Wheel
        On the one hand, it seems to be good ... and on the other hand, Russia is the largest importer of beef ....

        Let's wait 10 years - there is a hope that everything will change in this matter. In the Bryansk region, we began to grow cows in an industrial way with year-round maintenance free. Cows are American, meat, from the United States, even several cowboy families have been hired - to train ours. And already the products have appeared. True, prices bite.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. RUSS
      RUSS 18 February 2016 10: 08 New
      +2
      Quote: parusnik
      As V. Molotov later wrote: “They began to develop Tselina prematurely. Of course, it was an absurdity. In such a size - an adventure

      And that you did not provide the whole quote?

      They began to develop virgin soil prematurely. Of course, it was an absurdity. In such a size - an adventure. From the very beginning I was a supporter of the development of virgin lands on a limited scale, and not in such enormous ones that made us invest huge amounts of money, incur tremendous expenses instead of raising what is already ready in the settled areas. But it’s impossible otherwise. Here you have a million rubles, no more, so give them to the virgin lands or to the already inhabited areas, where there are opportunities? I offered to invest this money in our Non-Black Earth Region, and to raise virgin lands gradually. They scattered funds - both with this a little and with that, and there is no place to store bread, it rots, there are no roads, it is impossible to take out. But Khrushchev found the idea and rushes like savras without a bridle! This idea definitely doesn’t solve anything, it can help, but to a limited extent. Manage to calculate, count up, consult what people say. No - come on, come on! He began to swing, almost forty or forty-five million hectares of virgin lands were nibbled, but this is unbearable, ridiculous and unnecessary, and if it were fifteen or seventeen, it would probably be more useful. More sense.


      The idea was, as we see, not bad, there were yields, the rush failed!
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 18 February 2016 12: 31 New
        +5
        RUSS, and Khrushchev constantly ass in front of his legs ran. Remember, at least, the Ryazan region, where he was foolishly promised to increase meat production by three times in three years in order to catch up with the United States. And the fact that this is simply physically impossible was not thought about by the party leaders.
        1. andj61
          andj61 18 February 2016 15: 27 New
          +4
          Quote: mordvin xnumx
          RUSS, and Khrushchev constantly ass in front of his legs ran. Remember, at least, the Ryazan region, where he was foolishly promised to increase meat production by three times in three years in order to catch up with the United States. And the fact that this is simply physically impossible was not thought about by the party leaders.

          And not only with Khrushchev! At that time there was such a thing as a "universal plan": they give the task to plow a thousand hectares, and on an organized initiative from below they plow three thousand. They report to all the orders, and the fact that it is impossible to take out the grown grain in the fall, the fact that dust storms will destroy the fertile layer in a year - no one worried. Everyone has already received their orders, awards and gratitude!
          1. RUSS
            RUSS 18 February 2016 16: 02 New
            +2
            Quote: andj61
            And not only with Khrushchev! At that time there was such a thing as a "universal plan": they give the task to plow a thousand hectares, and on an organized initiative from below they plow three thousand

            About ill-fated 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 its own way, so they sowed corn to please "Moscow" throughout the Union
    6. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 18 February 2016 11: 54 New
      +1
      Kazakhstan and Ukraine export grain not much less than Russia, although the area of ​​states differs significantly. Our grain is exported mainly from the south. And the area of ​​the south is not yet large.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. RUSS
        RUSS 18 February 2016 12: 13 New
        0
        Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Kazakhstan and Ukraine export grain not much less than Russia,

        I agree in Ukraine, but Kazakhstan is not among the five leaders in grain export, Russia is in third place
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. siberalt
          siberalt 18 February 2016 14: 50 New
          +5
          What is the argument about? Kazakhstan is historically a nomad. The rams ate, went further to where the grass grows and the people behind them. When Russian businessmen plowed on virgin and fallow lands, there was bread. And when they parted, there was no one to plow. Hence it went that Khrushchev ditched the land. Lies! I live on these lands and today, raised by the cynics, almost before my eyes. They grow on them and durum wheat and corn with sunflower, sugar beets, melons, buckwheat and much more. From me 120 km Semipalatinsk, 160 - Pavlodar. It is a pity, Lenin gave most of Altai to Kazakhstan, along with Russian cities and villages for the convenience of grain harvesting. But Samonov will not tell you about this. There, he seems to have a taboo from the owners.
          1. ivanov17
            ivanov17 21 November 2016 18: 13 New
            0
            But don’t you choke? Lenin gave it? Who is plowing on the virgin lands now? Martians? Will you take care of your Siberia, otherwise soon there will be no Siberians left. All swell
  5. rkkasa xnumx
    rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 08: 15 New
    +6
    For all that I, as they say, is a "scoop", I cannot but admit that there was still some flaw in that system, thanks to which people like the Khrushchevs-Gorbachevs climbed into the country's leadership. After all, what is annoying - the system itself is good, correct, but because of such figures, everything went to pieces.

    And it is advisable to understand this issue, find, realize why this has become possible.
    Suddenly in the future come in handy hi
    1. veteran66
      veteran66 18 February 2016 21: 05 New
      -1
      Quote: rkkasa 81
      the system itself is good, correct, but because of such figures, everything went to dust.

      What kind of system is this so good if at the very core (management) is it bad? Nonsense, this system is not viable initially!
  6. Scud
    Scud 18 February 2016 08: 42 New
    +3
    Hello virgin land, hello long road ...
  7. Professor
    Professor 18 February 2016 08: 42 New
    -1
    Finally it dawned on me. Judging by Alexander Samsonov, the reason for all the ills on the planet is Khrushchev. Did he destroy the Colosseum too? laughing

    PS.
    I’m still waiting for the author’s article how bad it was that Khrushchev issued passports to the villagers and instead of workdays began to pay with cash.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 18 February 2016 09: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: Professor
      I’m still waiting for the author’s article how bad it was that Khrushchev issued passports to the villagers and instead of workdays began to pay with cash.

      And he took off the second tax from the village in the form of all kinds of MTS, RTS, the services of which were forced to be used, but they worked or didn’t work anyway, pay for the services. Khrushchev brought harm, of course, a lot, but he was positive in his innovations. The professor correctly noted passports and real money . The fact is that the MTS greatly impeded the development of rural agriculture. One or two MTS to the area and tillage in turn? MTS played its role when there was little equipment, and then it was necessary to somehow maneuver it. And when agricultural vehicles were in abundance in MTS, and the Director of MTS and the Chairman of the collective farm could not agree and the fields were not worked, is this different? And another question? Where are these mysterious bins of the motherland, which in the time of Khrushchev could not fill? Now they are filling and there is surplus.
      1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Uncle VasyaSayapin 18 February 2016 12: 19 New
        +4
        At the end of the eighties, chemistry began to be used in agriculture - mineral fertilizers and poisons. By the end of the 90s, most of them finally figured out and learned to use them. This has increased the yield by 50-100%. Here the food was filled. The cultivated area has decreased. The situation is similar in broiler meat production. Only instead of chemistry - a competent selection of feed and new highly effective breeds of chickens - "quick-maturing" (forgive me for such words, poultry farmers. But with the cows so far the trouble: bears a calf for 9 months. Yes, until he grows up, until he starts to give milk. Tu-160 or to develop and launch an armata into production, than to increase milk production. And the technology of cattle breeding has changed dramatically. The same premises can no longer be used, you need to build everything from scratch.
        Well, of course, if you pick up people who want to travel, so that they develop and launch a 10-year-old national project. Yes, it is impossible to recruit such people only from among the current elite.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 18 February 2016 15: 35 New
          +5
          Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
          In the late eighties in agriculture began to use chemistry - mineral fertilizers and poisons. By the end of the 90s, most of them finally figured out how to use them.

          So they understood before. And agronomists were, and literature was sent out. It was just that nobody needed it before - fertilizers were cheap, stored and applied anyhow, the yield in the documents could be drawn any, and the money, if the collective farmers had their own farm, were not particularly worried. And the state would not let the collective farm burn out.

