For what purpose was the policy of dispossession carried out? How did dispossessed peasants survive in exile? Three categories of fists and measures applied to them

Design and interior 15.12.2023

Design and interior

Introduction

Chapter 1. The policy of dispossession of peasants in the 1930s. in the Urals

1 The essence of the policy of dispossession of peasants in the USSR

2 The Urals - a place of special settlement of dispossessed peasants

Chapter 2. Dispossession in the history of my family

1 Friendly family of great-great-grandfather Ivan Ignatievich Nikitin

2 Dispossession of the “fist” Nikitina I.I.

3Working and living conditions in the Sinarstroy special settlement

4 The history of the birth and post-war life of the Polyansky family

5 War in the history of the Polyansky family

6 Post-war family life

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The practice of building a communist society in the Soviet Union was not limited to the introduction of ideological myths into the consciousness of the masses. From the first days of the existence of the new state, the terrible word “terror” entered the daily lives of millions of people. Merciless mass terror in all areas of political and ideological life, of which any person could become a victim, gave rise to general fear, which was supposed to exclude the possibility of open opposition to the regime. Politically motivated violence became the main means of realizing the communist utopia.

The history of the country is made up of the history of villages, towns in which people live; they create history with their deeds, actions, thoughts. Family plays an important role for people. Nature itself inherent in a person is dependence, necessity, reverent attitude and devotion to the circle of people in which he grew up and comprehended the essence of his existence.

In the process of studying the history course, I began to think about who my ancestors were, what they did, where they lived, what contribution they made to the history of our country? These questions forced us to turn to compiling a family genealogy. The research showed that my great-grandfathers lived in the Tambov province and were repressed in the 1930s to the Urals.

Object of study: the process of dispossession in the USSR, working and living conditions of special settlers in the Urals. Subject of research: everyday life and everyday life of members of the Nikitin-Pakshintsev family as special settlers.

Purpose of the study: to find out how the historical processes that took place in our country in the 1930s influenced the history of my family, and to describe the family’s contribution to the history of the country.

Research methods: General scientific methods - analysis and identification of the essence of the process of dispossession in the country and its impact on the life of the Polyansky family.

1.Special historical:

· historical-genetic - study of family history and the lives of six generations of relatives;

· historical-systemic - analysis of the influence of Soviet reality in the 1930s on the fate of several generations of the Nikitin-Parshikov family;

· retrospective - a sequential description of the events of the dispossession process and the life of the family at that time.

· Oral history - stories from relatives about the life of special settlers in the Urals in the 1930s

2.Interdisciplinary - interviewing relatives and recording their memories.

Relevance of the work The history of a country is made up of the history of a family. Nowadays, young people are not at all interested in the history of their family; no one attaches importance to who their ancestors were, what they did, what contribution they made to the history of the country.

The scientific supervisor of the work is history teacher Semenova Galina Nikolaevna, who taught how to work with family archives, helped in selecting materials, introduced the rules for compiling a genealogy and generational list, designing the work, helped to correctly place materials, and structure the text of the study. My mother Natalya Nikolaevna Pakshintseva helped me work with family archives: find archives of relatives, write down my grandmother’s memories, draw up applications.

My family is a part of a large family, and the happiness is that I know where I come from and who I am. Life is impossible without losses. If you didn’t manage to find out something in time, ask questions, or show proper attention, then years later it cannot be corrected. You can ask yourself questions related to your ancestors an infinite number of times, but they will remain unanswered.

Chapter 1. The policy of dispossession of peasants in the 1930s in the Urals

.1 The essence of the policy of dispossession of peasants in the 1930s in the USSR

In the 1930s of the twentieth century, two interconnected processes came to the countryside, which took place forcibly - the dispossession of the peasantry and the creation of collective farms. In the USSR, the village was considered an important source of funding for the rapid industrialization of the country. The process of collectivization was described by J.V. Stalin as a transition from small-scale and individual farming to larger collective and advanced farming. But Stalin did not explain how to carry out collectivization, which methods were acceptable for dispossession and which were not, and what, ultimately, to do with the dispossessed peasants.

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia gives us the answer to the question of who a kulak is. “A kulak is a person who made his fortune through predatory exploitation, so the kulaks are the same bourgeoisie that the Bolsheviks fought so hard against, only rural.”

The goal of the policy of dispossession was the elimination of the rural bourgeoisie, in order to further provide the collective economy with a material base. On November 27, 1929, Stalin announced a transition from “limiting the exploitative tendencies of the kulaks” to “the complete elimination of the kulaks as a class.” A special commission of the Politburo, chaired by V.M. Molotov, was entrusted with carrying out practical measures for this “liquidation.” The commission defined three categories of kulaks: the first are “those who took part in counter-revolutionary activities.” Kulaks of the second category, defined as “those who have not shown themselves to be counter-revolutionaries, but are still super-exploiters inclined to help the counter-revolution.” Finally, the kulaks of the third category are defined as “in principle loyal to the regime.” The tactics, designed to pit the mass of the poor against the prosperous part of the peasantry, were based on the classic principle of “divide and conquer.” However, determining who was a kulak and who was not was not so easy. Officially, a kulak was considered to be one who owned a larger plot of land than the average peasant, and at the same time used hired labor. Calculations showed that about 5% of peasants belonged to this category. However, the image of “bloodsuckers” and “exploiters” created by the authorities in relation to the kulaks rarely corresponded to reality.

Typically, a wealthy peasant owned 4–6 hectares of land and had several horses, cows, and sheep on his farm. When the time came to identify the kulaks, personal antipathies and envy played a big role; often the reluctance of a particular peasant to join a collective farm was taken into account. Therefore, a lot of middle peasants fell into the category of kulaks, for whom they even invented a special term - “sub-kulaks.” From 1929 to 1930 More than 320 thousand farms were dispossessed. All property of dispossessed farms passed into the possession of the collective farm. At the beginning of collectivization, only those who used hired labor on their farm were considered kulaks, but by 1932, families who had a cow or poultry on their farm were already considered kulaks.

What did “liquidation of the kulaks as a class” actually mean? Dispossessed families were recognized as enemies of the people. Kulaks were evicted by their families to remote areas of Siberia, the Urals, and Kazakhstan. Millions of peasants were torn from their homes. A huge part of them were sent into exile. They worked for free on construction sites of the first five-year plans, ensuring an impressive pace of industrialization. Usually they were thrown into the hardest work - cutting wood in the taiga, mining coal and oil in uninhabited areas of the country, in the harsh conditions of the north. Some of the exiled peasants, mainly young people, fled from exile. Together with those who managed to avoid deportation, they illegally joined the ranks of city workers. Most of the most able-bodied and productive peasants were liquidated.

1.2 The Urals - a place of special settlement of dispossessed peasants

With the beginning of the eviction process, the Ural region became the center of “special exile.” On January 25, 1930, at a closed meeting of the Ural Regional Executive Committee, a resolution was adopted that determined the procedure for resettlement, the initial plan and use of the evicted kulaks in the districts of the Ural region. The decree ordered that the kulak masses be concentrated “in areas in which they could not be an influencing force on the local population and could not grow materially,” and create for them “such material conditions under which they would be completely dependent on state industrial organizations giving her income..." The exiles were to be settled in settlements or colonies. It was envisaged that emergency troikas would be created at the district committees, consisting of the head of the district department of the OGPU, the head of the administrative department, and representatives of interested organizations.

Overcrowded railway cars were heading to the Ural region, barges were floating along the rivers, the roads were clogged with crowds of people deprived of civil rights and their shelter. The eviction was accompanied by arbitrariness and violence against the disenfranchised peasantry. In many places, the directive to leave some of the things of those evicted was not followed - everything was confiscated, even wooden spoons. There were cases of women being sent into kulak exile on the eve of and shortly after childbirth. No arguments of the human mind can justify the fact that nursing mothers with babies in their arms, children, the elderly, and the disabled were sent into exile hundreds and thousands of kilometers away. According to the information report of the Ural Regional Prosecutor's Office dated April 2, 1930, among those evicted there were up to 75% disabled people, many old people aged 80-85 who could not walk and were left to the mercy of fate. Among those escorted in the harsh winter of 1930, children made up about 40%.

The total number of dispossessed and evicted people in 1929-31. There were 391,028 families with a total number of 1,803,392 people, of which 32.6% were sent to the Urals.

From a memorandum from the commandant’s department of the Ural region to the chairman of the regional executive committee on the resettlement and use of exiled kulaks in the region dated March 6, 1931: “... a complete census of special settlers in all areas of exile in the Ural region gives the following data on the number of members of the special exile: total families - 31,851, the total number of special settlers is 134,421 people, of which 85,930 are adults, 48,491 are children under 16 years of age. These special settlers are located in 31 districts of the region... In total, as of February 10, 115 villages, 6,213 huts have been built (villages for 80 -90 courtyards), they accommodate 18,639 families, 74,556 people, which gives 0.91 sq. m... the total number of preschool children in the special settlement is 20,955 people, of which 3,239 people, or 15.55%, are enrolled in education. All deliveries of food and manufactured goods were accompanied by numerous interruptions... lack of special clothing in places of work... the disabled contingent and especially children, in the overwhelming majority, were completely worn out.”

By April 1932, 574 special settlements had been built in the Urals.

In Kamensk, according to the plans of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, it is planned to build two large plants - UAZ (Ural Aluminum Plant) and STZ (Sinarsky Pipe Plant) mainly by special settlers. In 1929-1930 The population of the city, without a population explosion or natural disasters, increased many times due to the arrival of special settlers.

An extract from the resolution of the board of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the RSFSR on the creation of villages for kulaks evicted from areas of complete collectivization dated June 10, 1930 reads: “... to create villages of no less than 20 and no more than 100 households ... when allocating farmland for villages with kulaks farms must take into account that the land must be of poorer quality... it is allowed, with special permission, to organize outside of the statutory settlement partnerships, under the administrative leadership of a special appointed person (commandant). The commandant had technical personnel appointed by the regional administrative department. The hiring of technical personnel was carried out in agreement with the OGPU authorities. The commandant appointed performers from among the special settlers to assist him in an amount of no more than 1 person per 10 households. Special settlements were part of districts as special administrative units. The right of movement of special settlers and members of their families was limited. They could leave the territory of the village only with the permission of the commandant. To ensure order and security in the village, the commandant had 1 to 4 police officers, at the rate of 1 policeman per 50 families of special settlers. The commandant of the special village was granted the rights of the district administrative department and the village council. The rights and responsibilities of the commandant were determined by the instructions of the NKVD of the RSFSR in agreement with the OGPU.

In 1930-31 In the vicinity of the city of Kamensk, special settlements arose like mushrooms after rain, created by the hands of the dispossessed, victims of Soviet power: Sinarstroy, Zemlyanoy, Dernovoy, Samanny, Martyush, Severny settlement, the NKVD labor settlement at KMZ (Kamensk Magnesium Plant), “4th kilometer" and others.

