A terrible incident in a Soviet village in the 60s. A terrible incident in the village (5 photos). Daily life of a Soviet village

It happened in one of the villages Leningrad region in the 60s. A man’s mother-in-law lived there, so he and his wife went to visit her. It was summer, the month of August, and he wanted to walk through the forest, breathe some air, pick mushrooms, and let the dog run. Well, I went, I didn’t intend to go far, but it turned out differently. It was a hunting dog, it started chasing someone, a squirrel or something... Well, it barks and barks. Well, the man followed the sound, figured out what it was, gave the dog the necessary commands, and lost his bearings in a strange forest. I went looking for a way and started to get lost. I wandered through the forest for a long time and came out into some clearing with ancient dilapidated sheds made of logs. I climbed in and looked, one was in more or less decent condition, as if someone was living in it. I began to look further and found several dugouts, and everything showed that these buildings had been there since the war. The man realized that this was a military partisan camp; they were hiding here from the Germans. The places there are really remote, the nearest village is far away, well, apparently, that’s how it was. It just looks very much like this place is inhabited. Maybe the hunters are stopping? And then something unpleasant happened. In one of the dugouts he found someone's bones. These were human remains, almost a skeleton in rags. He was lying on a mat and it was almost impossible to tell whether he was a man or a woman. Apparently, it had been lying there for a very long time; there was practically no meat left there. Well, what to do? Close the dugout and leave? This is not human. And he decided to bury this man. There was nothing to dig a deep grave with, he just somehow dragged these bones into the forest, there were a lot of shell craters there, put the skeleton in one of the holes and somehow buried it or covered it with something. He made an improvised cross on top, and made a little mention, fortunately, he had something with him. Soon it began to get dark in the forest, it was getting closer to night, there was no choice. The man decided to spend the night in one of the dugouts, everything was better than under open air. He broke some spruce branches, built himself a makeshift bed and went to bed. Only sleep did not come for some reason, either from thoughts, or from some special excitement. He lay there like that, listening to the darkness for a long time. After some time, a rustling sound appeared to him, but it was so dark around him that he couldn’t see anything. And suddenly he heard a woman’s voice: “Thank you, Vitya, for burying me as expected.” I’ve been waiting for you for a long time, you should have come two years ago. Why didn't you come? You did good to me, and for that I will help you. Wait for my son, good boy will. Tell your wife not to go to the doctors anymore, they won’t help. I'll help... To say that the man was scared is to say nothing. He was simply terrified. I didn’t even understand who was talking to him just now and even calling him by name. There was no time for sleep at this point. He hid in the corner of this same dugout and sat there until it was dawn. Well, then I went to look for the way home. A barely noticeable path led from the camp into the forest; apparently, it had been used once. The man might not have noticed her, but his intuition told him that he needed to go in that direction. Well, he went there, there was nothing to choose from, he still didn’t know the road. He walked for a long time and came out into some clearing. It was all overgrown, it was difficult to walk, but he somehow got his bearings in the sun and decided that he would come out somewhere. After some time, he realized that this road had apparently once existed, perhaps during the war, but now it had not been used for a long time. In short, he wandered around like this again almost until the evening, he was completely exhausted, but still he came out of the forest. Fortunately, it was the same mother-in-law village. I came home, received a scolding from my wife, she had already changed her mind about various things and was going to rouse the people to go in search. Well, then the man began to torture his mother-in-law, told her about his overnight stay in the forest, about the remains he buried, described the place and told her about the voice that he heard in the night. And the mother-in-law oohed and ahhed, crossed herself and ran after her neighbor. She understood who her son-in-law was talking about. She came with some ancient old woman and they told him a story... Even before the war, there lived an aunt alone in their village, she was good, kind, and treated everyone with herbs. During the war, there were many partisans in their forest, so she disappeared into their camp, treated the sick and wounded, and saved many lives. They loved her very much, and she was irreplaceable for any occasion. And after the war, many strangers came to the village, a paramedic station was opened, and doctors were brought in. But no one went to them, everyone went to this aunt for treatment the old fashioned way. Well, these doctors harbored a grudge against her and wrote a letter to the right place. You see, she undermines the authority of Soviet doctors and discriminates against them in the eyes of society. Well, they should have come to pick up this aunt. No one knows what they wanted to charge her with. Local district police officer only good person was there, warned in time, so she first hid among the neighbors, and then suddenly disappeared. Since then, no one has known anything about this herbalist. The village thought that she had been caught and taken away. True, there were rumors that someone saw her in the forest, but no one believed these rumors. And the herbalist knew, apparently, where the partisans had a camp during the war, and went there to live. Few knew about this camp, the place is very remote, it is far away and has a rather bad reputation... And then everything happened as the voice promised. The man’s wife soon became pregnant, although before that she had not been able to give birth for many years; she kept running to doctors, but to no avail. A boy was born, they named him Vladimir, and he is my close friend. And this story happened to his father, and he told it to us. Just like that. Do good deeds, because you don’t know where luck will smile on you.

A humorous story was written by Ekaterina Solnechnaya about a vacation spent in the village.

“It happened not so long ago, last year, when the whole family went to my grandmother’s village. I, my husband Yura and two little children: little son Vanechka and one-year-old daughter Alina have long wanted to visit my grandmother, and, accordingly, relax in the lap of nature .