          In the early 2000s, I saw an interview with the head of an agricultural cooperative formed on the basis of a collective farm. When asked about the yield, he said that in Soviet times they collected 15-20 centners per hectare (in the Kursk region!), And now 50-70. And he explained to the surprised correspondent that it was necessary to raise the yield so as not to burn out due to rising prices for fuel, fertilizers and equipment. I had to find a Soviet agronomist, dig up the rubble of books in the library, pull out manuals for cultivating the land from them - and do everything strictly according to science (at the same time, the consumption of fertilizers and fuel was sharply reduced). The very science that the USSR unsuccessfully tried to introduce.
      2. veteran66
        veteran66 18 February 2016 21: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Amurets
        de these mysterious bins of the motherland, which during the time of Khrushchev could not fill?

        It’s just that they were so big that they filled and filled them with crops, they filled, they filled, but they couldn’t get it back.
    2. rkkasa xnumx
      rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 09: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: Professor
      Judging by Alexander Samsonov, the reason for all the troubles on the planet is Khrushchev.

      Can you tell me where it is written in the material? I will be grateful.
      I just didn’t see this, maybe I didn’t read it carefully ...

      Quote: Professor
      Khrushchev ... instead of workdays, he began to pay with cash

      So workdays were paid not only with goods, but also with money.
      1. Professor
        Professor 18 February 2016 09: 34 New
        -3
        Quote: rkkasa 81
        Can you tell me where it is written in the material? I will be grateful.
        I just didn’t see this, maybe I didn’t read it carefully ...

        It turns out that not carefully. In my memory this is the third article of the author exposing Khrushchev.

        Quote: rkkasa 81
        So workdays were paid not only with goods, but also with money.

        Let me give you your salary in rice, and at the end of the year I will give you money only for shoes and then I will say that I paid you "not only in goods, but also in money."
        1. rkkasa xnumx
          rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 10: 01 New
          +5
          In general, admit the professor that with - Judging by Alexander Samsonov, the reason for all the troubles on the planet is Khrushchev., you got a little excited.
          The material - about the planet, its troubles, and their culprits - did not say anything wink

          Quote: Professor
          Let me give you a salary with rice, and at the end of the year I will give out money only for shoes

          Why only rice? And why money is only for shoes?

          1 Pay with meat, bread, vegetables, cereals, etc.
          2 With this payment, I agree to receive money only once every six months. For clothes, shoes, household appliances, etc.
          Of course, provided that utilities, medicine, education, recreation - will be free, or very inexpensive.
          I don’t care how these or other benefits come to me - through sticks (workdays), or through pieces of paper (money).
          1. Professor
            Professor 18 February 2016 10: 35 New
            +2
            Quote: rkkasa 81
            you got a little excited.
            The material - about the planet, its troubles, and their culprits - did not say anything

            This is an allegory.

            Quote: rkkasa 81
            Why only rice? And why money is only for shoes?

            Well, this is how the collective farm chairman decides. He may decide that this year they will not give money at all.

            Quote: rkkasa 81
            1 Pay with meat, bread, vegetables, cereals, etc.
            2 With this payment, I agree to receive money only once every six months. For clothes, shoes, household appliances, etc.

            Get grain and grow cattle for meat yourself, bake bread, grow vegetables on a personal plot, but all this in your free time.
            But real money "for clothes, shoes, household appliances, etc." is a pipe. The radio point in the village council is all your household appliances. For shoes, maybe they will.
            1. Villon
              Villon 18 February 2016 11: 17 New
              +5
              Quote: Professor
              Quote: rkkasa 81
              you got a little excited.
              The material - about the planet, its troubles, and their culprits - did not say anything

              This is an allegory.

              The reception is generally well-known. Extend the scope of the opponent's position to an absurd degree. And then nothing needs to be done. In which case, to say that it was only an allegory.
              1. Professor
                Professor 18 February 2016 11: 21 New
                0
                Quote: Villon
                The reception is generally well-known. Extend the scope of the opponent's position to an absurd degree. And then nothing needs to be done. In which case, to say that it was only an allegory.

                You read the author’s articles, and then we'll talk about universal evil in the person of Khrushchev.
                http://topwar.ru/90871-vrazheskiy-udar-po-sovetskoy-civilizacii.html
                http://topwar.ru/90940-kak-hruschev-sovetskie-vooruzhennye-sily-i-pravoohranitel
                nye-organy-gromil.html
                http://topwar.ru/91023-kak-hruschev-prigovoril-russkuyu-derevnyu.html
            2. rkkasa xnumx
              rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 11: 25 New
              0
              Quote: Professor
              This is an allegory.

              Sorry professor, but with all due respect to you - this is not an allegory, but a lie.

              Quote: Professor
              Well, this is how the collective farm chairman decides. He may decide that this year they will not give money at all.

              Can. If for some reason, they did not earn money to pay them for workdays. Or they earned, but it was necessary to spend them on something very important.
              In factories, by the way, about the same. Salaries could be enough only for food. Then the whole country did not live well, there were reasons for that.

              Quote: Professor
              Get grain and grow cattle for meat yourself, bake bread, grow vegetables on a personal plot, but all this in your free time

              1 Are you talking about now, or about then? And where - in the city, at the factory; or in the village?
              If about NOW, at the factory, then with what fright will I have to spend my free time?
              If about THEN, in the village, then the collective farmers somehow found time on private household plots (grandfather and grandmother spent all their life in the village, never in the city, so I'm a little on the topic).
              2 And why only grain? Didn’t they give anything besides grain for workdays?
              3 OK. Be your way - even let only the grain.
              Then your option is to make money. Buy grain with this money.
              And why is your option better than earning workdays, getting grain on them?

              Quote: Professor
              But real money "for clothes, shoes, household appliances, etc." is a pipe. The radio point in the village council is all your household appliances. For shoes, maybe they will.

              Once again - then in the cities they did not live much richer. There were reasons for that.
              1. Professor
                Professor 18 February 2016 11: 46 New
                +1
                Quote: rkkasa 81
                Sorry professor, but with all due respect to you - this is not an allegory, but a lie.

                And to you to lay out links to articles of the author?

                Quote: rkkasa 81
                Can. If for some reason, they did not earn money to pay them for workdays. Or they earned, but it was necessary to spend them on something very important.
                In factories, by the way, about the same. Salaries could be enough only for food. Then the whole country did not live well, there were reasons for that.

                No. The factory had a guaranteed salary because the men tried not to return from the army to the collective farm, but to go to the factory.
                The chairman of the collective farm could decide and not pay salaries. The director of the plant could not.

                1. I have a village father and mother. I know how they lived.
                2. Mostly grain and paid. Avocados did not grow then. Livestock and poultry were handed over to their native state. There was milk of his own from his cow.
                3. I am happy for you, if only you can live with grain.

                Quote: rkkasa 81
                Then your option is to make money. Buy grain with this money.
                And why is your option better than earning workdays, getting grain on them?

                My option is capitalism. Earn money and buy on it everything that I want, and not the chairman of the collective farm.
                The kibbutz also had a similar collective farm. Only there weren't even workdays. Whether you worked or did not work, you are fed and at the end of the year even money, like others, is given out for "minor expenses". Moreover, this communism is still in some kibbutz. Everything is free there. And medicine and education and food and the Internet. You can - work, you can not - do not work. You will get on a par with those who did not work.

                Quote: rkkasa 81
                Once again - then in the cities they did not live much richer. There were reasons for that.

                Much richer and therefore, as soon as the collective farmers were issued passports, they massively rushed into the city. Of the paternal class, 2-3 remained in the village, of the mother in general, no one. All now long ago urban.
                1. rkkasa xnumx
                  rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 13: 35 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Professor
                  And to you to lay out links to articles of the author?

                  Do I need it?
                  Let me remind you - this article is about this article, but I already read it. And there’s nothing like yours in it - the reason for all the troubles on the planet is Khrushchev.

                  Quote: Professor
                  The chairman of the collective farm could decide and not pay salaries. The director of the plant could not.

                  And? What difference does it make if this salary is still enough for about the same benefits as on the collective farm. Yes, life in the city was better, easier, but not by much.

                  Quote: Professor
                  I am happy for you, if only you can live with grain.