In 1931, my great-great-grandfather Nikitin Ivan Ignatievich was settled in the village of Sinarstroy along with his family: wife - Nikitina Maria Dmitrievna, sons Semyon, Ivan and Alexander, daughter Anna.

Chapter 2. Dispossession in the history of my family

.1 Friendly family of great-great-grandfather Ivan Ignatievich Nikitin

Nikitin Ivan Ignatievich was born in 1879 in the village of Kikinka, Pokrovo-Marfinsky district, Tambov province. Ivan Ignatievich married a girl from a neighboring village; she was an orphan and was raised by her aunt. Since childhood, Maria Dmitrievna has been accustomed to working. They lived amicably, Ivan Ignatievich worked hard and led a sober lifestyle. Five children were born into the Nikitin family: sons Peter, Semyon, Ivan, Alexander and daughter Anna. From early childhood, Ivan Ignatievich and Maria Dmitrievna taught their children to work: reaping with a sickle, threshing with a flail, mowing, weaving, etc. Ivan Ignatievich’s mother also lived with the large, friendly family of young people, who helped her son and daughter-in-law in running the household and raising children.

Until 1917, the Nikitin family had 6 acres of land, a windmill and a mechanical mill, a horse-drawn hammer, 5 cows, 2 horses, a stallion, and several sheep. All family members worked at the mill; the Nikitins had no farm laborers. Ivan Ignatievich was a real master, endowed with natural acumen and tireless energy. Everyone in the family had their own responsibilities. They started working at dawn and finished late in the evening. Years passed, the children grew up. The eldest son Peter married a girl, Tatyana, she came from a very poor family. Ivan Ignatievich and Maria Dmitrievna themselves collected a dowry for the girl. After the wedding, the young family did not live with her husband’s parents for long; soon Pyotr Ivanovich and Tatyana Kuzminichna began to run an independent household. This saved the family from dispossession.

Ivan Ignatievich was a very kind man, people from all over the area came to his mill, he helped everyone, and never took payment for his work. The stone house built by Ivan Ignatievich was the largest in the village. On holidays, Maria Dmitrievna set the table for all her neighbors; the village boys were always welcome guests in the house.

2.2 Dispossession of the “fist” Nikitina I.I.

In 1931, trouble came to the Nikitin family. My great-grandmother Anna Ivanovna recalled: “One night strangers in greatcoats burst into the house, and next to them stood those whom my father had helped the day before. The man in the greatcoat declared that they had come to eliminate the bourgeois element in agriculture. The soldiers began to take things out of the house, grabbed everything, did not take anything into account. The father could not stand it, attacked the uninvited “guests”, shouted: “Get out, robbers!” My older brother Semyon tried to escape, he jumped out the window, but that’s where he was caught. The younger brothers were crying, their mother tried to calm them down. They took everything from us: warm winter clothes, shoes, blankets and pillows, dishes. The icons were taken out of the house and, thrown to the ground, were broken. All the bags of grain and flour were taken out of the barn, the cow, sheep, and horses were stolen."

In the appendices of the work we have placed unique documents that were received upon request from the Information Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Tambov Region. In the questionnaire of Ivan Ignatievich Nikitin, born in 1978, who lived in the village of Nikitinka, Pokrovsko-Marfinsky district, Maslok village council. Together with him, his wife Maria, born in 1880, son Semyon, born in 1911, son Ivan, born in 1918, daughter Anna, born in 1920, and son Alexander, born in 1914, were evicted.

Ivan Ignatievich, Maria Dmitrievna, Semyon, Anna, Ivan and Alexander were sent on a cart to the area. They allowed us to take some things and two pounds of flour with us.

Ivan Ignatievich himself and his family were evicted from the Pokrovo-Marfinsky district, despite the fact that the same document states that Ivan Ignatievich was not involved in the exploitation of other people’s labor. In addition, the document states that Ivan Ignatievich was not previously deprived of voting rights, was not convicted, and did not serve in the Tsarist, White, or Red armies; was not abroad and did not participate in gangs or anti-Soviet conspiracies. So, regarding this survey, the authorities actually should not have had grounds to take repressive measures against him and his family. But the reason for the eviction was found long ago. The same questionnaire from Ivan Ignatievich Nikitin states that all his property: horses, a cow, sheep, a stone house, a barn, outbuildings, a wind and mechanical mill, a horse-drawn hammer, 6 acres of land were confiscated. The questionnaire for the evicted kulak household indicates the composition of the family of Nikitin Ivan Ignatievich, of which two are able-bodied men; the amount of land, mills, and farm laborers before dispossession is described. The questionnaire stated the absence of relatives in the Red Army, relatives who were party members and Komsomol members, as well as the absence of village council workers authorized for grain procurement in the family. In the district, Operating Commandant Veprintsev confirmed the correctness of the Nikitins’ eviction, case No. 7219 was opened, Ivan Ignatievich was deprived of voting rights as a former miller. Since 1931, the Nikitins were under the supervision of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs with restrictions on rights and freedoms. Case No. 7219 is kept in the archives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Chelyabinsk Region.

Together with other dispossessed Nikitins, they were brought to the station; for several days they lived in empty warehouses, waiting to be sent to their place of settlement. One morning a train arrived at the station, people were loaded into carriages.

My great-grandmother Anna Ivanovna recalled: “They loaded the whole train. The carriages are so-called veal carriages. They had two-tiered beds. There were eight or nine of us families in the carriage. I rode on the top bunk with my younger brother Sanya. Each carriage was guarded by soldiers. The doors were bolted from the outside. They were not allowed outside at stops. The air entered through a window with a metal grill. We ate whatever we wanted, sometimes the guard brought us water. So we went, where - no one knew. One early morning we were brought to the Kamensk station." Several special settlements had already been created around the city at that time. The Nikitins were brought to the special village of Sinarstroy. They settled in a dugout. A dugout is a hole, a type of special architecture hitherto unknown to the farmers who lived in houses before the eviction. A hole is a hole (6x3 m), covered with wattle fence, which was covered with earth (this is the ceiling). There were openings for windows and doors. Scat. The walls are covered with fence so that the earth does not crumble. There were 5-6 steps leading to the door. Entrance without canopy. The floor is earthen. In the hole there are solid bunks with plywood or rag partitions - compartments for individual families. In the deep dugouts there are bunks in three tiers. On the top tier, children slept, undressed and barefoot, transparent from hunger, blue from the cold. There are 4-12 families in each dugout. In the cold, hunger, dirt, and lack of light, people often got sick and died. Then they began to build barracks.

Adults began to be sent to work - digging foundations for earthen barracks. All the special settlers were then transported to these barracks. This is how a special settlement appeared; during the war it was called a labor settlement, later - Zhilstroy on Sinarstroy. There the Nikitins began their new life.

.3 Working and living conditions in the special settlement Sinarstroy

The special village was managed by a commandant. The entire life of the dispossessed passed under his constant control and supervision. He distributed the workforce, kept order, pardoned and executed, selected a staff of informers, and on his orders, checks were carried out in the dugouts every night to see if everything was in place, if anyone had escaped. The head of the dugout answered with his head for everyone living in it. If anyone escaped, all the adults, along with the dugout leader, were sent to penal barracks No. 25 at Sinarstroy. This barrack was surrounded by a high fence and heavily guarded. The guards had dogs at their disposal. The work was carried out mainly on earth, the production standards were very high, and the rations were meager. By order of the commandant, people were supposed to monitor each other and report to the commandant's office. The commandants of the Kamensk special settlements, apparently, for the most part were zealous executors of the will of the NKVD and cruel people. My great-grandmother said that the commandant of the special settlement on Sinarstroy, Vasily Maksimovich Vakhmyanin, was a very cruel person; he sent many people to punishment barracks No. 25 for minor offenses.

They worked from early morning until late evening. At the end of 1931, special settlers loaded white clay, frozen, at the First Sinarskaya station. Maria Dmitrievna worked for several days, caught a cold and ended up in the hospital. She had been sick for a long time, but she endured everything. Since then, my great-great-grandmother’s health began to deteriorate. In the study “History of Repressions in the Urals,” a database “Disenfranchised” was created, on the basis of which we compiled a personal profile of Nikitin I.I. and his wife Anna Ivanovna. We used the general logic of its construction and a number of features recorded in it. At the same time, the identified features helped solve the main problems associated with certain stages of repressive policies. These characteristics include: “when evicted, from where, reason for eviction”, “what documents does he have regarding exile and rehabilitation”, “characteristics of the household at the time of eviction”, “when he received a work book and passport”, “when his civil rights are fully restored” etc. The unified questionnaire “Disenfranchised” is given in Appendices 4 and 5. The basis for the analysis was archival documents obtained upon request from the archives: a questionnaire for the evicted kulak household, a questionnaire for the evicted, a certificate from the Tambov Region Internal Affairs Directorate on the rehabilitation of Nikitin Ivan Ignatievich, repressed in 1931.

Ivan Ignatievich died in May 1933, the heart of the real Russian owner could not stand it when he was forced to plow the land with oxen. For refusing to do the work, Ivan Ignatievich received a blow from the assistant commandant, fell and never got up again. The commandant allocated a cart for the funeral, Anna and Ivan buried their father together in the cemetery near the church. The bravest tried to escape, knowing about all kinds of punishments. Semyon ran away from the special settlement twice, the first time he was caught and put in a punishment barracks, but the second attempt ended in the death of the eldest man in the family. Maria Dmitrievna was constantly ill after the death of her husband. For her brother's escape, Anna was arrested and put in a pit, and then sent to penal barracks No. 25 for 12 days. Penalty officers dug a trench three meters deep, throwing out 6 cubic meters of earth per shift (they were digging a pit for the future foundation of the STZ). Late in the evening, they were escorted to a punishment barracks and given labor-intensive work there.

.4 Birth history and pre-war life of the Polyansky family

In 1934, Anna met a young guy, Nikolai, who, together with his parents, was also resettled to Kamensk from the Voronezh province. Nikolai's father - my great-great-grandfather Arseniy Andreevich Polyansky had his own stud farm and bred pedigree stallions. Nikolai was the youngest son in the family; together with his three older brothers, he helped his father. In 1931, the family was dispossessed and exiled to the Urals.

On December 1934, my great-grandmother and great-grandfather, Anna Ivanovna Nikitina and Nikolai Arsenievich Polyansky, got married. A year later, the young family was resettled from the special settlement of Sinarstroy to the village of 4th kilometer, where mostly dispossessed people from the Vyatka province lived. Commandants for various offenses (primarily for refusing to be an informer) transferred special settlers from one village to another, from one job to another. NKVD workers vigilantly ensured that there was no friendship in the special settlement; people were not allowed to get used to people.