My husband and I took vacations and decided to rush to the village for the whole of July, and at the same time help our grandmother, because she is already old, no joke - eighty-six years old! In addition, she also had her own vegetable garden and housekeeping: geese and chickens were her weakness.

Granny, although old, was very lively for her age. She greeted us, as always, with tears of joy, baked pies, and ran to show me her considerable chicken farm.

Well, my Glashka hatched fifteen of them last summer! Just look - what beauties! They've already started rushing! – the grandmother said excitedly, clearly proud of her pets.

Indeed, granny’s chickens were real beauties: gray, speckled and black with a blue tint, Russian corydalis. Their heads were adorned with a thick tuft of feathers that fell directly into their eyes. The chickens swarmed in the ground, not paying any attention to us. And at the head of this entire chicken society, in the middle of the yard stood a handsome rooster, watching over his entire numerous harem. It must be said that he apparently knew his worth, his Napoleon-like stance gave it away: he proudly raised his head, his black and red feathers shining in the sun, and turned in front of his harem, showing off his lush rooster tail - the pride of a real rooster. Even the cats passing through the yard tried to avoid this proud, handsome man, not wanting to get involved with him.

We went to bed late, talked about everything: about relatives, and about acquaintances, and about acquaintances.

I woke up quite late, my husband had already left to mow the grass, and my grandmother was busy doing housework, having managed to knead the dough and light the oven. I even felt ashamed: here is Sonya, she came to help, and I myself sleep until lunch! I hurriedly got dressed, fed the children and sent them out for a walk, and I myself asked the grandmother how to help her.

You don’t need anything, honey, relax! I've already done everything. Now I’ll just finish cooking lunch, we’ll call Yura and sit down at the table. This morning I poured my wine into bottles, so let’s take a sample,” then, after thinking a little, she added:
- Well, feed the chickens or something.

I went out to village yard. “So, what do they feed the chickens?” I used to live in a village, but that was when I was very young. I remember that they peck at grain and various waste from the kitchen. There was more than enough grain in the chicken feeder, and I decided to see if there was any tasty waste in the hallway, I knew where my grandmother usually puts it.

In the corridor there was a pot with some berries, they looked like they were made from compote. Having taken this pan, I decided to treat the chickens with berries, in case they liked them! Having sprinkled some berries into the feeder, I realized that the chickens really liked this delicacy, so I sprinkled more... The chickens hurriedly pecked at the berries, trying to grab as many as possible, and the rooster, busily scattering them, also did not lag behind. I poured out all the berries for them, watching with a smile as they hastily pecked them. “Now the chickens will definitely be full.” I washed the pan and went into the house, where the granny was already setting the table. After chatting a little about life, the grandmother took a bottle from the cupboard and put it on the table.

Well, I made the wine myself from serviceberry, now we’ll take the first sample. I went to get Yura, and you take the borscht out of the oven.

Grandma winked at me and went out into the corridor, and I reached into the oven for a pan. Then I heard a wild scream, gradually turning into a plaintive moan and lamentation. Grandmother! The pan flew out of my hands, and the borscht began to hiss and spread across the hot oven. Without paying attention to this, I ran out like a scalded person after my grandmother, imagining various terrible pictures of what had happened as I ran.

But what I saw just didn’t fit in my head: my grandmother was standing in the middle of the lawn, and chickens were lying all over the yard... dead. The grandmother, with tears and lamentations, picked up one chicken: she did not move, her eyes were covered with a cloudy film, her tongue fell out of her beak.

They died! - Grandma cried bitterly.

It’s me... It’s my fault, I fed them berries from the pan...

What kind of pan?

The one who stood in the corridor.

“Okay, enough tears,” said Yura. - While they are still fresh, pluck them, at least there will be meat. They didn't die from illness.

I quietly took a large basin and dragged myself to collect the poor chickens. The grandmother also came to her senses a little, her lamentations were replaced by quiet sobs. We settled down in the kitchen by the stove and began plucking the chickens. Our work lasted about two hours, the last was the rooster.

The grandmother herself decided to pluck him. Having plucked his tail and wings, she asked me to take out the feathers; there were already several buckets of them. Taking two buckets, I took them out into the hallway and placed them by the door, because I knew that my grandmother would decide to dry the feathers and then use them on pillows.

And then I heard a wild scream again - my grandmother was screaming again. Rushing into the kitchen, I froze in place, gradually sliding down the wall to the floor: in the middle of the kitchen, a half-plucked rooster stood on unsteady legs and shook his head, naked chickens were swarming in the basin, trying to crawl out.

My poor grandmother sat on the floor and, clutching her heart with her hand, moaned softly, watching this action with huge eyes.

O-come to life! – it seems that the grandmother was completely finished off by this whole situation. I couldn’t utter a word, I just stood up and turned over the basin with the chickens, which began to scatter throughout the kitchen.

The rooster, seeing the naked chickens, apparently became more frightened than us, rushed to the door from the kitchen and collided with the cat.

He, in turn, apparently had never seen half-naked roosters and did not know what to expect from them, rushed with a wild cry away from the rooster, and in one jump jumped out of the window, simultaneously dragging the entire curtain with him.