                  Lying again. I did not say that you can live on one grain.
                  Not my moped! laughing

                  Quote: Professor
                  My option is capitalism. Earn money and buy everything that I want

                  1 What does capitalism have to do with it? request We are not discussing the pros and cons of different systems now. Nes pa?
                  2 You want to buy, first of all - to eat something. And for this to eat, you will have the lion's share of so dear to your heart pieces of paper (money). On clothes, shoes, and other benefits, not much will be left.
                  And what is the fundamental difference with workdays?

                  Quote: Professor
                  The collective farm was similar in kibbutzim.

                  As far as I know, yes. And that was right.

                  Quote: Professor
                  Whether you worked or did not work, you are fed and at the end of the year even money, like others, is given out for "minor expenses". You can - work, you can not - do not work. You will get on a par with those who did not work.

                  Oh, something I strongly doubt that they kept and are holding drones in kibbutzim.

                  Quote: Professor
                  as soon as collective farmers were issued passports, they massively rushed into the city

                  Yah ? But what about the fact that at the fastest pace, collective farmers tore into the city at a time when they did not have passports? Namely - during the period of industrialization.

                  1926: City - 26 million. Village - 120 million.
                  1939: City - 56 million. Village - 114 million.

                  Now compare:
                  1973: City - 146 million. Village - 102 million.
                  1986: City - 182 million. Village - 95 million.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 18 February 2016 13: 59 New
                    +1
                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    Let me remind you - this article is about this article, but I already read it. And there is nothing like yours in it - the reason for all the troubles on the planet is Khrushchev.

                    Let me remind you that I'm talking about the author. Read carefully. " Judging by Alexander Samsonov, the reason for all the troubles on the planet is Khrushchev."

                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    What difference does it make if this salary is still enough for about the same benefits as on the collective farm. Yes, life in the city was better, easier, but not by much.

                    The fact that in the city workers had the right to freedom of movement and the means to do this, on the collective farm it was possible to go to visit another place only with the written permission of the authorities. Well, elementary money for a ticket. You won’t pay with grain.

                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    Lying again. I did not say that you can live on one grain.

                    Before you blame anyone for lying, learn to read carefully.
                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    OK. Be your way - even let only the grain.





                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    What does capitalism have to do with it?

                    The system is the reason for everything. Khrushchev only changed makeup, not the base.

                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    You would like to buy, first of all - to eat something. And for this to eat, you will have the lion's share of so dear to your heart pieces of paper (money). On clothes, shoes, and other benefits, not much will be left.

                    Nevertheless, at the first opportunity, collective farmers massively rushed into the city from the collective farm paradise. fellow


                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    Oh, something I strongly doubt that they kept and are holding drones in kibbutzim.

                    How do you know? You were there? Then tell us how you can expel a kibbutz member from the kibbutz. wink

                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    Yah ? But what about the fact that at the fastest pace, collective farmers tore into the city at a time when they did not have passports? Namely - during the period of industrialization.

                    1926: City - 26 million. Village - 120 million.
                    1939: City - 56 million. Village - 114 million.

                    Now compare:
                    1973: City - 146 million. Village - 102 million.
                    1986: City - 182 million. Village - 95 million.

                    In decent people, it is customary to confirm their calculations with links. Do you disagree?
                    1. atalef
                      atalef 18 February 2016 14: 02 New
                      0
                      Quote: Professor
                      Then tell us how you can expel a kibbutz member from the kibbutz.

                      laughing in no way sad
                    2. atalef
                      atalef 18 February 2016 14: 02 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Professor
                      Then tell us how you can expel a kibbutz member from the kibbutz.

                      laughing in no way sad
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 18 February 2016 14: 19 New
                        0
                        Quote: atalef
                        in no way

                        Why are you tearing the comrade pattern? How can I communicate with him now? And if he also finds out about the living conditions in a kibbutz (for example, Maagan Michael or Sdot Yam), then immediately a suitcase, train station, Israel. laughing
                      2. rkkasa xnumx
                        rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 15: 30 New
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        Why are you tearing the comrade pattern?

                        Oh well, what kind of comrades are we professor?
                        Comrades, these are the ones I worked with in the mine - Centner Efim Zelkovich, or Misha Kheifets, other men.
                        Or LJ friend Comrade Meisner.
                        And you - even though I treat you with respect for knowledge and erudition, are just a repatriate. Or how are you there. Migrant in general laughing

                        Quote: Professor
                        immediately suitcase, train station, Israel.

                        Yes, who needs me there laughing
                      3. Professor
                        Professor 18 February 2016 15: 38 New
                        +1
                        Quote: rkkasa 81
                        Comrades, these are the ones I worked with in the mine - Centner Efim Zelkovich, or Misha Kheifets, other men.

                        Can not be!!! Jewish miners. That's the day. Patterns are torn one by one. crying

                        Quote: rkkasa 81
                        And you - even though I treat you with respect for knowledge and erudition, are just a repatriate. Or how are you there. Migrant in general

                        We call it "ole"

                        Quote: rkkasa 81
                        Yes, who needs me there

                        To the center Efim Zelkovich or Misha Kheifets and other peasants.

                        PS
                        Tell you how to make a kibbutznik drone work? wink
                      4. rkkasa xnumx
                        rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 16: 31 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Professor
                        Patterns are torn one by one.

                        I will say more - there were no motors on their shovels !!!

                        Quote: Professor
                        To the center Efim Zelkovich or Misha Kheifets and other peasants

                        Duc, they are all at home in Russia laughing

                        Quote: Professor
                        Tell you how to make a kibbutznik drone work?

                        Let me guess ... threaten to be sent back to Russia? Guessed?

                        Threat in kibbutzim, with the drones still fought ?! Oh, wei ...
                      5. atalef
                        atalef 18 February 2016 17: 02 New
                        0
                        Quote: rkkasa 81
                        Let me guess ... threaten to be sent back to Russia? Guessed?

                        Threat in kibbutzim, with the drones still fought ?! Oh, wei ...

                        Kibbutz is voluntary
                      6. Chisayna
                        Chisayna 18 February 2016 17: 07 New
                        +3
                        But these seekers, of Jewish happiness, returned to Russia! Hmm, scratch your tongue on the 1st channel, it’s not for them to work in a kibbutz.
          2. rkkasa xnumx
            rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 14: 47 New
            0
            Quote: Professor
            Let me remind you that I'm talking about the author. Read carefully. "Judging by Alexander Samsonov, the cause of all the troubles on the planet is Khrushchev"

            Start over?
            Judging by Alexander Samsonov, the reason for all the troubles on the planet is Khrushchev.
            Can you tell me where it is written in the material? I will be grateful.
            (in a whisper - poor Samsonov, I suspect that he already regretted writing about Khrushchev) laughing laughing laughing

            Quote: Professor
            in the city, workers had the right to freedom of movement and the means to do this; on the collective farm, it was possible to go to another place even with the written permission of the authorities

            1 To leave the collective farm, this means to leave the workplace for a more or less long period. Of course, this requires management permission. In cities the same thing.
            2 If you need to leave, for example, during a vacation, then what is the problem of taking a certificate?

            Quote: Professor
            Before you blame anyone for lying, learn to read carefully

            We read carefully:
            Quote: Professor
            Get grain and grow cattle for meat yourself, bake bread, grow vegetables on a personal plot, but all this in your free time

            Quote: rkkasa 81
            2 And why only grain? Didn’t they give anything besides grain for workdays?
            3 approx. Be your way - even let only the grain.
            Then your option is to make money. Buy grain with this money.
            And why is your option better than earning workdays, getting grain on them?


            Quote: Professor
            The system is the reason for everything. Khrushchev only changed makeup, not the base.

            After all, the discussion did not begin about the merits of a particular system? Nes pa?

            Quote: Professor
            at the first opportunity, farmers massively rushed into the city from the collective farm paradise

            Did someone talk about collective farm paradise?

            Quote: Professor
            How do you know? You were there? Then tell how you can expel a kibbutz member from a kibbutz.

            I will not argue, you know better.
            Just one question - kibbutz member (which cannot be kicked out), and трутень (which may not work, but will get along with those who worked) - is it the same thing, or is it still not?
            1. Professor
              Professor 18 February 2016 15: 06 New
              +3
              Quote: rkkasa 81
              Can you tell me where it is written in the material? I will be grateful.

              Read all articles from the author’s cycle.