Since 1934, special settlers began to be called labor settlers, and special settlements - labor settlements. All special settlers were assigned to industrial enterprises or organizations. For special settlers, paragraph 10 of Protocol No. 1 of the commission meeting was canceled, which established that “in the case when evicted kulaks are recruited as labor, their wages should be the same as for all other workers employed in these jobs.” They replaced it with the following clause: “To establish that in cases where evicted kulaks are recruited as labor, wages should be 20-25% lower compared to workers employed in these jobs and social insurance laws do not apply to them.”

Nikolai Arsenievich and Anna Ivanovna worked on the construction of the Sinarsky Pipe Plant. The great-grandmother was a laborer, and after a while the great-grandfather began to lead a team of masons. For his good work, Nikolai Arsenievich was awarded several times, and even received gratitude from representatives of the Soviet government. In 1936, Nikolai Arsenievich Polyansky and Anna Ivanovna Polyansky were released from the labor settlement regime. Despite the fact that the state officially recognized my ancestors as victims of repression, their life did not become easier. The great-grandfather received a passport, but the great-grandmother knew nothing about the liberation; she received documents only in 1953 after Stalin’s death, for this reason she continued to be considered an “enemy of the people.”

On November 1935, the Polyanskys gave birth to a daughter, Lydia, my grandmother. The stigma of “enemies of the people” passed from the dispossessed to their children. Little Lida was also declared an “enemy of the people.”

My grandmother Lidiya Nikolaevna Parshukova (Polyanskaya) recalls: “Our family lived in the NKVD labor settlement on Yuzhny, which had 10 barracks. There were three children in the family: me and my younger brothers Victor (died in infancy from scarlet fever) and Volodar. Our father Nikolai Arsenievich worked at a construction site in the Uralaluminstroy office at the site of a plant for repairing steam locomotives and carriages in the Ural region. When the plant was closed, they began to build the Kamensky magnesium plant on this site.

In 1939, my father was drafted into the Red Army, he took part in the battles at Khalkhin Gol. One night he was standing guard and noticed two lights not far away. The father shouted: “Stop! Who’s coming?”, there was no answer, he shot. The intruder turned out to be an unknown animal. The next day, the father was thanked for his vigilance in front of the entire formation. After the fighting at Khalkhin Gol, my father became a participant in the Soviet-Finnish war."

2.5 War in the history of the Polyansky family

When the Great Patriotic War began, railway trains with equipment and workers from the Kolchuginsky copper processing plant arrived at the KMZ site. They began assembling machines right in the open air. Nikolai Arsenievich was not taken to the front; he was given a reservation because it was necessary to build a factory. He worked from dawn to dark. Sometimes they brought him home on horseback, because he simply did not have the strength to walk, and after 3-4 hours he was already leaving for work again.

My grandmother Lidiya Nikolaevna Parshukova (Polyanskaya) continues her memories. “We lived very poorly, we ate only potatoes, and even that was not enough. My little brother collected all the peels from the table and ate them. In the spring, frozen potatoes and quinoa were collected in the fields, and my mother made pancakes for us. It seemed that nothing in the world could be tastier. Mom was often sent to public works, I stayed at home as the mistress, and I was then 5-6 years old. Our NKVD labor settlement was located on Kodinskaya Mountain, so I went to school in the village of Kodinka. Our school was located in a large wooden house with stove heating. The parents of the schoolchildren collected firewood. My father could not go to collect firewood because he was busy all day building the plant that had been evacuated from Kolchugino, and the teachers punished me for this. I was given bad marks for correct answers, the children stood up for me, but they were also punished. There were very good teachers at school, but they couldn’t help me, because I was the daughter of “enemies of the people.” That was the time. We wrote on newspapers and coal bags from which we made notebooks. In spring, summer and autumn, all students collected medicinal herbs and spikelets. The children of special settlers were not allowed to go anywhere except school. At night we were often checked by NKVD officers. Seven families lived in our wing of the barracks, all dispossessed. The children were almost the same age, together we played rounders, hide and seek, and bloopers. In the evening they liked to gather on the high porch and tell stories.

The winters were cold and snowy. The barracks were skidding up to the roof. No one had warm clothes; they wore rubber boots. My father was a very good mason; he was respected and appreciated at the construction site. Sometimes he was given gifts for his conscientious work: pieces of fabric, soap, sweets, vodka. Mom exchanged all this for potatoes or flour in order to somehow feed the family. My brother Volodar grew up as a very sick boy, he began to walk late so that he could receive adequate nutrition, and in 1944 his parents bought a cow. Every morning before classes, I went to the milk collection point, since everyone who had their own cow was taxed and had to hand over about 300 liters of milk during the year.”

.6 Post-war family life

“After the war,” recalls Lydia Nikolaevna Parshukova (Polyanskaya), “a team of masons from Uralaluminstroy was transferred to work in Vishnevogorsk. At the new place we were accommodated in a separate wooden house. The nature in the area was very beautiful: lakes, forests, mountains. We went to school in a neighboring village. But one night in 1948, NKVD officers came to the house and ordered us to leave the city within twenty-four hours and return to our place of settlement in the NKVD labor settlement of the city of Kamensk. Father’s boss Soloviev and his workmates persuaded Nikolai Arsenievich to try to get documents for his wife, because my mother still did not have a passport, but the parents decided to return to their place of settlement. So we ended up in Kamensk again. At that time, the Yuzhny labor settlement was no longer listed as a settlement of the NKVD, and in 1950 it received the name Stepnoy. I went to school No. 4, my parents paid money for my studies then (about 300 rubles a year), two years later the school fees were abolished.”

Returning to Kamensk, Nikolai Arsenievich and Anna Ivanovna continued to work in construction organizations in the city. Great-grandfather took part in the construction of the Ural Aluminum Plant, a non-ferrous metals processing plant, the Sinarsky Pipe Plant, and the Krasnogorsk Thermal Power Plant. In 1944, Nikolai Arsenievich Polyansky was awarded a diploma for good work based on the results of socialist competition, and in 1947, the medal “For Valiant Labor in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.” After the war, my great-grandfather continued to build the city, which since 1940 has been called Kamensk-Uralsky. Together with their great-grandmother, they built residential buildings in the Leninsky village, a club and a hospital, and kindergartens. Our family keeps a government telegram that Nikolai Arsenievich Polyansky received in 1955. This telegram was sent on behalf of the Ministry of the Central Committee of the Tsvetmetprofsoyuz, it reports that the great-grandfather was awarded the title of the best foreman of masons in construction organizations in the country based on the results of 1954. His great-grandfather was awarded the title “Drummer of Communist Labor”; in 1966, Nikolai Arsenievich was included in the honor book of the Kamensk-Ural OCM plant, awarded certificates of honor and the medal “For Valiant Labor”.

The great-grandmother retired in 1970 and raised her grandchildren. After Nikolai Arsenievich’s retirement, his great-grandmother and great-grandfather were engaged in farming. They looked after rabbits, sheep, and had a cow on their farm. Nikolai Arsenievich was a jack of all trades; in the harsh conditions of the Ural climate, watermelons and melons grew in his garden. It was as if he felt the land, knowing from childhood how to care for it, and the stingy Ural land rewarded him a hundredfold. An entire apple orchard grew up at the Polyanskys on six acres. All the neighbors were amazed at grandfather’s harvests, and he generously shared his secrets with them. In November 1983, Nikolai Arsenievich Polyansky died. His wife and children continued to look after his garden.

Polyanskaya Lidiya Nikolaevna married Parshukov Nikolai Petrovich, they had two children: son Vladimir and daughter Natalya. She worked in the city of Kamensk-Uralsky at a non-ferrous metals processing plant as a design engineer.

. Rehabilitation of victims of repression

During the years of Soviet power, millions of people became victims of the tyranny of the totalitarian state and were subjected to repression for their political and religious beliefs, on social, national and other grounds. In the Russian Federation, a law was adopted on October 18, 1991. “On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression.”

What is rehabilitation? For the answer to this question, we turned to the Small Academic Dictionary. “Rehabilitation is the restoration of the honor and reputation of an incorrectly accused or defamed person.”

How did the process of rehabilitation of the dispossessed go? The rehabilitation process in the 1930s. was complicated by the need to collect a whole package of documents, as well as by the fact that the peasants’ applications were considered by various authorities. From 70 to 90% of decisions made on complaints were negative. In fact, the “stigma of a kulak” remained, despite the restoration of voting rights, the partial return of property, the process of restoring the rights of the dispossessed, which stopped after 1937 and was resumed in 1985. - Perestroika and the policy of glasnost began. Attempts to move away from “stagnation” in society could not but lead to a rethinking of the historical past. As it turned out after a detailed study, they first started talking about the closed pages of history only in 1985. Since 1987 The rehabilitation process, which affected political figures, began in 1990. repressions against peasants during the period of collectivization were declared illegal.

According to the law “On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression” (Article 3), the following are subject to rehabilitation:

· those convicted of state and other crimes;

· repressed by decision of the Cheka, GPU, OGPU, UNKVD, NKVD, MGB, Ministry of Internal Affairs, prosecutor's office, commissions, “special meetings”, “twos”, “troikas” and other bodies;

· unjustifiably placed in psychiatric institutions for compulsory treatment;

· unjustifiably brought to criminal liability with the case terminated for non-rehabilitating reasons;

· recognized as socially dangerous for political reasons and subjected to imprisonment, exile, deportation without being charged with committing a specific crime.

Rehabilitated, previously dispossessed persons also receive back the real estate necessary for living (or its value), if it was not nationalized or (municipalized), destroyed during the Great Patriotic War and in the absence of other obstacles provided for in Article 16.1 of the Law “On the Rehabilitation of Political Victims” repression."

In the generally accepted sense of the word, rehabilitation means any restoration of a citizen to his rights. In accordance with established legal concepts, the rehabilitation of a person who was brought in as an accused is considered to be an acquittal during a review of the case, a decision to terminate a criminal case due to the absence of a crime, for the absence of corpus delicti or lack of proof of participation in the commission of a crime, as well as a decision to terminate cases of administrative offense.

The Law of the Russian Federation “On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression of October 18, 1991, supplemented by a number of laws and by-laws, may have served as the basis for the rehabilitation of dispossessed and deported peasants. The implementation of rehabilitation revealed practical problems associated with confirming the facts of dispossession.

Undoubtedly, the rehabilitation of the dispossessed played a significant role in terms of restoring historical justice in relation to a large social group. There is no doubt that the consequences of dispossession and the losses suffered by the peasantry will affect the life of society and the state for a long time.