At this time, the husband appeared at the door. Seeing the rooster, he backed away, turning pale as if he had seen a ghost in front of him, then he looked after the rooster for a long time and went into the kitchen.
For about five minutes he watched with an indifferent gaze as naked chickens surrounded a bucket of water and drank greedily.

“Dry,” said the husband and laughed loudly. I kicked the poor chickens out into the yard and took care of my grandmother, calming her down by dripping valerian into a glass of water. At this time, Alinka began to cry in the yard. I ran out to her roar; she pointed her finger at the naked chickens, who were running around the yard like mad, not understanding what had happened to them, and could not understand why the chicken legs suddenly began to walk.

Since that time, Alinka no longer goes into the yard alone - she is afraid of naked chickens, and no longer looks into the refrigerator, because there is no, no, and there is some kind of leg or frozen chicken lying around.

The grandmother came to her senses, laughed a little with her husband, discussing this funny village story, the great drinking session and the new outfit of her pets, especially their haircuts; after all, we did not pluck the feathers from the very top of the head. But the whole village for a long time I came to look at the naked chickens, people stood for hours at the fence, holding their stomachs and hiccupping.

The rooster spent most of the day sitting in the thick grass, afraid to appear in this form. Only occasionally did he go out to the feeding trough, avoiding encounters with his naked harem. Apparently the sight of naked chickens with a lush head of feathers on top of their heads scared him even more than his bare butt.

Since then, the question “How can I help you?” grandma answers:
- I’ll feed the chickens myself!
And every time I walk into the meat department of a store and see frozen chickens, I involuntarily hold back a smile, remembering the summer spent in the village. "

Repost from the Internet

On 2x latest photos- hairless chickens bred in Israel.

When collectivization was carried out in Soviet villages and villages by the 1930s and the way of life of farmers and cattle breeders was forcibly socialized, the state made a workday assessment of their work by a special resolution of the Council of People's Commissars. This unified measure of recording labor and distributing income among collective farmers lasted until the mid-60s. Ideally, the workday should have become a share of the collective farm’s income, which was distributed depending on the degree of labor participation of a particular worker.

The workday system, which was reformed many times throughout the history of its existence, nevertheless remained a rather complicated scheme of material incentives for collective farmers. Most often, it did not depend on production efficiency, but at the same time it made it possible to differentially distribute income from the harvested crop (or livestock slaughtered) - in proportion to the contribution of a particular worker. For failure to work out the workday norm in the USSR, criminal liability was provided - the person who committed the fine was sentenced to corrective labor on his own collective farm with a quarter of the workdays withheld.

Remuneration for labor was mainly payment in kind (mainly grain). During the military towns (1941–1945), less than half a kilo of grain was issued per workday. In the winter of 1946–1947, a massive famine occurred in the USSR due to crop failure.

From the very beginning of such a payment system, collective farmers protested en masse - they slaughtered livestock and left the villages for the cities. In 1932, the USSR introduced a special passport regime, as a result of which residents of villages and hamlets actually received the status of serfs, who were forbidden to leave the populated area without the permission of the “master” (the chairman of the collective farm or village council). For the children of peasants in such a case After graduating from school, there was most often one way - to go to work on a collective farm. In films about collective farm life, which are classics of Soviet cinema, there are often scenes in which the chairman decides whether to send graduates of a rural school to study further in the city or not. The guys who served in the army, knowing what fate awaited them at home in the village, sought to gain a foothold in the cities by any means possible.

If the serf peasant in Russia before the revolution had the opportunity to receive income from his land plot and sell the surplus, then the Soviet collective farmer was deprived of this too - the state imposed exorbitant taxes on the household plot in the countryside; the peasant was forced to pay for almost every apple tree in garden.

Pensions for old people on Soviet collective farms were either not paid at all, or they were meager.

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

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

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

Khrushchev liquidated MTS and ordered collective farms to buy back agricultural equipment - tractors, combines, etc. Moreover, high prices were set. Collective farms had to spend all the savings that remained from 1954-1956 to buy back equipment, which worsened their financial situation. Also, collective farms did not have the funds to immediately create an appropriate base for storing and servicing equipment. In addition, they did not have the appropriate technical specialists. Nor could they attract former MTS workers en masse. The state could afford to pay workers at machine and tractor stations higher wages than collective farms. Therefore, most workers began to look for more profitable niches and found other uses for themselves. As a result, many machines quickly turned into scrap without proper maintenance. Total losses. This was a strong blow to the economic potential of the Soviet countryside.

In addition, Nikita Khrushchev launched a campaign to consolidate collective and state farms. Their number was reduced from 83 thousand to 45 thousand. It was believed that they would unite into powerful “collective farm unions”. Khrushchev hoped to implement his old project of creating “agricultural cities.”

As a result, new gigantic, overwhelmingly unmanaged, farms were created, which included dozens of villages. The leaders of these “agricultural cities” quickly began to degenerate into a food and sales “mafia”, which dictated its own rules to the authorities, including prices and supply volumes. Thus, the “collective farm unions” actually won the right to sell “their” products mainly in urban markets at inflated prices. In addition, this project required large capital investments, which the collective farms did not have. Collective farms already spent their last funds on purchasing equipment. As a result, the consolidation campaign failed. By the mid-1980s, over 60% of state farms created during the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period in the Russian Non-Black Earth Region turned out to be unprofitable.