              Quote: rkkasa 81
              To leave the collective farm, this means to leave the workplace for a more or less long period. Of course, this requires management permission. In cities the same thing.

              No. In the city, a worker bought a ticket, took a train and left. The cops will stop, here is my passport. The collective farmer does not have a passport and his cops will put him.

              Quote: rkkasa 81
              2 If you need to leave, for example, during a vacation, then what is the problem of taking a certificate?

              And I won’t give you a reference. And what kind of leave does the collective farmer have? How many days? wink

              Quote: rkkasa 81
              Did someone talk about collective farm paradise?

              Well, in your opinion, the city was not paradise (to quote?), But they rushed into the city and not into the village but fresh air.

              Quote: rkkasa 81
              Only one question - a member of the kibbutz (which cannot be kicked out), and a drone (which may not work, but will get along with those who worked) - is it the same thing, or is it still not?

              If the member of the kibbutz is a drone, then he still can not be kicked out. Ideology however.

              Quote: rkkasa 81
              Wikipedia will arrange? Data from there.

              No, it will not work. Show the data on migration (dynamics of urbanization) during the period under discussion, and not on the composition of the population. From your numbers it is not clear how many were, how many left, how many were born or died. No dynamics.
            2. Chisayna
              Chisayna 18 February 2016 16: 01 New
              +1
              Professor. As you put it, your grandfathers, earned by their workdays, your education. Do not tell me more.
            3. rkkasa xnumx
              rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 16: 16 New
              0
              Quote: Professor
              In the city, a worker bought a ticket, took a train and left.

              Yeah, I wanted to - I left. What about his absenteeism?

              Quote: Professor
              And I won’t give you a reference. And what kind of leave does the collective farmer have? How many days?

              If there was a reason, then he could not have given it. The same thing in the city - they could not give a vacation.
              As for the holidays to collective farmers, as far as I know, they started giving holidays only in the 60s, before that there were no holidays.
              But there is one caveat:
              in 1939 a minimum was set of what had to be worked out on the collective farm — from 60 to 100 workdays per year.
              Then - 100-150 workdays per year.
              Under Stalin, there was debate, it seemed somehow still not enough, but the government recommended that collective farms increase the rate to 150 workdays for women and 200 workdays for men only after Stalin's death.
              For comparison, in those years, the average city dweller had to work 274 days a year.

              www.sarov.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37146&f=1

              Quote: Professor
              to quote?

              Yes, please quote where I spoke about collective farm paradise.

              Quote: Professor
              If the member of the kibbutz is a drone, then he still can not be kicked out. Ideology however.

              Here is a damn thing ... Thank you, I will know.

              Quote: Professor
              No dynamics.

              From 1926 to 1939, the urban population more than doubled.
              From 1973 to 1986, the urban population increased by only 1,25 times.
        2. rkkasa xnumx
          rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 14: 48 New
          0
          Quote: Professor
          In decent people, it is customary to confirm their calculations with links.

          Wikipedia will arrange? Data from there.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Население_СССР
        3. Wheel
          Wheel 19 February 2016 06: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Professor
          The fact that in the city workers had the right to freedom of movement and the means to do this, on the collective farm it was possible to go to visit another place only with the written permission of the authorities. Well, elementary money for a ticket.

          Prof, stop pretending to be "the daughter of a Crimean officer."
          You have absolutely no information.
          In order to go somewhere to visit, the villager did not need any help.
          Help was needed only when visiting border and regime areas.
          Inquiries were not required even during the war.
          The sister of one of my grandmother spent the whole war with her brother-railwayman in Ulan-Ude, arriving at her native collective farm in the Gorky Region for two to three months in order to work out the necessary minimum of workdays.
          For reference.
          A workday is not necessarily a full day for the benefit of the collective farm.
          Two or three workdays could be worked out per day.
  • andj61
    andj61 18 February 2016 15: 35 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Radio point in the village council is all your household appliances.

    Not only! stop Someone else has a gramophone and button accordion, or even a trophy German accordion! bully
    1. Professor
      Professor 18 February 2016 15: 41 New
      +2
      Quote: andj61
      Not only! Someone else has a gramophone and button accordion, or even a trophy German accordion!

      No. What you have listed is gadgets, and household appliances are just a radio point. "Moscow is speaking!" So Levitan from Kuibyshev began to broadcast. What kind of button accordion or accordion is there ... wassat
  • andrew42
    andrew42 18 February 2016 09: 26 New
    0
    Yes Yes! "Then, on the ruins of the chapel .." And to be honest, in the late Roman history there were enough such "crumblings" too. There was someone to ruin the economy of the Roman Empire.
  • Nikolay K
    Nikolay K 18 February 2016 09: 48 New
    -4
    Well, of course. Stalin exported grain for export when there was a famine in the country — it is good. Khrushchev decided to feed the same people and in 4 of the year he increased grain production in the country 1,5-2 times - he is bad and a pest. Normal Samson logic. And there was nothing to develop the virgin soil so quickly, it was necessary to slowly, so as not to relax. Our people under Stalin 30 years suffered and would have suffered, he did not get used to. Apparently somehow.
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 18 February 2016 10: 03 New
      -2
      So, for 1954 — 1961. virgin lands absorbed 20% of all USSR investments in agriculture

      Due to the extreme concentration of funds, people and technology, as well as natural factors, the new lands in the first years yielded ultra-high yields, and from the middle of the 1950-s from half to one third of all grain produced in the USSR.


      Continuing the conversation about Samson logic. Don't you think that if 20% of investments brings you 30-50% of the crop, then these are very profitable and CORRECT investments? Or does your logic say otherwise?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 18 February 2016 10: 13 New
      -4
      The natural conditions of the steppes were not taken into account: sandstorms and dry winds were not taken into account, gentle methods of soil cultivation and cereal varieties adapted to this type of climate were not developed.

      I agree with this statement. But the problem is that in the USSR and in the late 80s, gentle methods of tillage were not used. Why? Apparently the system did not care about efficiency, let alone the environment. So, if we, following Molotov's "smart" advice, given retroactively, did not master the virgin lands while waiting for the forest belts to grow and our science solves all the technical problems, then, I'm afraid we would have to wait a long time, for sure, until the union collapsed. Although, I think, in this case, the USSR would have collapsed much earlier. In the 80s we could afford to import grain at the expense of oil exports, and in the 60s we did not have such an opportunity.
      1. rkkasa xnumx
        rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 10: 53 New
        +2
        Quote: Nikolai K
        following smart advice Molotovgiven backdating

        Such advice and recommendations were given not only by Molotov. And not only retroactively, but also BEFORE Khrushchev's epic with virgin soil. And they were not only given, but also executed.
    5. rkkasa xnumx
      rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 10: 41 New
      +3
      Quote: Nikolai K
      Stalin exported grain for export when there was a famine in the country — it is good.

      1 Stalin was forced to export grain - industrialization was needed URGENTLYand besides grain, we could sell little then.
      2 As far as I know, the Soviet government tried to respond to crop failures and famine (by reducing grain exports). Another thing is that it was not always possible to do this quite quickly.
      There is generally a very difficult question.

      Quote: Nikolai K
      Khrushchev ... over 4 years increased grain production in the country by 1,5-2 times - it is bad and a pest. Normal Samson logic.

      Have you read the full article?
      About what led to the accelerated development of virgin lands read?


      Quote: Nikolai K
      Our people under Stalin endured 30 years and still would

      I had to endure, there was such a time.
      Do you understand the difference between the 30s and 40s (industrialization, pre-war preparation, war, post-war reconstruction), and the second half of the 50s?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 18 February 2016 15: 03 New
        -1
        Stalin was forced to export grain - industrialization was urgently needed, and besides grain, we could sell little then.

        Industrialization was needed, but at what PRICE? It was made literally on the bones of our people. Of course, there are those who claim that the end justifies the means. Then I would like to ask you, what price do you think is normal for paying for industrialization: one million people, five million or ten million human lives? And how do you feel about the fact that the state in a similar situation decides to sacrifice YOUR children?

        2 As far as I know, the Soviet government tried to respond to crop failures and famine (by reducing grain exports). Another thing is that it was not always possible to do this quite quickly.