In 1993, my grandmother Lidiya Nikolaevna sent a request for the rehabilitation of her relatives to the Information Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Tambov Region. In 1994, she received a letter informing her that case No. 7219 about the stay under the supervision of Ivan Ignatievich Nikitin and his family was in the archives of the Department of Internal Affairs of the Chelyabinsk Region. Lidiya Nikolaevna sent the following request to the Information Center of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Chelyabinsk Region. In April 1994, she received a certificate of rehabilitation of Nikitin Ivan Ignatievich, who was repressed in 1931. The certificate was issued by the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Tambov Region. In June of the same year, a response came from the information center of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Chelyabinsk Region, in addition to a certificate of being under supervision with restrictions on the rights and freedoms of Ivan Ignatievich Nikitin, a certificate of rehabilitation of Anna Ivanovna Polyanskaya (Nikitina), a questionnaire for the evicted kulak household, and a questionnaire were sent. Based on these documents, Anna Ivanovna received a certificate stating that she is a victim of political repression and has the right to benefits established by Article 16 of the Federal Law “On the rehabilitation of victims of political repression.” In 1996, Lidiya Nikolaevna Parshukova (Polyanskaya) received the same certificate and certificate. Volodar Nikolaevich Polyansky was recognized as a victim of political repression. The information center of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Sverdlovsk Region stores archival materials on the case of repression against Arseny Andreevich Polyansky and his family.

Polyanskaya (Nikitina) Anna Ivanovna died in 2005 at the age of 93.

Conclusion

Political repression is a whole era in the life of our country, bitter and terrible. The German philosopher Karl Jaspers wrote in his book The Meaning and Purpose of History: “The horrors of the past cannot be allowed to be forgotten. We need to be reminded of the past all the time. It was, it turned out to be possible, and this possibility remains. Only knowledge can prevent it. The danger here is in the unwillingness to know, in the desire to forget and in the disbelief that all this really happened...”

For every person, family is the most valuable thing in life. A person must not only know his relatives, but also the history of the entire family. Family history is the roots without which a person cannot exist. The history of the country, the history of the native land, the history of the family - these concepts are closely connected with each other by invisible threads. In the old days, a person was inseparable from his family, and knowledge of his genealogy went back to antiquity. Every piece of this knowledge was carefully passed on from generation to generation. But now few people can tell for certain where their family originates and list the names of their ancestors more than up to the third generation. Kinship veneration is a characteristic feature of many peoples. It is not surprising that modern schoolchildren know only their closest relatives. And adults, too, cannot boast of a good knowledge of their roots. Meanwhile, we should be proud of our ancestors.

My ancestors, both in the pre-war years and then during the Great Patriotic War, bore on their shoulders all the hardships and hardships of that time. Strong owners who knew how to work well were resettled by the authorities to the Urals and placed in unbearable conditions. But despite all the hardships, these strong-willed people were able to survive and leave their mark on history.

I would like to think that subsequent generations of family members will treat the history of our family with care, interest and pride.

This work is only the first attempt to formalize information about those representatives of the family about whom there is archival information and preserved memories. This explains the many gaps in the genealogy and its brief presentation. It was possible to describe the life of some representatives of six generations of the family, as indicated in the genealogy and generational list. But, nevertheless, we managed to compile a descending mixed genealogy, an attempt was made to compile a generational list, and the peculiarities of life of family representatives were revealed in the conditions of special resettlement in the Urals in the 1930s. Gaps in the genealogy are the tasks of our future work. Work is planned at GASO in Yekaterinburg with the aim of expanding our knowledge about relatives about whom there are no memories. In addition, material is expected from relatives on the side of V.N. Parshukov’s uncle. As a result, it is planned to collect information and compile a complete genealogy and generational history of the Nikitin-Pakshintsev family.

dispossession peasant special settler post-war

List of used literature

.Ivkina T.V., Kolyshkina L.A. On the issue of the efficiency of the labor of special settlers // History of repressions in the Urals // Nizhny Tagil: NTGPI, 1997 - P. 40

.Ivnitsky I.A. Collectivization and dispossession (early 30s). - M., Russian State University for the Humanities, 1995.-

.History of the Soviet state and law. Volume 2 // M.: Publishing house "Bylina", 1998

.Kalistratova E. To the beginning genealogist. Benefit. - Ekaterinburg, 2001

.Kalistratova E. Fundamentals of the science of kinship. - Ekaterinburg, 2001.

.Kirillov V. M. History of repressions in the Nizhny Tagil region of the Urals. 1920s - early 1950s In 2 parts. Part 1. Nizhny Tagil: Ural. state ped. University, Nizhny Tagil State University ped. Institute, 1996.

.Kirillov V. M. History of repressions in the Nizhny Tagil region of the Urals. 1920s - early 1950s In 2 parts. Part 2. Nizhny Tagil: Ural. state ped. University, Nizhny Tagil State University ped. Institute, 1996.

.Kirilov D.N. and others. Dispossession and use of labor of special settlers in the Urals / Book of Memory. Ekaterinburg: UIF “Science”, 1994.- P. 32-50

.Dispossessed special settlers in the Urals (1930 - 1936): Collection of documents / Compiled by: Slavko T.I., Bedel A.E.; Rep. ed. Alekseev V.V.; RAS. Ural department. Institute of History and Archeology //Ekaterinburg: Ural Publishing House. company "Science", 1993 - P. 221

Sources

Collectivization in declassified documents // Archives of the Urals, 1995, No. 1, pp. 72-73

Materials from the family archive of the Nikitin family

Materials from the family archive of the Polyansky family

Materials from the family archive of the Parshukov family

Materials from the family archive of the Pakshintsev family

Resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of January 30, 1930 “On measures to eliminate kulak farms in areas of complete collectivization” / Ivnitsky N.A. The fate of the dispossessed in the USSR // M.: Publishing House "Sobranie" LLC, 2004 - P.56

Federal Law “On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression”

Www.wikipedia.org - free encyclopedia

Http://www.sakharov-center.ru/museum/expositions/repressions-ussr.html

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Dispossession- a campaign against the wealthy peasantry in the USSR in the 1920-1930s, aimed at “eliminating the kulaks as a class.”

The most accurate definition of the term dispossession from a legal point of view is given by its interpretation presented by the highest court, which has legal force from the moment of its publication. According to the definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 30, 1999, “Dekulakization is political repression applied administratively by local executive authorities on political and social grounds on the basis of the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of January 30, 1930 “On measures to eliminate the kulaks.” like a class"

Dispossession in 1917-1923

As early as November 8, 1918, at a meeting of delegates of the committees of the poor, V.I. Lenin announced a decisive line to eliminate the kulaks: “... if the kulaks remain intact, if we do not defeat the world-eaters, then there will inevitably be a tsar and a capitalist again” By Decree of June 11, 1918 Committees of the poor were created, which played a major role in the fight against the kulaks, led the process of redistribution of confiscated lands locally and the distribution of confiscated equipment, food surpluses confiscated from the kulaks. The “great crusade against grain speculators, kulaks, world eaters, ... the last and decisive battle for all kulaks - exploiters” has already marked its beginning. 50 million hectares of kulak land were confiscated and transferred to the poor and middle peasants, and a significant part of the means of production was confiscated from the kulaks for the benefit of the poor.

Preparation

On February 15, 1928, the newspaper Pravda for the first time published materials exposing the kulaks, reporting on the difficult situation in the countryside and the widespread dominance in the localities of the rich peasantry, which is found not only in the countryside, exploiting the poor, but also within the party itself, leading a number of communist cells. Reports are published about the sabotage activities of the kulaks - revelations about how kulak elements in the position of local secretaries did not allow the poor and farm laborers into local party branches.

The expropriation of grain reserves from the kulaks and middle peasants was called “temporary emergency measures.” However, the forced confiscation of grain and other supplies discouraged wealthy peasants from any desire to expand crops, which later deprived farm laborers and the poor of employment; the mechanism of dispossession actually brought to naught the development of individual farms and called into question the very prospect of their existence. Soon temporary emergency measures turn into a line of “liquidation of the kulaks as a class”

The nature of the party’s turn to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class was quite accurately formulated by J.V. Stalin:

In 1928, the right-wing opposition of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was still making attempts to provide some support for the wealthy peasantry and pressure towards softening the party’s policy in the fight against the kulaks. In particular, A.I. Rykov, criticizing the policy of dispossession and “methods of the times of war communism,” stated that “the attack on the kulaks (must be carried out), of course, not by the methods of so-called dispossession” and the inadmissibility of pressure on individual farming in the village , whose productivity on average is more than two times lower than in European countries, considering that “the most important task of the party is the development of the individual farming of peasants with the help of the state in their cooperation”

The right opposition also managed to condemn this policy and declare support for individual farming at a meeting of the Plenum of the Central Committee: “To ensure assistance in further increasing the productivity of individual small and medium-sized peasant farming, which for a considerable time will still be the basis of grain farming in the country,” which was, in essence, its “swan song” and another argument in the treasury of subsequent accusations of “Trotsky’s agent” Rykov.

Active measures to eliminate the wealthy peasantry were welcomed by the rural poor, who feared that “the party was taking a course towards the kulaks, while it was necessary to pursue the line of “dekulakization.” It was stated that “The poor continue to view our policy in the countryside as a whole as a sharp turn away from the poor to the middle peasants and kulaks." This is exactly how the least well-off villagers continued to react to the "new course" of the XIV Party Congress of 1925. Increasingly, the authorities noted among the poor "not only open, but also decisive action against the wealthy and upper part of the middle peasants."

The growing discontent of the poor was reinforced by famine in the countryside, which suggests seeing the direct guilt of the rural counter-revolution among the kulaks, who were interested in causing discontent towards the party: “We must fight back the kulak ideology that comes to the barracks in letters from the village. The fist’s main trump card is grain difficulties.” Increasingly, texts of ideologically processed letters from indignant Red Army peasants are heard in the press: “The kulaks - these fierce enemies of socialism - have now become brutal. We must destroy them, do not accept them into the collective farm, issue a decree on their eviction, take away their property and equipment.” The letter of the Red Army soldier of the 28th artillery regiment Voronov in response to his father’s messages “they are taking away the last bread, they are not taking the Red Army family into account” is widely known: “Even though you are my dad, you didn’t believe a word of your sub-kulak songs. I'm glad you were given a good lesson. Sell the bread, bring the surplus - this is my last word.”

The need to take tough measures against the kulaks is discussed at the plenum of the regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of the Central Black Sea Region, since only tough measures could convince the middle peasants, “the wavering part that is not warned,” as its secretary I.M. Vareikis says at a speech :

Mass repression

On January 30, 1930, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted the Resolution “On measures to eliminate kulak farms in areas of complete collectivization.” According to this resolution, kulaks were divided into three categories:

first category - counter-revolutionary activists, organizers of terrorist acts and uprisings,
the second category is the rest of the counter-revolutionary activists from the richest kulaks and semi-landowners,
the third category is the remaining fists.