It is interesting that even the pricing policy was directed against the Russian village. The state established minimum purchase prices for agricultural products specifically in the Non-Black Earth Region of the RSFSR. This policy was pursued from the end of the 1950s until the end of the USSR. As a result, the national republics of Transcaucasia and Central Asia received an additional channel of incentives and monetary support.

Khrushchev dealt another powerful blow to the village when he began a policy of eliminating “unpromising” villages. Suddenly, for no apparent reason, thousands of prosperous Soviet villages were declared unprofitable, “unpromising” and were quickly destroyed for such a fraudulent reason. Out of nowhere, “experts” began to assess which villages could be left and which were “unpromising.” Instructions were sent down from above to search for “unpromising” villages. This process began in 1958 from the North-Western region of the RSFSR, in accordance with the “closed” decision of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee and the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR.

In fact, the current Russian “optimizers” (“optimization” of rural schools, clinics, etc.) repeated the experience of the Khrushchevites. The policy was aimed at resettling residents from small villages to large ones and concentrating in them the bulk of the population, production and social facilities. The “reformers” proceeded from the false premise that highly mechanized agriculture must be matched by highly concentrated forms of settlement. It was assumed that in the future each collective farm (state farm) would include 1 or 2 villages with a population of from 1-2 thousand to 5-10 thousand people. Based on this, strong points were identified in the settlement network - promising villages. It was planned to resettle residents from small, so-called unpromising villages, which included up to 80% (!) of their total number. It was believed that such a change in the settlement structure would not only create opportunities for more rapid development of the socio-cultural and everyday sphere of the village, bringing it closer to urban standards, but would also reduce the flow of migrants from the village to the city.

The eviction and liquidation of “unpromising” villages was carried out by order, without taking into account the wishes of the villagers themselves. Once on the “black” list, the village was already doomed, because capital construction was stopped in it, schools, shops, clubs were closed, bus routes were eliminated, etc. Such conditions forced people to leave their well-lived areas. At the same time, 2/3 of the migrants migrated not to the settlements designated for them, but to regional centers, cities, and other regions of the country. Residents of “unpromising” villages were resettled, villages and hamlets were emptied throughout the Soviet Union. Thus, the number of villages in Siberia for 1959-1979. decreased by 2 times (from 31 thousand to 15 thousand). The greatest decline occurred from 1959 to 1970 (35.8%). There was a significant reduction in the number of small villages and the entire settlement network.

It must be said that the same policy, but by “default”, without a centralized removal of people from their homes, was continued in Russian Federation. No one declared villages, villages and towns “unpromising”, but capital construction stopped, schools began to be “enlarged” (“optimised”, essentially liquidated), clinics, hospitals, bus routes, the movement of commuter trains, etc. were cut back.

Only by the end of the 1970s the policy of eliminating “unpromising” villages in the USSR was recognized as erroneous, but the trend of reduction in the number of small villages was already difficult to stop. Villages continued to die even after this policy was ended. Across the Urals, Siberia and Far East for 1959-1989 the number of villages decreased by 2.2 times (from 72.8 thousand to 32.6 thousand). In most cases, this policy had a negative impact on the entire socio-economic development of the village and the country as a whole. The country suffered serious demographic damage. The concentration process led to a decrease in the population level of the territories. The thinning of the network of populated areas in the eastern regions weakened and disrupted inter-rural ties and had a negative impact on services to the population. The village was losing its function of developing new lands. The village was losing its most active, young people, many of whom left their small homeland. There were also negative moral consequences. A significant part of the population was marginalized; people lost their roots and the meaning of life. It was not for nothing that village people were then considered less spoiled by the vices of urban civilization. The destroyed village began to “sink” and drink itself to death. The morbidity and mortality rate of the rural population in “unpromising” regions has increased sharply.

There was a sharp social deterioration in relations between the city and the countryside. The policy led to severe overpopulation of cities, as migrants preferred to migrate not to designated settlements, but to regional centers and cities. This led to a constant fall in the price of labor, as well as skilled labor in industry and extractive industries. Of course, this often led to conflicts with the townspeople, not to mention the so-called “sausage landings” of villagers in the cities.

This campaign, initiated by Khrushchev, caused terrible harm to the Russian countryside. It is not for nothing that the Russian writer Vasily Belov called the fight against the so-called “unpromising” villages “a crime against the peasants.” First of all, the indigenous Russian regions of the Non-Black Earth Region, as well as the Russian rural population of Siberia, suffered.

The harm was multifaceted and enormous: from damage to agriculture to a demographic blow to the Russian people. After all, it was the Russian village that gave the main growth to the ethnos of the Eastern Slavs.

It is worth noting that the blow was struck specifically at the Russian people and the Russian village with its traditional agricultural industries. After all, this campaign hardly affected the national autonomies in the RSFSR. And such measures were not provided for rural regions national republics USSR.

The consequences of this “reform” were very numerous and affected Russian civilization for decades. And they still have an impact. Thus, since the late 1950s, rural degradation has increasingly spread throughout the Non-Black Earth Region of the RSFSR, especially in Europe. As a result, by the second half of the 1980s, over 70% of all state and collective farms in the European Non-Black Earth Region of Russia turned out to be chronically unprofitable, and commercial yields of most agricultural crops and the productivity of pig and poultry farming were even lower here than in the first half of the 1950s. Similar trends appeared in the Urals and Siberia.