        The last mass famine was after the Great Patriotic War. There is no exact data on the number of deaths (estimates are 1-1,5 million people). At the same time, about 1946 million tons of grain were exported from the USSR to 1948-4,5 from the USSR, including 0,5 million tons. to France, a large volume of grain was supplied as an aid to eastern Germany. And about 1,4 million tons It was exported DIRECTLY in the midst of famine. For you to understand, such an amount of grain would be enough to produce 1,5 million people per 1,5 kg of bread daily for 0,5 years. That is, their bread in the USSR was quite enough, and the death of 1,5 million people lies solely on the conscience of the Soviet government and Stalin personally.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. RUSS
          RUSS 18 February 2016 15: 20 New
          0
          Quote: Nikolai K
          and the death of 1,5 million people lies solely on the conscience of the Soviet government and Stalin personally

          You will never reach "them" ...
          1. Beaver
            Beaver 18 February 2016 18: 57 New
            +2
            Quote: RUSS
            You will never reach "them" ...

            You will never see "them" ...
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. rkkasa xnumx
          rkkasa xnumx 18 February 2016 16: 43 New
          0
          Quote: Nikolai K
          Industrialization was needed, but at what PRICE?

          1 In your opinion, due to industrialization, how many extra deaths were there, if I may say so?
          2 Do you understand that if we didn’t have time with industrialization, there would have been more losses? Whole country.

          Quote: Nikolai K
          in 1946-1948, about 4,5 million tons of grain were exported from the USSR

          I read about it from the corner of my eye, but I don’t remember where. Don’t give a reference?
    6. sdv68
      sdv68 18 February 2016 12: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: Nikolai K
      Well, of course. Stalin exported grain for export when there was a famine in the country — it is good.
      Under Stalin, hunger (to which everyone criticizes him) was in the 32-33th years. But those who reproach Stalin for this famine, for some reason, forget that at the same time, Western Ukraine, which in those years belonged to Poland, was starving too. And not only. Is Stalin also to blame there?
      Quote: Nikolai K
      Khrushchev decided to feed the same people and for 4 years increased grain production in the country by 1,5-2 times - he is bad and a pest.
      Remind Novocherkassk shooting when it took place, and what are its reasons?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 18 February 2016 15: 10 New
        -2
        Under Stalin, hunger (to which everyone criticizes him) was in the 32-33 years.


        After the war, severe famine was in 1946 and especially in 1947. There are no exact data, but in the 1947 year, OFFICIAL mortality in the USSR increased 1,5 times compared to the hungry 1946 year (about 800 thousand people). About 20% of all the dead in the country at that time were children.
        This, of course, is significantly less than in the years of collectivization, when only in the 1933 year the population of the RSFSR decreased by 1926 thousand people (the figures are even higher in the USSR), despite the fact that earlier it grew annually by approximately 1,7 million people.
        1. sdv68
          sdv68 19 February 2016 12: 33 New
          +1
          Quote: Nikolai K
          After the war, severe famine was in 1946 and especially in 1947.
          Destroyed country + drought / crop failure similar 32-33 years. But even this did not lead to similar consequences (albeit officially and fairly exaggerated) of the early 30s. That is why this hunger (which, of course, was, but passed at times softer than the previous ones - is it necessary to speak thanks to whom?) Is not that remembered.
          Quote: Nikolai K
          About 20% of all deaths in the country at that time were children.
          When you give the numbers, then do not be lazy to imagine the sources where you got them from.
        2. Corsair
          Corsair 8 November 2016 15: 38 New
          0
          Quote: Nikolai K
          After the war, severe famine was in 1946 and especially in 1947. There are no exact data, but in the 1947 year, OFFICIAL mortality in the USSR increased 1,5 times compared to the hungry 1946 year (about 800 thousand people). About 20% of all the dead in the country at that time were children.

          And what did you want - the country lost 20 mln people, of them 10-12 years old, able-bodied healthy population, half the country in ruins, mines, shells and bombs in the fields unexploded. Part of the land burned out, and after a fire on the ground for several years nothing can grow.
          And then you decided that Stalin had to take manna from heaven from somewhere and feed the country ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • RUSS
    RUSS 18 February 2016 10: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Finally it dawned on me. Judging by Alexander Samsonov, the reason for all the troubles on the planet is Khrushchev.

    Khrushchev is to blame for everything! This is the basis of the historical materialism of the Stalinists and others like him, he gave the Crimea to Ukraine because he hoped for the collapse of the USSR, he would have destroyed it himself, but the Stalinist economy was stronger than the Trotskyist voluntarist and tyrant, although the very possibility of an abundance for Soviet people he eliminated in the bud.
  • Avantageur
    Avantageur 18 February 2016 14: 18 New
    -1
    Quote: Professor
    Judging by Alexander Samsonov, the reason for all the ills on the planet is Khrushchev.

    The reason for all the troubles on the planet is the genealogical tree of European origin of the Rothschilds / Rockefellers. And Samsonov did not write anything about this in this article ...



    1. Professor
      Professor 18 February 2016 14: 24 New
      +4
      Quote: Avantageur
      The reason for all the troubles on the planet, the genealogical tree of the European origin of the Rothschilds / Rockefellers and Samsonov about this, did not write anything in this article ...

      Well, I always knew that all the kings were Jewish by mother (in fact, German Jews were involved there), that Lenin was a Jew, Yosya Dzhugashvili, now Khrushchev. About Andropov and Medvedev generally keep quiet. With Rothschild, too, everything is clear, but what about Rockefeller? He is a Baptist. Mom Baptist, Dad Baptist, etc. wassat
      1. Avantageur
        Avantageur 18 February 2016 14: 56 New
        +3
        Quote: Professor
        Quote: Avantageur
        The reason for all the troubles on the planet, the genealogical tree of the European origin of the Rothschilds / Rockefellers and Samsonov about this, did not write anything in this article ...

        Well, I always knew that all the kings were Jewish by mother (in fact, German Jews were involved there), that Lenin was a Jew, Yosya Dzhugashvili, now Khrushchev. About Andropov and Medvedev generally keep quiet. With Rothschild, too, everything is clear, but what about Rockefeller? He is a Baptist. Mom Baptist, Dad Baptist, etc. wassat

        Yatsenyuk is a Scientologist, Turchinov is a Baptist, and what's next ... They are all Ukrainian-Evie. Rockefeller is a Sephardic, also sub-ethnic (sub-genre such) Jew. Marx is a Christian, too, euv ...

        Yosya Dzhugashvili

        Stalin did not start world wars, did not slip the smallpox blankets to the Indians, did not break alliances, did not thirst Africa and thirsty bacilli, did not pursue a policy of Judaism and Freemasonry, etc.
        1. Professor
          Professor 18 February 2016 15: 11 New
          +3
          Quote: Avantageur
          Rockefeller - Sephard

          Kill me right away, but don't touch Rockefeller. You should at least look at the wiki.

          Quote: Avantageur
          Stalin did not start world wars, did not slip the smallpox blankets to the Indians, did not break alliances, did not thirst Africa and thirsty bacilli, did not pursue a policy of Judaism and Freemasonry, etc.

          For that he is a Jew. fellow
          1. Avantageur
            Avantageur 18 February 2016 15: 16 New
            +2
            Quote: Professor
            Have you ever looked at the wiki

            There are the same "Rockefellers" and post ...

            Quote: Professor
            For that he is a Jew

            Have you read it on wikipedia?


            1. Professor
              Professor 18 February 2016 15: 20 New
              +3
              Quote: Avantageur
              Have you read it on wikipedia?

              Nah. He is my relative. wink
              1. Avantageur
                Avantageur 18 February 2016 15: 36 New
                +1
                Quote: Professor
                Quote: Avantageur
                Have you read it on wikipedia?

                Nah. He is my relative. wink

                Unlikely...

                You probably judge by name, and so with the advent of Christianity in Russia, it became customary to call birth children biblical, Jewish and Greek names such as Joseph, Jacob, etc., the more his mother had feelings for religion and wanted to send him to the Orthodox a spiritual school, so the name, it’s nothing more, doesn’t speak.
                1. Professor
                  Professor 18 February 2016 15: 45 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Avantageur
                  Unlikely...