It was decided to “liquidate the counter-revolutionary kulak activists by imprisonment in concentration camps, stopping in relation to the organizers of terrorist acts, counter-revolutionary actions and rebel organizations before using the highest measure of repression” (Article 3, paragraph a)

As repressive measures, the OGPU was proposed in relation to the first and second categories:

send 60,000 to concentration camps, evict 150,000 kulaks (Section II, Art. 1)
to uninhabited and sparsely populated areas to carry out deportation with the expectation of the following regions: Northern Territory - 70 thousand families, Siberia - 50 thousand families, Ural - 20 - 25 thousand families, Kazakhstan - 20 - 25 thousand families with “the use of those expelled for agricultural work or crafts "(Section II, Art. 4). The deportees' property was confiscated; the limit on funds was up to 500 rubles per family.

On February 4, 1930, the Secret Instruction of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR “On the eviction and resettlement of kulak households” was published, signed by the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the USSR M.I. Kalinin and the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR A.I. Rykov, in which “in order to decisively undermine the influence of the kulaks” and “ suppression of any attempts at counter-revolutionary opposition,” it was decided to instruct the OGPU:

evict the kulak activists, the richest kulaks and semi-landowners to remote areas
resettlement of the remaining kulaks within the region in which they live on new plots allocated to them outside the collective farms. (Article 1)

The instruction provided for the eviction of approximately 3-5% of the total number of peasant farms (Article 2).

In collectivization areas, according to the instructions, the kulaks were confiscated “means of production, livestock, farm and residential buildings, manufacturing and trading enterprises, food, feed and seed stocks, surplus household property, as well as cash.” A limit of “up to 500 rubles per family” was fixed on cash for settling in a new place (Article 5). Savings books were confiscated and transferred to the NKFin authorities, the issuance of deposits, and the issuance of secured loans were stopped. (v. 7). Shares and deposits are confiscated, owners are excluded from all types of cooperation. (v.8)

On February 2, 1930, Order No. 44/21 of the OGPU of the USSR was issued. It said that “in order to carry out the most organized liquidation of the kulaks as a class and the decisive suppression of any attempts to counteract on the part of the kulaks the measures of the Soviet government for the socialist reconstruction of agriculture - primarily in areas of complete collectivization - in the very near future the kulak, especially its rich and the active counter-revolutionary part must be dealt a crushing blow.”

The order provided:

1) The immediate liquidation of the “counter-revolutionary kulak activists,” especially “cadres of active counter-revolutionary and rebel organizations and groups” and “the most malicious, terry loners” - that is, the first category to which the following were assigned:

The kulaks are the most “terry” and active, opposing and disrupting the measures of the party and government for the socialist reconstruction of the economy; kulaks fleeing areas of permanent residence and going underground, especially those blockading with active White Guards and bandits;
Kulaks are active White Guards, rebels, former bandits; former white officers, repatriates, former active punitive forces, etc., exhibiting counter-revolutionary activity, especially in an organized manner;
Kulaks are active members of church councils, all kinds of religious, sectarian communities and groups, “actively manifesting themselves.”
Kulaks are the richest, moneylenders, speculators who destroy their farms, former landowners and large landowners.

The families of those arrested, imprisoned in concentration camps or sentenced to death were subject to deportation to the northern regions of the USSR, along with the kulaks and their families evicted during the mass campaign, “taking into account the presence of able-bodied people in the family and the degree of social danger of these families.”

2) Mass eviction (primarily from areas of complete collectivization and the border strip) of the richest kulaks (former landowners, semi-landowners, “local kulak authorities” and “the entire kulak cadre from which the counter-revolutionary activist is formed,” “kulak anti-Soviet activist,” “ churchmen and sectarians") and their families to remote northern regions of the USSR and confiscation of their property - the second category.

According to OGPU order No. 44.21 of February 6, 1930, an operation to “seize” 60 thousand fists of the “first category” begins. Already on the first day of the OGPU operation, about 16 thousand people were arrested; by February 9, 1930, 25 thousand people were “seized.” The OGPU special report dated February 15, 1930 contained the following report on the operation:

According to secret reports of the repressive authorities, there is information about the number of kulaks “arrested in the 1st category” as of October 1, 1930: during the first period of dispossession until April 15, 1930, 140,724 people were arrested, of which 79,330 were kulaks, 5,028 were churchmen, former landowners and factory owners - 4405, anti-Soviet elements - 51,961 people. During the second period of dispossession from April 15, 1930 to October 1, 1930, 142,993 people were arrested, 45,559 kulaks and 97,434 anti-Soviet activists. In 1931, “in January alone... 36,698 arrests were recorded,” with “the vast majority of the kulak-White Guard c/r”

In total, in 1930-1931, as indicated in the certificate of the Department for Special Resettlements of the GULAG OGPU, 381,026 families with a total number of 1,803,392 people were sent to special settlements. For 1932-1940 Another 489,822 dispossessed people arrived in special settlements.

At the same time, it should be canceled that not only the GULAG organs, but also the OGPU were responsible for working with the kulaks, therefore the estimates of the GULAG organs are noticeably underestimated. The department of the central registry of the OGPU in the certificate of eviction of kulaks from the beginning of 1930 to September 30, 1931 determined the number of “special resettlers” at 517,665 families with a population of 2,437,062 people.

The joint Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 90 and the Central Executive Committee of the USSR No. 40 of November 13, 1930 “On preventing kulaks and disenfranchised people from joining cooperation” prohibited all cooperation, including membership in collective farms, for persons with kulak status. The exception was members of families where there are “red partisans, Red Army and Red Navy soldiers devoted to Soviet power, rural teachers and agronomists - provided that they vouch for their family members.” In particular, the Resolution established the following norm:

To ensure the most effective fight against the kulaks and the plunderers of socialist property, a legislative act was adopted, which, according to the plan of J.V. Stalin, “will discourage antisocial, kulak-capitalist elements from plundering public property.” The joint Resolution of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated August 7, 1932 “On the protection of the property of state enterprises, collective farms and cooperation and the strengthening of public (socialist) property” provides for the most stringent measures of “judicial repression” for theft of collective farm and cooperative property - execution with confiscation of property, as a “measure of judicial repression in cases of protecting collective farms and collective farmers from violence and threats from kulak elements,” imprisonment for a term of 5 to 10 years was envisaged with imprisonment in concentration camps without the right to amnesty.

By 1933, 1,317,000 kulaks and those assigned to them were sent to “kulak” settlements. Repression was often applied not only to kulaks and middle peasants, but also often to the poor, which was noted at the February-March Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1937. This lever was often used to force peasants to join the collective farm; these facts were confirmed and harshly condemned by J.V. Stalin.

At the same time, earlier, at the conference of Marxist agrarians on December 27, 1929, J.V. Stalin announced dispossession as a measure necessary for the development and widespread implementation of collective farms:

Almost any peasant could be included in the lists of kulaks compiled locally. On the ground, in order to ensure the accelerated pace of dispossession, they often “pervert the party line regarding the liquidation of the kulaks” and dispossess middle peasants and “low-power peasants,” which, in particular, is reported in a number of reports. It is indicative that at the Plenum of the regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of the Central Black Sea Region, its secretary I.M. Vareikis, when asked about the definition of the term “kulak,” answered harshly: “Discussions about how to understand a kulak are rotten scholasticism, bureaucratic, aimless, incomprehensible to anyone and It’s also very harmful.” The scale of resistance to collectivization was such that it captured not only the kulaks, but also many middle peasants who opposed collectivization. An ideological feature of this period was the widespread use of the term “podkulak”, which made it possible to repress any peasant population in general, even farm laborers. The so-called “tverdosdatchikov” were usually called podkulakniks.

Reports on such measures were actively received by the government authorities; for example, the representative of the regional committee of the Komsomol Central Choro Sorokin, during a meeting of the bureau of the Komsomol Central Committee, reported on the facts of the dispossession of a large number of middle peasants and the poor. It was reported that in the Black Earth Region, under the threat of dispossession by members of the Komsomol, peasants were forced to join collective farms, which the Komsomol leadership would later declare: “the administrative methods of ‘dealing’ dispossession, which hit the middle peasants, entered the brains of even Komsomol activists.” Borisoglebsk Komsomol members, in the process of dispossession, liquidated several farm laborers because the daughters of the owners married kulak sons.

The leadership of the regional committee of the Komsomol Central Black Sea Chorus was forced to admit the facts of excesses and report the inappropriate behavior of a number of people carrying out dispossession:

Eyewitnesses reported the following about the course of these events:

The regional newspaper “Pravda Severa” reported the following about the dispossession of the middle peasants:

Similar violations are reported by the Rabochy Krai newspaper and a number of other regional publications in the regions of the USSR.

In Northern Sakhalin, accusations of “Japanophile” and religious activities were used to classify some peasant farms that did not meet the criteria of kulak as “kulak”. There are known cases of dispossession of members of the poor group of local villages. An indicative case is when the list of 55 kulak families subject to eviction from the Aleksandrovsky and Rykovsky districts was checked on August 29, 1931 by the authorized OGPU Makovsky for the erroneous inclusion of middle peasants. On September 25, five middle-peasant families were excluded from the list and were not subject to eviction, but the erroneously established status of kulak elements was not removed from these individuals, and subsequently they were subjected to other legally defined measures of repression, including confiscation of property.

Among the excesses on the part of Komsomol members carrying out dispossession, there were occasionally forms of special cruelty, as follows from the actions of Kirsanov’s Komsomol members, who at a general meeting decided to shoot 30 kulaks.

Peasant protests against collectivization, against high taxes and forced confiscation of “surplus” grain were expressed in its concealment, arson and even murders of rural party and Soviet activists, which was regarded by the state as a manifestation of “kulak counter-revolution”.

Policy easing

Views on the wealthy peasantry in the party tended to change, and already in 1925 J.V. Stalin declared the inadmissibility of inciting a civil struggle between the poor and the kulaks, which would inevitably include the middle peasant class:

They talk about a kulak deviation in the party... This is stupid. There cannot be a kulak deviation in the party, but there is only a deviation in downplaying the role of the kulak and capitalist elements in the countryside in general, in glossing over the kulak danger... I think that out of 100 communists, 99 will say that the party is most prepared for the slogan - beat the kulak ! This... deviation leads to the incitement of the class struggle in the countryside, to the return of the Kombedov policy of dispossession, to the proclamation... of civil struggle in our country, and... to the disruption of all our construction work.... But as for the fact, in order not to dispossess, but to pursue a more complex policy of isolating the kulaks through an alliance with the middle peasants, then this matter is not so easy to digest.