It was blow to the food security of the USSR. If under Stalin, products were exported from the USSR, then from the late 1960s, a focus was placed on importing agricultural products from the Eastern European socialist camp and Cuba. These were the long-term consequences of Khrushchev’s policy in the field of agriculture and the countryside (including the virgin lands and “corn”) epic. Things got to the point that in the 1970s, articles were published about the inexpediency of growing sugar beets in Russia (!) due to the “guaranteed supply of raw cane sugar from fraternal Cuba.” By the mid-1980s, the share of Eastern European and Cuban imports in supplying the cities of the RSFSR with meat (including poultry), sugar and fruits and vegetables exceeded 70%, and villages - reached 60%. It was a shame and a disaster. The huge Soviet power, which had a traditionally strong agriculture, could not provide itself with food!

Thus, the USSR was hooked on food supplies from outside, although Russia-USSR, both at that time and now, has every opportunity for independent and complete food supply. All these are the consequences of the policies of Khrushchev and his followers, including modern Russian liberals. It is not surprising that the Russian village has been in chronic agony since then, and the policies of Gorbachev-Yeltsin-Putin-Medvedev practically finished it off. And in Russian stores we see meat, milk, vegetables and even berries from all over the world: from Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Israel, China, etc.

Impact on population reproduction

As already noted, Khrushchev’s experiments in agriculture caused great harm to the Soviet countryside and led to its bleeding. Another blow to the people was the decree allowing abortion. In 1936, due to difficult demographic situation operations for artificial termination of pregnancy were prohibited under pain of criminal liability by the Decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated June 27, 1936 “On the prohibition of abortions...” The resolution also increased financial assistance mothers in labor, established state aid multi-family, the network of parental homes, nurseries and kindergartens, etc. expanded. At the same time, abortions could be performed for medical reasons.

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

On the one hand, Khrushchev’s “reforms” were chaotic and disorderly, on the other hand, they were systemic. The essence of this system is destruction. For all their apparent confusion and disorder, for all the widest range of Khrushchev’s undertakings, one general pattern can always be identified. All reforms led to collapse Soviet Union and the Soviet project as a whole. source-

-- [ Page 1 ] --

As a manuscript

Tikhonov Alexey Petrovich

Daily life Soviet village

at 60– 70s of the twentieth century

(based on materials from the Kursk region)

Specialty 07.00.02 – Domestic history

dissertations for an academic degree

candidate of historical sciences

Kursk - 2010

The dissertation was completed at the Department of History of the Fatherland

Kursky state university

Scientific supervisor:

Tretyakov Alexander Viktorovich

Official opponents: Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor

Fursov Vladimir Nikolaevich

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor

Protsenko Boris Alexandrovich

Lead organization: Voronezh State

university.

The defense will take place on May 28, 2010 at 16:00 at a meeting of the dissertation council DM 212.105.05 at the Kursk State Technical University at the address: 305040 Kursk, 50 Let Oktyabrya str., 94, conference hall.

The dissertation can be found in the library of Kursk State Technical University.

Scientific secretary

dissertation council

DM 212.105.05 V.V. Bogdan

General characteristics work

Relevance of the study is determined by the increase in recent years scientific interest in the problems of the history of everyday life as part of social history, separating it into an independent branch of historical knowledge, and the history of everyday life in the Russian village into an equally independent direction in the development of Russian historiography.

The relevance of the study is due to the need to develop measures that will facilitate the adaptation of rural residents to the new conditions that have developed in post-Soviet Russia. Ensuring the development of the Russian village in modern conditions, bringing agriculture out of a crisis requires extraction and accounting historical experience. Importance historical analysis issues of improving the social, everyday and cultural development of the village makes it possible to show the role of party and state regulation in solving these problems.

Currently, the formation and implementation of state policy in relation to rural settlements and their residents, the preservation of historical traditions cannot be successful without taking into account the experience of historical, social, cultural development of the village. At the same time, the everyday, multifaceted life of the Kursk village in the 60s and 70s is clearly not sufficiently studied. XX century The regional approach to the study of rural problems used in the dissertation allows us not only to see the diversity of this historical reality, which has not previously been studied in this aspect, but also to identify specific features in the phenomenon of “Soviet peasantry” that are determined by the regional affiliation of the object of study. Analysis and consideration of the positive and negative experiences of the recent past will enrich the practice of socio-political life in rural settlements of the Kursk region. It is important to show the real situation and life of Soviet peasants. The above factors confirm the relevance of the topic of our research.

Object of study stands for party and state policy to improve the life of the rural population of the Kursk region in the 60s and 70s. XX century

Subject of research is the practical activities of party, Soviet, economic, Komsomol and public organizations to improve the socio-economic living conditions of the rural population.

Chronological framework of the work. 60s – 70s XX century characterized by a certain stability and systematic development of everyday life. Since the 60s Conservatism began to intensify in all spheres of life of Soviet society. Socio-political, socio-economic and cultural development the country took place in conditions of conservative stability.