                  You probably judge by name, and so with the advent of Christianity in Russia, it became customary to call birth children biblical, Jewish and Greek names such as Joseph, Jacob, etc., the more his mother had feelings for religion and wanted to send him to the Orthodox a spiritual school, so the name, it’s nothing more, doesn’t speak.

                  Yes, he is a Jew. His maternal grandfather was the great-nephew of my cousin. Yosya even lit Yiddish with Trotsky so that Voroshilov did not understand what these Semites were talking about.

                  PS
                  It’s good with you, but Zionism must be built. Shabbat shalom to you. hi
                  1. padded jacket
                    padded jacket 18 February 2016 15: 55 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Professor
                    Yes, he is a Jew. His maternal grandfather was the great-nephew of my cousin. Yosya even lit Yiddish with Trotsky so that Voroshilov did not understand what these Semites were talking about.

                    Similarly, Hitler was also a Jew laughing
                    Hitler is a Jew! This was shown by DNA analysis.
          2. andj61
            andj61 18 February 2016 15: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: Professor
            Quote: Avantageur
            Stalin did not start world wars, did not slip the smallpox blankets to the Indians, did not break alliances, did not thirst Africa and thirsty bacilli, did not pursue a policy of Judaism and Freemasonry, etc.
            For that he is a Jew.

            The Lord’s sowing is the same everywhere,
            and lie to us about the difference of nations
            all people are Jews, and just not all
            found while the courage to confess.
            I.Guberman
            bully
        2. padded jacket
          padded jacket 18 February 2016 15: 34 New
          +1
          Quote: Avantageur
          Stalin did not start world wars, did not slip blankets with smallpox to the Indians, did not break alliances, did not stain Africa with thirst and bacilli, did not pursue a policy of Judeo-Freemasonry, etc.

  • Wheel
    Wheel 19 February 2016 04: 07 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    I’m still waiting for the author’s article how bad it was that Khrushchev issued passports to the villagers and instead of workdays began to pay with cash.

    Prof, and what do you care?
    A collective farmer Jew?
  • Ozhogin Dmitry
    Ozhogin Dmitry 18 February 2016 09: 26 New
    0
    Something recently, we have often taken to scold the Khrushchev for his anti-Soviet policy, why not take it. Why's that? Was he a good friend before that? It’s strange somehow. It began, as I understand it, after the Crimea entered the Russian Federation, when many unexpectedly found out that he had donated the peninsula to Ukraine. Why didn’t they say it before? It was necessary to issue such denunciative articles long ago.
    1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 18 February 2016 14: 28 New
      +2
      You think so. He was always scolded. Since those years when he did all this. And as for the Crimea: until the townsfolk are told on television 10 times on all channels, they will not even hear rumors. But focusing on their knowledge is ridiculous. People undertook to write articles here and the topic intensified. In the articles of all, one line of Khrushchev is a scoundrel. And it rarely happens. There is something good in every person, and hence the debate. Maybe Khrushchev would have been a good leader at the district or even regional level of that time, but at the state level - this is already Tryndets. But no one has yet revealed the essence: a conscious pest, he was or not a distant person.
  • RUSS
    RUSS 18 February 2016 09: 29 New
    0
    Samsonov calm down! stop
    Khrushchev from you more than once in a coffin turned upside down !!!
  • fomin
    fomin 18 February 2016 09: 42 New
    +3
    There were mistakes in the development of virgin lands, there was soil erosion, but the collective farms on the virgin lands did not close! A new system of soil cultivation "without seam turnover" was applied, based on the study of foreign experience, in particular Canadian, with such cultivation, up to 70% of last year's stubble is preserved, and it is it that protects the soil from blowing out. The virgin lands began to give stable yields and in the lean years in the central part of the USSR, virgin bread was truly a salvation for the country. A series of articles by A. Samsonov about Khrushchev's "pest" is not a reliable study of Khrushchev's activities, but rather resembles an act of revenge for the insults inflicted by Khrushchev's policy on the family of Mr. Samsonov. Despite the many controversial moments in Khrushchev's activities, one should not forget that if we still live, if the third world war did not start, we owe this to Khrushchev who, according to some authors, "riveted" submarines with missiles instead of building artillery cruisers, he thus created in the shortest possible time parity with America, if not for this then the Americans whose hands have been itching for a long time to drop their atomic bombs on us would certainly not have resisted. Do not forget that it was he who "loosened the nuts" and opened the "iron curtain". It was under Khrushchev that people were no longer imprisoned for 10 years for a political joke told, millions of people, especially the military who were literally thrown out into the street under the Khrushchevs, as a result of the massive reduction of the army, retained a genetic resentment against the general secretary, young commanders of regiments, divisions who had honor in the army , respect for a stable income in an instant they lost everything and in order to feed themselves they had to go to fitter at the factory, etc. you won't forget this, but you just don't need to look at all the events associated with the name of Khrushchev through the prism of personal resentment, you need to be objective and fair, especially if you are trying to convey your thoughts to a mass audience.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 18 February 2016 10: 37 New
      0
      Quote: fomin
      you need to be objective and fair, especially if you are trying to convey your thoughts to a mass audience.

      This is where we need to look for that facet in the personality of Khrushchev, in the life of the country at that time and what came later. I can't understand your thought about the cruiser of Project 68 bis. These ships were needed. It was proposed to build missile cruisers on the basis of the hulls of unfinished ships. Yes, strategic, or better to say, "political" nuclear weapons have been created. Why "political", but because at that time Khrushchev needed such bombs as "Kuzkina's mother" (AN-602, RDS-202 and other names), in At that time it had no military significance. But there was no money for the development of tactical nuclear weapons. Now on strategic carriers. Fortunately, all the planes were not ditched, there were M-4; 3M; Myasishcheva, Tu-16 and Tu-95 Tupolev. Hope for missiles. At that time, if they can be called strategic, there were only R-7s at two bases: Baikonur and Plesetsk, one might say none. And at the same time, work on the strategic cruise missiles of Lavochkin, Beriev, Ilyushin and Myasishchev is being closed. were not intercepted, especially since the Ber Ieva and Ilyushin were developed specifically for nuclear submarines, but for some reason the P-5 and P-6 missiles, which had the worst characteristics and, in addition, with non-interchangeable onboard connectors, went into service.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 February 2016 15: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: Amurets
        I can’t understand your idea about the project 68 bis cruiser. These ships were needed. It was proposed to build missile cruisers based on the hulls of unfinished ships.

        Why did the USSR need 7 more artillery cruisers for a modified pre-war project?
        And all the proposals for the construction on the basis of Project 68 bis RKR ran into cruel reality: the remake will never surpass the special construction ship. In addition, the main version of the re-equipment in the Kyrgyz Republic of air defense on pr. 70 and 71 died when it became unsuitable for the M-2 SAM (more precisely, its SAM, borrowed from S-75) for arming ships.
        And most importantly - on the approach was already RRC pr. 58.
        Quote: Amurets
        Why "political", but because at that time Khrushchev needed such bombs as "Kuzkina's Mother" (AN-602, RDS-202 and its other names), at that time it had no military significance. But money for the development of tactical no nuclear weapons were found.

        EMNIP, it was not just about money, but about capacities. Thinking about tactical nuclear weapons is possible only when strategic parity is reached. And at the end of the 50s, the gap between the USSR and the United States on nuclear warheads was almost 25-fold.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 18 February 2016 16: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And most importantly - on the approach was already RRC pr. 58.

          RKPRpr. 58 was a destroyer reclassified as a missile cruiser.

          Quote: Alexey RA
          And at the end of the 50s, the gap between the USSR and the United States on nuclear warheads was almost 25-fold.

          So that’s why it was necessary to make this monster like the AN-602? Bluffing is good when you can suspect, but it is impossible to prove, but here is ordinary window dressing. And the money invested in this monster could be spent on nuclear and thermonuclear charges that could actually be delivered to the territory of the United States. Moreover, we didn’t have such a range of carriers. I knew pilots from Seryshevo and Zavitinsk and I heard from them more than once that flying to the United States is a one-way ticket. They simply don’t have a return trip was fuel. That means the time. Therefore, I don’t understand why we need s charges have been if there was no media.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 18 February 2016 19: 27 New
            +1
            Quote: Amurets
            RKPRpr. 58 was a destroyer reclassified as a missile cruiser.