By 1932, the process of mass dispossession was officially stopped, however, in practice, stopping the process that had gained momentum became difficult due to resistance from below. On July 20, 1931, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks issued a resolution to stop the mass eviction of kulaks, with the exception of “individual evictions,” and on June 25, 1932, the Central Executive Committee of the USSR issued a resolution “On revolutionary legality,” ending repressions based on “initiatives from below.” On May 8, 1933, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR issued joint instruction N P-6028 “on stopping the use of mass evictions and acute forms of repression in the countryside” (directed “to all party and Soviet workers and all bodies of the OGPU, the court and the prosecutor’s office”), stopping mass repressions due to the fact that they may affect many peasants who do not belong to the kulaks class. The instructions state the following, declaring excesses and uncontrollability of the process:

“True, demands for mass evictions from villages and the use of acute forms of repression are still being received from a number of regions. The Central Committee and the Council of People's Commissars have requests for the immediate eviction of about one hundred thousand families from the regions and territories. The Central Committee and the Council of People's Commissars have information from which it can be seen , that mass disorderly arrests in the countryside still continue to exist in the practice of our workers. Chairman of collective farms and members of the board of collective farms are arrested. Chairmen of village councils and secretaries of cells are arrested. District and regional commissioners are arrested. Everyone who is not too lazy is arrested and who, in fact, has no right to arrest. It is not surprising that with such a rampant practice of arrests, the bodies that have the right to arrest, including the OGPU bodies, and especially the police, lose their sense of proportion and often make arrests without any reason... These comrades cling to outdated forms of work that no longer correspond to the new situation and create a threat of weakening Soviet power in the countryside"

Circumstances create a new situation in the village, making it possible to stop, as a rule, the use of mass evictions and acute forms of repression in the village. We no longer need mass repressions, which, as we know, affect not only kulaks, but also individual farmers and some collective farmers.

At the same time, even this instruction stated that “it would be wrong to think that the presence of a new situation means the elimination or at least weakening of the class struggle in the countryside. On the contrary, the class struggle in the countryside will inevitably intensify.” Confirming this fact, the instruction nevertheless allows for a number of repressive measures on an individual basis and sets a strict limit on them. Convicted kulaks are sent to labor camps, the total number of prisoners is limited to 400,000 “for the entire USSR.”:

On May 24, 1934, the Central Executive Committee of the USSR adopted the Resolution “On the procedure for restoring the civil rights of former kulaks,” according to which kulaks-special settlers, previously deprived of a number of civil rights, are individually restored.

The final abandonment of the policy of dispossession is recorded by Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of August 13, 1954 No. 1738-789ss “On the lifting of restrictions on special settlements from former kulaks,” thanks to which many of the kulaks-special settlers received freedom.

Refusal of bread production by the kulaks

Official Soviet sources reported that if in 1927 bread production by the kulaks was 9.780 million tons, and collective farms produced about 1.3 million tons of which no more than 0.570 million tons entered the market, then in 1929, as a result of active collectivization and dispossession, the level of production bread produced by collective farms reached 6.520 million tons.

As J.V. Stalin stated regarding this breakthrough in bread production at the conference of Marxist agrarians on December 27, 1929, “Now we have a sufficient material base to hit the kulaks, break their resistance, liquidate them as a class, and replace its production is the production of collective farms and state farms"

By organizing the almost complete transition of the majority of peasant producers from the poor class and thus eliminating the state’s dependence on the private sector and individual farms, the party hoped to put an end to the class of peasant kulaks, who were previously an important and in fact the only producer and supplier of marketable grain at an extremely low level of collective farm production .

It should be noted that by 1928 the number of individual peasant farms included in collective farms was about 1.8% of the total.

The task of the final liquidation of the kulaks as a class and a complete transition to exclusively collective farm production was set by I.V. Stalin on December 27, 1929:

For 1930, the plan for collective and state farm grain production is already about 14.670 million tons, as follows from J.V. Stalin’s speech at this meeting.

At the same time, as a short course on the history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) reports, in order to accelerate the pace of collective farm construction locally, “in a number of areas, voluntariness was replaced by coercion to join collective farms under the threat of “dekulakization,” deprivation of voting rights, etc.”

The acceptance of persons subjected to dispossession and recognized kulaks was not carried out and was strictly prohibited personally by J.V. Stalin, regarding which he spoke quite harshly and unequivocally:

To combat kulak and subkulak sabotage in the collective farms themselves, in January 1933 the Party Central Committee decided to organize political departments at machine and tractor stations serving the collective farms. 17 thousand party workers were sent to rural political departments because, as reported, “the open struggle against the collective farms failed, and the kulaks changed their tactics... penetrating the collective farms, they quietly harmed the collective farms.” Thus, dispossession was also carried out among collective farm workers, “former kulaks and subkulak members who managed to get into the collective farms for certain positions... in order to harm and cause mischief.”

To ensure the accelerated completion of the transition of individual peasants to collective farms and the deprivation of peasant kulaks of the means of production and the possibility of using hired labor, the Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the pace of collectivization and measures of state assistance to collective farm construction” was adopted on January 5, 1930 with a program of forced collectivization. Renting land plots and hiring labor by private individuals is prohibited, and dispossession is forced, including on the initiative from below. Private individuals and peasants are given the right to confiscate livestock, tools, means of production, outbuildings and equipment in favor of collective farms. The result of the enforcement of this regulatory act and a number of by-laws is repression against hundreds of thousands of peasants, a sharp drop in the level of agricultural production and mass hunger. The sharp decline in agricultural production was stopped only by 1937, but it was not possible to achieve the 1928 indicators before the Great Patriotic War.

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation of persons subjected to dispossession and members of their families is carried out in accordance with the general procedure in accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression” dated October 18, 1991 N 1761-1.

In the judicial practice of the Russian Federation, dispossession is regarded as an action that is political repression. For example, you can consider the Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 30, 1999 No. 31-B98-9, which de jure is the practical enforcement of the legislative framework on the issue of rehabilitation of dispossessed persons:

A feature of Russian legislation in the field of rehabilitation is the possibility of establishing the fact of the use of dispossession on the basis of witness testimony, which the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation drew attention to in this definition:

Rehabilitated, previously dispossessed persons are also given back the real estate necessary for living (or its value), if it was not nationalized or (municipalized) destroyed during the Great Patriotic War and in the absence of other obstacles provided for in Article 16.1 of the Law “On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression” "

The highest and most characteristic feature of our people is a sense of justice and a thirst for it.
F. M. Dostoevsky

In December 1927, the collectivization of agriculture began in the USSR. This policy was aimed at forming collective farms throughout the country, which were to include individual private land owners. The implementation of collectivization plans was entrusted to activists of the revolutionary movement, as well as the so-called twenty-five thousanders. All this led to the strengthening of the role of the state in the agricultural and labor sectors in the Soviet Union. The country managed to overcome the “devastation” and industrialize industry. On the other hand, this led to mass repressions and the famous famine of 32-33.

Reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization

The collectivization of agriculture was conceived by Stalin as an extreme measure with which to solve the vast majority of problems that at that time became obvious to the leadership of the Union. Highlighting the main reasons for the transition to a policy of mass collectivization, we can highlight the following:

Crisis of 1927. The revolution, civil war and confusion in the leadership led to a record low harvest in the agricultural sector in 1927. This was a strong blow for the new Soviet government, as well as for its foreign economic activity.
Elimination of the kulaks. The young Soviet government still saw counter-revolution and supporters of the imperial regime at every step. That is why the policy of dispossession was continued en masse.
Centralized agricultural management. The legacy of the Soviet regime was a country where the vast majority of people were engaged in individual agriculture. The new government was not happy with this situation, since the state sought to control everything in the country. But it is very difficult to control millions of independent farmers.

Speaking about collectivization, it is necessary to understand that this process was directly related to industrialization. Industrialization means the creation of light and heavy industry, which could provide the Soviet government with everything necessary. These are the so-called five-year plans, where the whole country built factories, hydroelectric power stations, platinums, and so on. This was all extremely important, since during the years of the revolution and civil war almost the entire industry of the Russian empire was destroyed.

The problem was that industrialization required a large number of workers, as well as a large amount of money. Money was needed not so much to pay workers, but to purchase equipment. After all, all the equipment was produced abroad, and no equipment was produced within the country.

At the initial stage, the leaders of the Soviet government often said that Western countries were able to develop their own economies only thanks to their colonies, from which they squeezed all the juice. There were no such colonies in Russia, much less the Soviet Union. But according to the plan of the country’s new leadership, collective farms were to become such internal colonies. In fact, this is what happened. Collectivization created collective farms, which provided the country with food, free or very cheap labor, as well as workers with the help of which industrialization took place. It was for these purposes that a course was taken towards the collectivization of agriculture. This course was officially reversed on November 7, 1929, when an article by Stalin entitled “The Year of the Great Turning Point” appeared in the newspaper Pravda. In this article, the Soviet leader said that within a year the country should make a breakthrough from a backward individual imperialist economy to an advanced collective economy. It was in this article that Stalin openly declared that the kulaks as a class should be eliminated in the country.

On January 5, 1930, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks issued a decree on the pace of collectivization. This resolution spoke about the creation of special regions where agricultural reform was to take place first of all and in the shortest possible time. Among the main regions that were identified for reform were the following:

Northern Caucasus, Volga region. Here the deadline for the creation of collective farms was set for the spring of 1931. In fact, two regions were supposed to move to collectivization in one year.
Other grain regions. Any other regions where grain was grown on a large scale were also subject to collectivization, but until the spring of 1932.
Other regions of the country. The remaining regions, which were less attractive in terms of agriculture, were planned to be integrated into collective farms within 5 years.

The problem was that this document clearly regulated which regions to work with and in what time frame the action should be carried out. But this same document said nothing about the ways in which collectivization of agriculture should be carried out. In fact, local authorities independently began to take measures in order to solve the tasks assigned to them. And almost everyone reduced the solution to this problem to violence. The state said “We must” and turned a blind eye to how this “We must” was implemented...

Why was collectivization accompanied by dispossession?

Solving the tasks set by the country's leadership assumed the presence of two interrelated processes: the formation of collective farms and dispossession. Moreover, the first process was very dependent on the second. After all, in order to form a collective farm, it is necessary to give this economic instrument the necessary equipment for work, so that the collective farm is economically profitable and can feed itself. The state did not allocate money for this. Therefore, the path that Sharikov liked so much was adopted - to take everything away and divide it. And so they did. All “kulaks” had their property confiscated and transferred to collective farms.

But this is not the only reason why collectivization was accompanied by the dispossession of the working class. In fact, the leadership of the USSR simultaneously solved several problems:

Collection of free tools, animals and premises for the needs of collective farms.
Destruction of everyone who dared to express dissatisfaction with the new government.

The practical implementation of dispossession came down to the fact that the state established a standard for each collective farm. It was necessary to dispossess 5 - 7 percent of all “private” people. In practice, ideological adherents of the new regime in many regions of the country significantly exceeded this figure. As a result, it was not the established norm that was dispossessed, but up to 20% of the population!