On the one hand, the state implemented a broad social program that expanded opportunities for improving well-being and comprehensive development Soviet people. During the period under study, the formation of the social infrastructure of the village, the development of personal subsidiary plots of peasants, and the active construction of social and cultural facilities took place, which made it possible to significantly reduce the gap between the city and the village. On the other hand, there were no real opportunities for human participation in public life, there was a decline in interest in practical matters, irresponsibility, passivity, which engulfed a significant part of society. Having begun with fairly bold reforms in the field of economics, the period under study ended with an increase in negative trends in all spheres of public life, stagnation in the economy, and a crisis in the socio-political system.

Geographical framework. The Kursk region is one of the typical industrial-agrarian regions of Russia, which also has a developed industry. On the territory of the Kursk region in 1959 there were 33 rural districts, 10 workers' villages, 451 village councils, 625 collective farms, 26 state farms.1 According to the results of the All-Union population census on January 15, 1959, the rural population of the Kursk region was 1,162,893 people, or 78 .4% of total number population of the region.2 By the end of the study period, on January 1, 1980, the rural population decreased to 705 thousand people, accounting for 51% of the total population of the region.3

Historiography of the problem. All historiography on the problem under study can be divided into two periods: Soviet and post-Soviet.

The study of rural problems within the framework of domestic Soviet historiography was carried out under the influence of the official party-state ideology. As a result of this scientific literature imagined the daily life of the Soviet village to be quite prosperous. The works focused on positive trends in the development of village life and the improvement of peasant life.4

In the 1960-1990s. Works were published that laid down the principles for studying key problems of rural life. Particular attention was paid to the socio-economic situation of the peasantry, its social structure, village culture, private farming of peasants.5 The works of Professor M.A. are of important methodological significance. Beznina.6

An important contribution to the study of the system of rural settlement, the design and development of rural settlements, and the organization of personal subsidiary plots was made by T.I. Zaslavskaya, Z.V. Kupriyanova, Z.I. Kalugina, L.V. Nikiforov and others.7 Problems of implementing agrarian policy, modernization of agriculture, development of the Russian village in the 60s - 90s. XX century reflected in the works of V.V. Naukhatsky.8

In post-Soviet historiography, the number of studies on the problems of the Soviet Russian village has decreased. This was the result of the desire of certain forces to hush up the achievements of Soviet power in order to obtain political dividends. At the same time, work on collecting statistical information intensified, and censuses of peasant households became regular. The study of the history of rural families and villages, analysis of budgets of income and expenses of villagers, as well as analysis of economic relations in rural settlements formed the basis for the research of V. Danilov and T. Shanin, who continued the traditions of A.V. Chayanova.9

An important contribution to the work on a comprehensive study of the history of the Kursk village in the 60s and 70s. XX century contributed by scientists from the region. Their works accumulated significant factual material about the socio-economic situation of the collective farm peasantry, personal subsidiary plots of village residents, the process of forming social infrastructure and housing construction, and the development of culture in the countryside.10 Among them, the monograph of Professor P.I. Kabanova. He comprehensively studied cultural transformations in the Kursk region in 1917 - 196711

In the post-Soviet period, scientists in the region began to pay special attention to the study of the life of the Kursk village, the socio-economic situation of rural residents.12 Scientists from Kursk State University made an important contribution to the study of this problem. In the works of A.V. Tretyakov and N.A. Postnikov, issues of implementation of party and state policy in the field of education, military and patriotic education in the countryside are considered.13 Various aspects of the development of education in Kursk villages in the later period (80-90 of the twentieth century) are considered in the dissertations of N.V. Bolotova and E.I. Odarchenko.14 Scientific works A.A. Soynikova, M.M. Fryantseva, V.P. Chaplygin and I.A. Arepyev are devoted to various aspects of the development of culture of the rural population of the Kursk region. Using materials from state and socio-political structures of the Central Black Earth Region, Kursk scientists studied the practical activities of party, Soviet, Komsomol and public organizations to improve the living conditions of the rural population.15

Since the 90s. XX century Scientists of the region pay special attention to the cultural history of the Kursk region. The most important pages and events of the cultural life of the region during the period under study were reflected in collective and individual monographs and individual articles by researchers.16

In general, the historiographical review shows that special complex works no research has been carried out on this problem, which once again emphasizes the relevance of the research topic.

The purpose of the dissertation research is the study of the daily life of the Soviet village in economic, social and cultural conditions Kursk region in the 60s - 70s. XX century

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Show the processes of formation of rural social infrastructure, construction of housing and social and cultural facilities;

Identify the features of the development of personal subsidiary plots, changes in the level of income and wages of the peasantry;

Consider the system of social services for the population;

Trace the main transformations in the fields of healthcare, education and culture.

Source base dissertation work consists of legislative acts, reference sources, periodicals, statistical and archival materials, monographs, dissertation manuscripts.

The first group of sources contains materials from congresses and Plenums of the CPSU Central Committee, resolutions of the CPSU Central Committee, the Bureau of the CPSU Central Committee for the RSFSR, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the RSFSR, Decrees of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the RSFSR, Laws of the USSR and the RSFSR, a collection of laws of collective farm legal acts.17

Reference sources contain a variety of information on the history of the Kursk village of the period under study. This group includes collections of historical documents of the Kursk party and Komsomol organizations.18 They describe the main directions of the policy of the party and Soviet bodies in relation to the transformation of the countryside and improving the living conditions of rural residents.