            I know.
            The catch is that with a four times less displacement, Project 58 carried 2 * 4 launchers of the Kyrgyz Republic and another 1 * 2 launchers of missiles. And after him came pr. 1134 with three times less displacement, 2 * 2 launchers of the Kyrgyz Republic and 2 * 2 launchers of missiles.
            The main ambush was that there was no real rearmament project for 68 bis - for pr. 70 and 71 failed because of the unsuitability of the air defense system.
            Quote: Amurets
            So that's why it was necessary to make this monster like AN-602? Bluffing is good when you can suspect, but it is impossible to prove, but here is the usual window dressing.

            Product 202 is rather not a window dressing, but an experiment. Such a large physical experiment is to determine the feasibility of creating aviation super-powerful thermonuclear charges.
            1. Amurets
              Amurets 18 February 2016 23: 55 New
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Product 202 is rather not a window dressing, but an experiment. Such a large physical experiment is to determine the feasibility of creating aviation super-powerful thermonuclear charges.

              I agree with this your statement, let it be a full-scale experiment.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              The main ambush was that there was no real rearmament project for 68 bis - for pr. 70 and 71 failed because of the unsuitability of the air defense system.

              Here, I partially agree with you and apparently not always the fault of the shipbuilder designers. And here you need to look for the origins in the days of Stalin. Perhaps you can argue with me, but after meeting with foreign military equipment in the years of the Second World War, it was necessary not to copy foreign samples , and engage in the development of their products. But Stalin’s ban on new scientific developments that did not meet the needs of the war acted. On the one hand, this may be right, there is no dispersal of funds, but on the other hand it left us on the lines that reached before the war. However, Khrushchev’s misfortune or fault it alone, and the whole Central Committee was that they were obsessed with missiles and thermonuclear weapons, forgetting about the development of other industries. At the time, the Americans were already switching to semiconductors and small-sized elemental base, and we all worked with energy-intensive bulbs. the size of the M-2 SAM. Plus, the Americans were already working on the use of mixed solid fuel charges, and we relied on powder propellants.
    2. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 18 February 2016 12: 48 New
      +1
      Yes, his ideas were mostly good. But that’s the trouble with any moron that he will even ruin a good idea when implemented. Because it’s not enough to understand where to go, you still need to understand how?
  • Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 18 February 2016 10: 08 New
    +5
    Remember the film "Mimino", where the hero, played by Rafik Mkrtchan, explains to the judge "having a personal dislike for the victim ..."
    Alexander, to love or not to love Khrushchev is your right. Do not distort the facts. And to refer to the opinion of the people's academician Lysenko is generally bad manners!
    Economists (both in the years of Khrushchev and now) argue that in order to ensure food security of the state, it is necessary to collect grain (including feed) at the rate of 1 ton per inhabitant.
    You write:
    The first result of the development of virgin lands was a sharp increase in agricultural production: in the 1954 year, the USSR harvested 85,5 million tons of grain (including virgin soil 27,1 million tons), and in 1960 the year it already 125 million tons (including virgin soil - 58,7 million . tons.

    And this is with a population of 188 million people. That is, in the 1954 year, the USSR did not get more than 100 million tons of grain, and in 1960 - 63 million tons.
    The question was to feed the victorious people in the end. Not everyone could shop at the Yeliseyevsky grocery store.
    And Mikoyan was certainly right. Resources could and should be spent more efficiently. No wonder Khrushchev was considered a voluntarist.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 18 February 2016 15: 26 New
      0
      in the 1954 year, the USSR collected 85,5 million tons of grain (including virgin soil 27,1 million tons)


      I agree with your comment. The USSR collected grain about 65-70 million tons. excluding virgin lands. For comparison, the grain harvest in Russia today is about 100 million tons. with a population half as small. That is, before the development of virgin lands in the USSR, they collected grain per person three times less than now. The country really balanced on the verge of famine (which happened in 1946 when they collected less than 40 million tons), and here are those who claim. that virgin soil was mastered too quickly.
  • Avenich
    Avenich 18 February 2016 10: 13 New
    +4
    Thanks to the author! I read and just live my life again. I confess that I did not find Khrushchev in a high post, but having entered the age of "rebellious youth" in my own skin I experienced many consequences of his "subtle, far-sighted and competent policy." Only one "the current generation of Soviet people will live under communism" is worth it. This poster is also "Take a billion grain, Motherland." The enlargement of villages "is a separate song, in accordance with the blurring of the difference between town and country. And how famously ravines and forest-dividing strips were plowed. True, for some reason, in the spring, ravines appeared again and for some reason more, and swamps and ravines appeared in place of the strips. how famously they fought against the chill. I also remember newspapers with photos of mutilated border guards from the Far East, tell me this was already under Brezhnev, and who, forgive me, "quarreled" with China. But what is really there, "the Chukchi is not a writer, a Chukchi reader."
    Thanks again, I will continue to read with interest.
  • RUSS
    RUSS 18 February 2016 10: 21 New
    +4
    Alternative Samsonov-point of view
    Khrushchev was and remains the leader, during the short years of whose rule the USSR became a guiding star for dozens of former colonies and semi-colonies that chose the non-capitalist path of development; the flights of the first Soviet earth satellites and Soviet cosmonauts were made (well ahead of the Americans); Cuba was protected from US aggression; the anti-communist rebellion in Hungary organized by the USA and the Vatican was suppressed; Soviet people began (at last!) to eat their fill; The GDR was protected from virtually continuous provocations from the West by the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall; in the USSR, mass housing construction began (instead of expensive pompous chorus for a very few elite, in the style of "Stalin's Baroque"); a contract was signed with the Italian firm "FIAT" for the supply of a plant for the production of the first really mass Soviet passenger car - "Zhiguli" - "Lada" ...
    Do you know what was the most widespread slogan during the Khrushchev years? "Glory to the KPSS"? - No, they didn't guess: "Peace-peace!" This is now the most necessary slogan for all of us, even for the most maydanuty "Svidomo" and "Shchyry". After all, the people suffer and die from wars, and only capitalist oligarchs profit from them. And again, all the enemies of the people who started the massacre in the Donbass on the orders of the West - Poroshenko-Valtsman, Kalomoisky, Yaytsenyukh, Turchinov, etc., as well as damned provocateurs-lackeys of the West - Nemtsov, Navalny, Khodorkovsky, etc. - disgusting products of the Brezhnev decades of decomposition and crookedness.
    And one more thing: the Soviet people stopped shaking with fear only when Khrushchev closed the Gulag. And the country was filled with enthusiasm - the youth went to explore the virgin lands and Siberia, really cheerful songs sounded, and the Soviet people began to look to the future with hope. Many people believed in the slogan that, after the overthrow of Khrushchev, was cynically ridiculed: "The current generation of Soviet people will live under communism."
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 18 February 2016 12: 33 New
      +2
      I agree on the Khrushchev era. I do not like much
      communists, but everything is relative ... Compared to the prison-barracks regime of Stalin
      Khrushchev's reforms gave the people (and not the nomenclature in "Stalinist" houses) a clear improvement in life.
      1. iouris
        iouris 19 February 2016 11: 08 New
        0
        Khrushchev’s reforms are not Khrushchev’s reforms, but partnomenclature. It is not a fact that these reforms were not prepared by the Lavrentiy Palych department.
        After the death of Chernenko, reforms also began. And comrade began them. Andropov, "a native of the Stavropol Territory".
    2. GAF
      GAF 18 February 2016 14: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: RUSS
      Very many believed in the slogan that after the overthrow of Khrushchev was betrayed cynical mockery: "The current generation of Soviet people will live under communism."