Surprisingly, there were absolutely no criteria for defining a “fist”. And even today, historians who actively defend collectivization and the Soviet regime cannot clearly say by what principles the definition of kulak and peasant worker took place. At best, we are told that fists were meant by people who had 2 cows or 2 horses on their farm. In practice, almost no one adhered to such criteria, and even a peasant who had nothing in his soul could be declared a fist. For example, my close friend's great-grandfather was called a "kulak" because he owned a cow. For this, everything was taken away from him and he was exiled to Sakhalin. And there are thousands of such cases...

We have already talked above about the resolution of January 5, 1930. This decree is usually cited by many, but most historians forget about the appendix to this document, which gave recommendations on how to deal with fists. It is there that we can find 3 classes of fists:

Counter-revolutionaries. The paranoid fear of the Soviet government of counter-revolution made this category of kulaks one of the most dangerous. If a peasant was recognized as a counter-revolutionary, then all his property was confiscated and transferred to collective farms, and the person himself was sent to concentration camps. Collectivization received all his property.
Rich peasants. They also did not stand on ceremony with rich peasants. According to Stalin's plan, the property of such people was also subject to complete confiscation, and the peasants themselves, along with all members of their family, were resettled to remote regions of the country.
Peasants with average income. The property of such people was also confiscated, and people were sent not to distant regions of the country, but to neighboring regions.

Even here it is clear that the authorities clearly divided the people and the penalties for these people. But the authorities absolutely did not indicate how to define a counter-revolutionary, how to define a rich peasant or a peasant with an average income. That is why dispossession came down to the fact that those peasants who were disliked by people with weapons were often called kulaks. This is exactly how collectivization and dispossession took place. Activists of the Soviet movement were given weapons, and they enthusiastically carried the banner of Soviet power. Often, under the banner of this power, and under the guise of collectivization, they simply settled personal scores. For this purpose, a special term “subkulak” was even coined. And even poor peasants who had nothing belonged to this category.

As a result, we see that those people who were capable of running a profitable individual economy were subjected to massive repression. In fact, these were people who for many years built their farm in such a way that it could make money. These were people who actively cared about the results of their activities. These were people who wanted and knew how to work. And all these people were removed from the village.

It was thanks to dispossession that the Soviet government organized its concentration camps, into which a huge number of people ended up. These people were used, as a rule, as free labor. Moreover, this labor was used in the most difficult jobs, which ordinary citizens did not want to work on. These were logging, oil mining, gold mining, coal mining and so on. In fact, political prisoners forged the success of those Five-Year Plans that the Soviet government so proudly reported on. But this is a topic for another article. Now it should be noted that dispossession on collective farms amounted to extreme cruelty, which caused active discontent among the local population. As a result, in many regions where collectivization was proceeding at the most active pace, mass uprisings began to be observed. They even used the army to suppress them. It became obvious that the forced collectivization of agriculture did not give the necessary success. Moreover, the discontent of the local population began to spread to the army. After all, when an army, instead of fighting the enemy, fights its own population, this greatly undermines its spirit and discipline. It became obvious that it was simply impossible to drive people into collective farms in a short time.

The reasons for the appearance of Stalin’s article “Dizziness from Success”

The most active regions where mass unrest was observed were the Caucasus, Central Asia and Ukraine. People used both active and passive forms of protest. Active forms were expressed in demonstrations, passive in that people destroyed all their property so that it would not go to collective farms. And such unrest and discontent among people was “achieved” in just a few months.

Already in March 1930, Stalin realized that his plan had failed. That is why on March 2, 1930, Stalin’s article “Dizziness from Success” appeared. The essence of this article was very simple. In it, Joseph Vissarionovich openly shifted all the blame for terror and violence during collectivization and dispossession onto local authorities. As a result, an ideal image of a Soviet leader who wishes the people well began to emerge. To strengthen this image, Stalin allowed everyone to voluntarily leave the collective farms; we note that these organizations cannot be violent.

As a result, a large number of people who were forcibly driven into collective farms voluntarily left them. But this was only one step back to make a powerful leap forward. Already in September 1930, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks condemned local authorities for passive actions in carrying out collectivization of the agricultural sector. The party called for active action in order to achieve a powerful entry of people into collective farms. As a result, in 1931 already 60% of peasants were on collective farms. In 1934 - 75%.

In fact, “Dizziness from Success” was necessary for the Soviet government as a means of influencing its own people. It was necessary to somehow justify the atrocities and violence that occurred within the country. The country's leadership could not take the blame, since this would instantly undermine their authority. That is why local authorities were chosen as a target for peasant hatred. And this goal was achieved. The peasants sincerely believed in Stalin’s spiritual impulses, as a result of which just a few months later they stopped resisting forced entry into the collective farm.

Results of the policy of complete collectivization of agriculture

The first results of the policy of complete collectivization were not long in coming. Grain production throughout the country decreased by 10%, the number of cattle decreased by a third, and the number of sheep by 2.5 times. Such figures are observed in all aspects of agricultural activity. Subsequently, these negative trends were overcome, but at the initial stage the negative effect was extremely strong. This negativity resulted in the famous famine of 1932-33. Today this famine is known largely due to the constant complaints of Ukraine, but in fact many regions of the Soviet Republic suffered greatly from that famine (the Caucasus and especially the Volga region). In total, the events of those years were felt by about 30 million people. According to various sources, from 3 to 5 million people died from famine. These events were caused both by the actions of the Soviet government on collectivization and by a lean year. Despite the weak harvest, almost the entire grain supply was sold abroad. This sale was necessary in order to continue industrialization. Industrialization continued, but this continuation cost millions of lives.

The collectivization of agriculture led to the fact that the rich population, the average wealthy population, and activists who simply cared for the result completely disappeared from the village. There remained people who were forcibly driven into collective farms, and who were absolutely in no way worried about the final result of their activities. This was due to the fact that the state took for itself most of what the collective farms produced. As a result, a simple peasant understood that no matter how much he grows, the state will take almost everything. People understood that even if they grew not a bucket of potatoes, but 10 bags, the state would still give them 2 kilograms of grain for it and that’s all. And this was the case with all products.

Peasants received payment for their labor for so-called workdays. The problem was that there was practically no money on collective farms. Therefore, the peasants did not receive money, but products. This trend changed only in the 60s. Then they began to give out money, but the money was very small. Collectivization was accompanied by the fact that the peasants were given what simply allowed them to feed themselves. The fact that during the years of collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union, passports were issued deserves special mention. A fact that is not widely discussed today is that peasants were not entitled to a passport. As a result, the peasant could not go to live in the city because he did not have documents. In fact, people remained tied to the place where they were born.

Final results

And if we move away from Soviet propaganda and look at the events of those days independently, we will see clear signs that make collectivization and serfdom similar. How did serfdom develop in imperial Russia? The peasants lived in communities in the village, they did not receive money, they obeyed the owner, and were limited in freedom of movement. The situation with collective farms was the same. The peasants lived in communities on collective farms, for their work they received not money, but food, they were subordinate to the head of the collective farm, and due to the lack of passports they could not leave the collective. In fact, the Soviet government, under the slogans of socialization, returned serfdom to the villages. Yes, this serfdom was ideologically consistent, but the essence does not change. Subsequently, these negative elements were largely eliminated, but at the initial stage everything happened this way.

Collectivization, on the one hand, was based on absolutely anti-human principles, on the other hand, it allowed the young Soviet government to industrialize and stand firmly on its feet. Which of these is more important? Everyone must answer this question for themselves. The only thing that can be said with absolute certainty is that the success of the first Five-Year Plans is based not on the genius of Stalin, but solely on terror, violence and blood.

Results and consequences of collectivization

The main results of the complete collectivization of agriculture can be expressed in the following theses:

A terrible famine that killed millions of people.
Complete destruction of all individual peasants who wanted and knew how to work.
The growth rate of agriculture was very low because people were not interested in the end result of their work.
Agriculture became completely collective, eliminating everything private.

Education

Dispossession - what is it? The policy of dispossession in the USSR: causes, process and consequences

February 12, 2015

To put it simply and briefly, dispossession is the massive confiscation of property from peasants in the 30s of the last century, behind which lie millions of lives and destinies. Now this process has been declared illegal, and its victims are entitled to compensation for damages.

Beginning of dispossession

Dispossession, that is, the deprivation of the peasant kulak of the opportunity to use the land, the confiscation of the instruments of production, the “surplus” of farming, took place during the years of collectivization.

However, dispossession actually began much earlier. Lenin made statements about the need to fight wealthy peasants back in 1918. It was then that special committees were created that dealt with the confiscation of equipment, land, and food.

"Fists"

The policy of dispossession was carried out so crudely that both wealthy peasants and sections of the population completely far from prosperity fell under it.

Significant masses of peasants suffered from forced collectivization. Dispossession is not only the deprivation of one's own economy. After the devastation, peasants were expelled, and entire families, regardless of age, fell under repression. Infants and old people were also exiled indefinitely to Siberia, the Urals, and Kazakhstan. All “kulaks” faced forced labor. By and large, dispossession in the USSR resembled a game in which the rules were constantly changing. The special settlers had no rights - only responsibilities.

Whom to be classified as “kulaks” was decided by the Soviet government without trial or investigation. It was possible to get rid of anyone who was not so friendly or came into conflict with the local authorities.

The worst thing is that those who acquired their “excesses” through hard work, without hiring hired workers, were also considered undesirable. At first they were called “middle peasants” and were not touched for some time. Later, they were also recorded as enemies of the people, with corresponding consequences.

Signs of kulak farms

To identify the kulak economy, its characteristics were listed (Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of 1929). Among them were the following:

The use of hired labor in agricultural work and other crafts.
The peasant owns a mill, an oil mill, a drying plant for vegetables and fruits, and any other mechanical equipment with an engine.
Hire of all the above mechanisms.
Renting out premises for housing.
Engagement in trading activities, intermediation, receipt of unearned income.

Reasons for dispossession

The reasons for such a tough government policy are very simple. Agriculture has always been a source of food for the country. In addition to such an important function, it could help finance the industrialization process. It is more difficult to cope with the huge number of small independent agricultural enterprises. It is much easier to manage several large ones. Therefore, collectivization began in the country. The stated purpose of this event is to carry out socialist transformations in the village. Even specific deadlines were set for its successful implementation. The maximum period for its implementation is 5 years (for non-grain regions).

However, it could not have taken place without dispossession. It was this that provided the basis for the creation of collective and state farms.

Dispossession is the liquidation of more than 350,000 peasant farms that were ruined by mid-1930. At a rate of 5-7% of the total number of individual agricultural enterprises, the real figure was 15-20%.

Village reaction to collectivization

Collectivization was perceived differently by village residents. Many did not understand what it could lead to and did not really understand what dispossession was. When the peasants realized that this was violence and arbitrariness, they organized protests.