An important source is periodicals. Its value lies in the fact that it shows in dynamics the process of improving the social and living situation of the rural population and miscalculations in this work, as well as the reaction of government structures and the population to the processes taking place. Particularly valuable are the materials of the central newspapers - “Pravda”, “Izvestia”, “Economic Newspaper”, the regional newspaper “Kurskaya Pravda”, the regional newspapers “Beacon of Communism” (Gorshechensky district), “For the Victory of Communism” (Shchigrovsky district).

Of particular value for understanding the essence of the problem and writing a dissertation are the materials of the State Archive of the Kursk Region (GAKO) and the State Archive of Socio-Political History of the Kursk Region (GAOPIKO). They contain sources showing the mechanism for implementing party and state policy in various regions and in the region as a whole. These materials are devoid of pomp and are more objective in nature.

The most important materials of GAKO are the funds of the executive committee of the Kursk Regional Council of Working People's Deputies (F. R-3372), the regional planning commission of the executive committee of the Kursk Regional Council of Working People's Deputies (F. R-3272), the Kursk Regional Department of Agriculture (F. R-3168), the Kursk regional statistical department (F. R-5006), Kursk regional department of construction and architecture (F. R-5293), Kursk regional financial department (F. R-4036), Kursk regional department of health care (F. R-4929), Kursk regional department of public education (F. R-4006), Kursk Regional Union of Consumer Cooperation (F. R-5177), Kursk Regional Department of Social Security (F. R-5266), Kursk Regional Department of Public Utilities (F. R-311) , containing extensive documents and materials on the history of the Soviet village during the period under study.

Valuable for the work was the fund of the Kursk Regional Committee of the CPSU (F. 1), located in GAOPIKO and containing quite important material - resolutions and decisions of the highest party bodies, documents of the Kursk Regional Party Committee, transcripts of regional party conferences and plenums.

Great value statistical materials are used in the study of everyday life in villages. They contain important comprehensive information that reveals various aspects of the daily life of the population of the Kursk village; various information on the development of healthcare, education, consumer services, trade, road construction, communications, electrification, culture, income levels and social security for residents of rural settlements of the Kursk region.19

Methodological basis of the study. In the course of studying the topic, the author was guided by the general scientific principles of objectivity, which excludes the possibility of bias in the interpretation of facts, and historicism, which requires consideration of the processes and phenomena being studied in relation to and in connection with other phenomena and processes that were outside the object of study. The specifics of the topic under study led to the use of a number of historical methods: historical-comparative, problem-chronological, systemic, and the widespread use of periodical materials and mass statistical data dictated the need to use essentially descriptive analysis and the statistical method.

Scientific novelty of the dissertation consists in stating the problem and is the first generalizing study in post-Soviet historiography of the everyday life of the Soviet village in the conditions of socio-economic and cultural transformations in the 60-70s of the twentieth century. Using extensive source material (most of the documents were introduced into scientific circulation for the first time), the author showed and proved that in conditions of conservative stability, the standard of living of rural residents increased, their socio-cultural activity increased, and the role of local government in solving economic and everyday problems increased.

Practical significance of the work. The facts, conclusions and observations contained in the work can be used for further development of the problem, in the creation of generalizing works, in the teaching of general and special courses on national, social and regional history and the organization of historical and local history work. In addition, they may be of interest to economic and party-political structures.

Approbation of work. The main provisions of the work were discussed at the Department of History of the Fatherland, Kursk State University, and presented at international and all-Russian scientific and practical conferences. The main content of the dissertation is presented in eight scientific publications, including two scientific articles published in publications recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation. The total volume of publications is 4 printed pages.

Work structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, including seven paragraphs, a conclusion, a list of sources and literature used.

Main content of the work

In introduction the relevance of the topic is substantiated, the object and subject of the study, chronological and geographical framework are determined, a historiographical analysis is carried out, the purpose and objectives of the study are determined, a source analysis is carried out, the methodological basis is determined, the scientific novelty, practical significance, testing and structure of the work are shown.

First chapter " Improving living conditions in Kursk villages" consists of two paragraphs. In the first paragraph “Design, housing construction and improvement in rural areas” The main trends in the transformation of rural settlements into comfortable settlements, improvement of their design and development of housing and cultural construction are shown.

The dissertation shows that the need for improvement living conditions residents of rural settlements was associated not only with solving the problem of retaining young people in the countryside, but also with achieving the strategic goal of equalizing socio-economic differences between city and countryside. The rural population justifiably demanded improved living conditions, focusing on solving similar problems in the city. Unlike city dwellers, rural residents solved their housing problems mainly on their own, which required additional labor and funds for the construction, maintenance and repair of comfortable housing.