      But do not you think that the slogan itself is cynical. The virgin soil is virgin, but the main blow to agricultural production was inflicted by restrictions on the management of subsidiary plots in private farmsteads in the village and a ban in urban-type settlements. As a result, from the abundance of products on the shelves of city shops in 1959, the year of my urgent call from Novosibirsk, after a few years only memories remained. But after the introduction of restrictions, the Tula region fulfilled the plan for the delivery of meat in 3 times the size. The party boss of the region received a star from Hero for the heavy labors of the Secretary General. Stalin would have put him to the wall for such heroism. The cattle were slaughtered, and the people reached for the product in the city.
      Remained in the memory of the song, popular among the then generation of Soviet people, who were "not cynically" promised the imminent advent of communism.
      Poultry farms built
      A lot more is being built
      And the worker sees the eggs
      When in the bath is washed.
      The song is humorous, but the discontent of the population ended in the shooting of workers in Novocherkassk under the direct instructions of the Secretary General.
  • Million
    Million 18 February 2016 10: 27 New
    +2
    Something about Khrushev was frequent. Why would it suddenly?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 18 February 2016 10: 31 New
      0
      Quote: Million
      Something about Khrushev was frequent. Why would it suddenly?

      A new object "for whipping" and also because it is "convenient" for criticism, because it exposed the "undetectable" one, and "he" is now in a "trend" among the people, something like that ....
    3. sdv68
      sdv68 18 February 2016 12: 22 New
      +3
      Quote: Million
      Why would you?
      Just on the nose is a sad anniversary, through and through with a false report. And so overly sensitive that he immediately appeared in the Western press.
      1. iouris
        iouris 18 February 2016 16: 42 New
        +2
        But isn’t it time for us to swing at Gorbachev? Anniversary of the April Plenum on the nose.
        In general, everything that was before this is no longer very relevant.
  • Belousov
    Belousov 18 February 2016 10: 29 New
    0
    The article is correct, but it is necessary to submit a little more restrained material in a more metered way, and not all articles in a week.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 18 February 2016 10: 59 New
    +2
    This figure brought to the USSR a poisonous plant - Sosnovsky Hogweed, which has now grown throughout Russia.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 18 February 2016 11: 15 New
      0
      Quote: Vadim237
      This figure brought to the USSR a poisonous plant - Sosnovsky Hogweed, which has now grown throughout Russia.

      Hogweed was cultivated before Khrushchev.
      Hogweed Sosnowski (Heracleum sosnowskyi) was introduced into the culture at the end of 40's years of the XX century as a high-yielding fodder (mainly silage) plant. Sosnovsky’s borschovik is characterized by high productivity - more than 2500 centners per hectare and high sugar content - up to 3% of fresh weight. But it turned out that he easily runs wild and is introduced into the local flora. Together with the toxicity of its juice, this was the reason for the refusal to grow hogweed Sosnowski on an industrial scale
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 18 February 2016 18: 45 New
        0
        Only "industrial scale" this poisonous plant now supports itself.
  • TsShVS
    TsShVS 18 February 2016 11: 00 New
    +6
    They didn’t say anything about Khrushchev, in which half the country lives
  • The comment was deleted.
  • iouris
    iouris 18 February 2016 11: 47 New
    -2
    The Celina project was most likely launched in this form in order to conceal the construction of a cosmodrome called Baikonur. Another question is whether this maneuver was successful. It is no coincidence that Brezhnev, who oversaw space, at the same time oversaw this project. The book "Virgin lands" by this author was written, published and studied, but there is practically nothing about space in it.
  • fomin
    fomin 18 February 2016 13: 25 New
    +1
    Quote: Amurets
    I can't understand your idea about the project 68-bis cruiser. These ships were needed. It was proposed to build missile cruisers on the basis of the hulls of unfinished ships. Yes, strategic, or better to say, "political" nuclear weapons were created. Why "political", but because in At that time, Khrushchev needed such bombs as "Kuzkina Mother" (AN-602, RDS-202 and its other names), which had no military significance at that time. But there was no money for the development of tactical nuclear weapons.

    Who needs artillery ships when there is a nuclear war "on the nose" (don't believe me? Remember the Cuban missile crisis) but they tried to remake them but nothing came of it. As for "Kuz'kina's Mother", don't we need to lump everything together, that there was nothing to beat without a hydrogen bomb? As for the lack of money for tactical weapons, this was stupidity and tactical, let's recall the Cuban missile crisis again, what kind of nuclear weapons were delivered there? And, as for the bombers, they were written off morally obsolete which were hardly suitable for the role of carriers of nuclear weapons. And in general it is impossible to judge that time from the present "bell tower", it is necessary to take into account the realities and threats of those days.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 18 February 2016 17: 05 New
      0
      Quote: fomin
      Who needs artillery ships when a nuclear war is "on the nose" (don't believe me? Remember the Cuban missile crisis)

      Tell me at least one rocket carrier ship of the time of the time in the United States?
      The R-12 and R-14 missiles never belonged to tactical weapons, rather they were medium-range missiles. About bombers. The supersonic M-50 was never morally obsolete, the project was simply closed by decision of the Central Committee. Strategic cruise missiles La-350 "Storm" ", M-40 Buran is also" morally obsolete "passing tests. Here is the link http://alternathistory.livejournal.com/1141937.html
      There were no ballistic intercontinental missiles either. R-7 just learned to fly and see how long it took to prepare for the launch of R-7. That's all the USSR had at that time. R-16, after the accident when Marshal M. Nedelin died, it was not clear will take it into service or not.
  • iouris
    iouris 18 February 2016 14: 14 New
    +2
    Generally speaking, it is not entirely correct to exaggerate the role and importance of Khrushchev. He was the first secretary, and the country was led by a grouping (politburo). The essence of the debunking of the "personality cult" is the transition from the dictatorship of one person (the "Master") to the dictatorship of the group. In the CPSU, after the death (or elimination) of Stalin, a factional struggle began. The struggle was not fought for a political line, but for political power. As a rule, a compromise figure was appointed to the post of the first secretary of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the USSR. Khrushchev, and then Brezhnev, were not strong figures. Therefore, the fact that the houses are called "stalinkas" or "khrushchobs" is pure coincidence. By the way, there is no concept of "brezhnevka" in the real estate market, but apartments exist.
    The leader, rather, contributed a certain flavor to the external manifestations of the objective process.
    It is very possible that the victory of Beria and the MGB in the factional struggle would allow the USSR to develop more dynamically. Before the death of Brezhnev, the committee would not have had to fight with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Defense for power in the state.
  • 16112014nk
    16112014nk 18 February 2016 14: 27 New
    +1
    Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
    When a person reaches power

    "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!"
    John Acton, historian.
    And especially, if an illiterate person seized power, like N.S., by profession - a locksmith. Later there was another figure of M.S. - Combineer from Stavropol. The results of their reign are very similar - both ruined everything they could.
    1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 18 February 2016 14: 35 New
      +1
      Yes, to hell with him with debauchery, here's a crazy implementation of good ideas at the state level ...
  • Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 18 February 2016 14: 47 New
    +2
    Oh! fellow
    And what else can Khrushchev-like individuals who are endowed with only animal instincts bring them to the top of power. To take at least Borka Yeltsin, to push everyone with his elbows was enough, but there was no way to rule the country. Thousands of ruined lives on conscience (if any) of this illustrious liberal and not only in the Chechen war. Gorbachev made a network of intrigue without soap, got into someone’s ass and now he was at the helm with all the consequences for the country. Maybe before the election there are candidates for IQ to check and in general to create some kind of test for professional suitability?
  • siberalt
    siberalt 18 February 2016 15: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Finally it dawned on me. Judging by Alexander Samsonov, the reason for all the ills on the planet is Khrushchev. Did he destroy the Colosseum too? laughing

    PS.
    I’m still waiting for the author’s article how bad it was that Khrushchev issued passports to the villagers and instead of workdays began to pay with cash.
    msch


    The "professor" knows everything. Respect! But I will be sincerely grateful if he would tell who this, excuse me, Samsonov? Robot, troll or fakecomet? laughing
    Good luck to you and my admiration for your steadfastness in your convictions and truly soundly subtle humor. hi
    1. Politruk201
      Politruk201 18 February 2016 19: 43 New
      +1
      I wonder why you are so vehemently defending Khrushchev?
  • Skuto
    Skuto 18 February 2016 20: 45 New
    +4
    Pioneer asked y Hpycheva:
    - Uncle, papa dad said that you put not only the speaker, but
    Agriculture?
    - Tell your dad that I plant not only kykypyzy.