It is clear from the work that from the beginning of the 60s, work began to be actively carried out in the region on the reconstruction and reconstruction of rural settlements with promising status. It was carried out with the direct participation of rural Soviets of Working People's Deputies on the basis of master plans for collective and state farms, as well as rules for the development of rural settlements. The purpose of their implementation was the construction of comfortable settlements with adequate housing, cultural and living conditions that satisfy the real and natural needs of the rural population. Speaking about the prospects and possibilities of this work, the first secretary of the Kursk regional committee of the CPSU L.G. Monashev noted that “a modern village should be beautiful, convenient for life, work and leisure.”20

To achieve these goals, targeted loans were allocated to collective farms in the region to assist collective farmers in the construction of modern residential buildings. The amount of targeted loans in 1960 alone amounted to 1.5 million rubles.21 The construction of residential buildings, which was carried out under the control of the regional committee of the CPSU and the executive committee of the regional Council of Workers' Deputies, involved equipping them with water supply, gas networks, central heating, and sewerage. If in 1961-1965 the number of housing built in rural areas amounted to 43.1 thousand square meters,22 then from 1965 to 1969, 61.8 thousand square meters of living space were built on collective farms in the region.23

How to turn prosperous peasants into free labor? To do this, it is necessary to organize a collective farm instead of an individual one, assign workers to it for life and impose criminal liability for failure to fulfill the plan.

During the NEP period, peasants often succeeded in both farming and marketing their products. Representatives of this stratum of society did not intend to sell bread at the reduced price offered by the state - they sought to receive decent payment for their labor.

In 1927, the required amount of food did not reach Soviet cities because the state and peasants could not agree on a price, and this led to numerous hunger strikes. Collectivization became an effective measure that made it possible to put in place the peasantry that was disloyal to Soviet values, and, in addition, to freely dispose of food, bypassing the stage of agreeing on the terms of the deal.

Why were the peasants unhappy?

Collectivization was not at all voluntary; this process was accompanied by large-scale repressions. But even after its completion, the peasants did not receive any benefits from working on collective farms.

Ekaterinburg historian I. Motrevich names many factors in the organization of collective farm activities that contributed to the degradation of the village. Both poorly and well-performing collective farmers received equally little. In some periods, peasants worked without pay at all, only for the right to use their plot of land. Therefore, people had no motivation to work conscientiously. Management solved this problem by setting a minimum number of workdays per year.

Collective farm products, as well as cash from its implementation were distributed as follows: first, the plan for government supplies was fulfilled and seed loans were returned, the work of the motor-tractor station was paid in kind, grain was harvested for sowing and for animal feed for the year ahead. Then a fund to help the elderly, the disabled, families of Red Army soldiers, and orphans was formed; part of the products was allocated for sale on the collective farm market. And only then the rest was distributed among workdays.

According to I. Motrevich, in the period of the 30-50s, peasants, through payments in kind from the collective farm, could only partially satisfy their needs - 50% for grain, and only 1-2% for meat, milk, and vegetables. Running an individual household was a matter of survival.

I. Motrevich writes that in the collective farms of the Urals the share of production that was intended for workers was 15% in the pre-war period, and during the Second World War this value dropped to 11%. It often happened that collective farmers did not receive their due remuneration in full.

During Hitler's aggression, collective farms actually turned into state enterprises with absolute dependence on the district leadership. There was only one difference - the lack of government funding. Important decisions were made by party workers, often lacking the proper qualifications and foresight, but eager to curry favor with the party leadership. And the peasants bore responsibility for failure to fulfill the plan.

A guaranteed minimum wage for collective farmers began to be introduced only in 1959, 30 years after the start of collectivization.

How peasants were kept in the village

One of the consequences of collectivization was the flight of peasants from villages to cities, especially large ones, where workers were needed at industrial enterprises. But in 1932, they decided to stop the outflow of people from the village. There were enough employees in factories and factories, but there was a noticeable shortage of food. Then they began to issue identity documents, but not to everyone, but only to residents of large cities - primarily Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov.

The absence of a passport was an unconditional basis for evicting a person from the city. Such purges regulated the migration of the population, and also made it possible to maintain a low crime rate, but most importantly, they reduced the number of eaters.

The list of settlements subject to certification expanded. By 1937, it included not only cities, but also workers’ settlements, motor and tractor stations, regional centers, and all villages within 100 kilometers of Moscow and Leningrad. But rural residents of other territories did not receive passports until 1974. The exception was the peasants of the Asian and Caucasian republics, as well as the recently annexed Baltic states.

For the peasants, this meant that it was impossible to leave the collective farm and change their place of residence. Attempts to violate the passport regime were suppressed by imprisonment. Then the peasant returned to his duties, which were assigned to him for life.

What were the ways to leave the village and change your destiny?

It was possible to change work on a collective farm only to even more difficult work - construction in the northern regions, logging, and peat development. This opportunity arose when the collective farm received an order for labor, after which those who wished to received permits to leave, their validity was limited to one year. But some managed to renew their contract with the company and even become permanent employees.

Military service made it possible for rural boys to avoid working on a collective farm with subsequent employment in the city. Children were also saved from forced enrollment into the ranks of collective farmers by sending them to study in factory institutions. It is important that studies begin before the age of 16, otherwise there is a high probability that after studying the teenager could be returned to his native village and deprived of any prospects for a different fate.

The situation of the peasantry did not change even after the death of Stalin; in 1967, the proposal of the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers D. Polyansky to issue passports to rural residents was rejected. The Soviet leadership rightly feared that if the peasants were given the right to choose, they would no longer be able to obtain cheap food. During Brezhnev's reign alone, more than 60 million Soviet citizens living in villages were able to obtain a passport. However, the existing procedure for hiring them to work outside the collective farm was preserved - without special certificates this was impossible.

Photographs are also of great interest today.