Some desperate people destroyed their own farms and killed activists representing Soviet power. The Red Army was brought in to suppress the disobedient.

Stalin, realizing that the trial could harm his reputation and turn into a political disaster, wrote an article in Pravda. In it, he categorically condemned the violence and blamed local performers for everything. Unfortunately, the article was not aimed at eliminating lawlessness, but was written for one’s own rehabilitation. By 1934, despite the resistance of the peasants, 75% of individual farms were transformed into collective farms.

Results

Dispossession is a process that crippled the fates of millions of people. Eyewitnesses recall how huge families who lived together for entire generations went into exile. Sometimes they numbered up to 40 people and united sons, daughters, grandchildren and great-grandsons. All family members worked hard to develop their farm. And the coming power took away everything without a trace. The country's population has decreased by 10 million people over 11 years. This is due to several reasons. In 1932-1933, almost 30 million people starved. Areas where wheat grew (Kuban, Ukraine) became the main victims. According to various estimates, the famine claimed five to seven million lives. Many died in exile from hard work, malnutrition and cold.

In economic terms, this process did not become an impetus for the development of agriculture. On the contrary, the results of dispossession were disastrous. There was a sharp decrease in the number of cattle by 30%, the number of pigs and sheep decreased by 2 times. Grain production, traditionally an important Russian export, fell by 10%.

Collective farmers treated public property as “nobody’s property.” New workers worked carelessly, theft and mismanagement flourished.

To date, all victims of dispossession have been recognized as victims of political repression. Local government bodies are tasked with considering and making decisions on issues of compensation for damage to rehabilitated citizens. To do this, you need to fill out an application. According to Russian legislation, it can be submitted not only by the rehabilitated citizens themselves, but also by members of their families, public organizations and trusted persons.

Dispossession-- a campaign against the wealthy peasantry in the USSR in the 1920-1930s, aimed at “eliminating the kulaks as a class.”

According to the certificate of the Moscow Regional Court, “the term “dekulakization” was quite widely used in the regulations that guided the bodies that made decisions related to the use of repression, but this term cannot be considered as a legal term, “dekulakization” could be associated with various types of restrictions on the rights and freedoms of citizens, subjected to repression based on class, social and property characteristics, is collective and cannot be used as a designation of a type of repression.” The most accurate definition of the term dispossession from a legal point of view is given by its interpretation presented by the highest court, which has legal force from the moment of its publication. According to the definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 30, 1999, “Dekulakization is political repression applied administratively by local executive authorities on political and social grounds on the basis of the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of January 30, 1930 “On measures to eliminate kulaks as a class." Back on November 8, 1918, at a meeting of delegates of the committees of the poor, V.I. Lenin announced a decisive line to eliminate the kulaks: "... if the kulaks remain untouched, if we do not defeat the world-eaters, then there will inevitably be a tsar and a capitalist again" By Decree On June 11, 1918, committees of the poor were created, which played a big role in the fight against the kulaks, led the process of redistribution of confiscated lands locally and the distribution of confiscated equipment, food surpluses confiscated from the kulaks. The “great crusade against grain speculators, kulaks, world eaters, ... the last and decisive battle for all kulaks - exploiters” has already marked its beginning. 50 million hectares of kulak land were confiscated and transferred to the poor and middle peasants, and a significant part of the means of production was confiscated from the kulaks for the benefit of the poor. On February 15, 1928, the newspaper Pravda for the first time published materials exposing the kulaks, reporting on the difficult situation in the countryside and the widespread dominance in the localities of the rich peasantry, which is found not only in the countryside, exploiting the poor, but also within the party itself, leading a number of communist cells. Reports are published about the sabotage activities of the kulaks - revelations about how kulak elements in the position of local secretaries did not allow the poor and farm laborers into the local branches of the party. The expropriation of grain reserves from the kulaks and middle peasants was called “temporary emergency measures.” However, the forced confiscation of grain and other supplies discouraged wealthy peasants from any desire to expand crops, which later deprived farm laborers and the poor of employment; the mechanism of dispossession actually brought to naught the development of individual farms and called into question the very prospect of their existence. Soon temporary emergency measures turn into a line of “liquidation of the kulaks as a class”

The nature of the party’s turn to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class was quite accurately formulated by J.V. Stalin:

In order to oust the kulaks as a class, it is necessary to break the resistance of this class in open battle and deprive it of production sources of existence and development (free use of land, tools of production, rent, the right to hire labor, etc.).

This is a turn towards the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class. Without this, talk about ousting the kulaks as a class is empty chatter, pleasing and beneficial only to right-wing deviationists.

"... those who do not go to the collective farms are now either supporters of the kulak, who must be warned, and sometimes economic pressure must be applied, or they are unconvinced, wavering. This wavering part, which is not warned, must be warned. ... of course, the middle peasant will be the stronger in the collective farms and the less will look back, the more we defeat the kulaks, this is beyond the slightest doubt."

During the forced collectivization of agriculture carried out in the USSR in 1928-1932, one of the directions of state policy was the suppression of anti-Soviet protests by peasants and the associated “liquidation of the kulaks as a class” - “dekulakization”, which involved the forced and extrajudicial deprivation of the wealthy peasants using wage labor, all means of production, land and civil rights, and eviction to remote areas of the country. Thus, the state destroyed the main social group of the rural population, capable of organizing and materially supporting resistance to the measures taken. On January 30, 1930, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted the Resolution “On measures to eliminate kulak farms in areas of complete collectivization.” According to this resolution, kulaks were divided into three categories:

· first category - counter-revolutionary activists, organizers of terrorist attacks and uprisings,
· second category - the rest of the counter-revolutionary activists from the richest kulaks and semi-landowners,
· third category - other fists.

The heads of kulak families of the 1st category were arrested, and cases about their actions were transferred to special troikas consisting of representatives of the OGPU, regional committees (territorial committees) of the CPSU (b) and the prosecutor's office. Family members of category 1 kulaks and category 2 kulaks were subject to deportation to remote areas of the USSR or remote areas of a given region (region, republic) to a special settlement. The kulaks assigned to the 3rd category settled within the region on new lands specially allocated for them outside the collective farms. It was decided to “liquidate the counter-revolutionary kulak activists by imprisonment in concentration camps, stopping in relation to the organizers of terrorist acts, counter-revolutionary actions and rebel organizations before using the highest measure of repression” (Article 3, paragraph a)

As repressive measures, the OGPU was proposed in relation to the first and second categories:

· send 60,000 to concentration camps, evict 150,000 kulaks (Section II, Art. 1)
· to uninhabited and sparsely populated areas to carry out deportation with the expectation of the following regions: Northern Territory - 70 thousand families, Siberia - 50 thousand families, Ural - 20 - 25 thousand families, Kazakhstan - 20 - 25 thousand families with "use expelled for agricultural work or crafts” (Section II, Art. 4). The deportees' property was confiscated; the limit on funds was up to 500 rubles per family.

On February 1, 1930, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Executive Committee of the USSR issued a Resolution “On measures to strengthen the socialist reorganization of agriculture in areas of complete collectivization and to combat the kulaks,” which, first of all, abolished the right to lease land and the right to use hired labor in individual peasant farms with some exceptions based on an individual joint decision of the district and district EC in relation to the “middle peasants”. (Article 1) Regional and regional ECs and the governments of the republics were given the right to take “all necessary measures to combat the kulaks, up to and including the complete confiscation of the property of the kulaks and their eviction” (Article 2). On February 4, 1930, the Secret Instruction of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR “On the eviction and resettlement of kulak households” was published, signed by the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the USSR M.I. Kalinin and the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR A.I. Rykov, in which “in order to decisively undermine the influence of the kulaks” and “ suppression of any attempts at counter-revolutionary opposition,” it was decided to instruct the OGPU:

· evict the kulak activists, the richest kulaks and semi-landowners to remote areas
· resettle the remaining kulaks within the region in which they live on new plots allocated to them outside the collective farms. (Article 1)

The instruction provided for the eviction of approximately 3-5% of the total number of peasant farms (Article 2).

On February 2, 1930, Order No. 44/21 of the OGPU of the USSR was issued. It said that “in order to carry out the most organized liquidation of the kulaks as a class and the decisive suppression of any attempts to counteract on the part of the kulaks the measures of the Soviet government for the socialist reconstruction of agriculture - primarily in areas of complete collectivization - in the very near future the kulaks, especially its rich and active counter-revolutionary part must be dealt a crushing blow.”

The order provided:

1) The immediate liquidation of the “counter-revolutionary kulak activists”, especially “cadres of active counter-revolutionary and rebel organizations and groups” and “the most malicious, terry loners” - that is, the first category to which were assigned:
- · Kulaks are the most “terry” and active, opposing and disrupting the measures of the party and government for the socialist reconstruction of the economy; kulaks fleeing areas of permanent residence and going underground, especially those blockading with active White Guards and bandits;
- · Kulaks - active White Guards, rebels, former bandits; former white officers, repatriates, former active punitive forces, etc., exhibiting counter-revolutionary activity, especially in an organized manner;
- · Kulaks are active members of church councils, all kinds of religious, sectarian communities and groups, “actively manifesting themselves.”
- · Kulaks are the richest, moneylenders, speculators who destroy their farms, former landowners and large landowners.

“During the liquidation of kulaks as a class, 64,589 people were “seized” in mass operations and during individual purges, of which 52,166 people were taken during preparatory operations (category 1), and 12,423 people were seized during mass operations.”

According to secret reports of the repressive authorities, there is information about the number of kulaks “arrested in category 1” as of October 1, 1930: during the first period of dispossession until April 15, 1930, 140,724 people were arrested, of which 79,330 were kulaks, 5,028 were churchmen, former landowners and factory owners - 4405, anti-Soviet elements - 51,961 people. During the second period of dispossession from April 15, 1930 to October 1, 1930, 142,993 people were arrested, 45,559 kulaks and 97,434 anti-Soviet activists. In 1931, “in January alone... 36,698 arrests were recorded,” with “the vast majority of the kulak-White Guard c/r”

In total, in 1930-1931, as indicated in the certificate of the Department for Special Resettlements of the Gulag OGPU, 381,026 families with a total number of 1,803,392 people were sent to special settlements. For 1932-1940 Another 489,822 dispossessed people arrived in special settlements.

The difficult conditions of the resettled special settlers of “category 2” forced families to escape, since existence in uninhabited areas without minimal living and working conditions was difficult. In 1932-1940, the number of “fugitive kulaks” amounted to 629,042 people, of which 235,120 people were caught and returned. The joint Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 90 and the Central Executive Committee of the USSR No. 40 of November 13, 1930 “On preventing kulaks and disenfranchised people from joining cooperation” prohibited all cooperation, including membership in collective farms, for persons with kulak status. The exception was members of families where there are “red partisans, Red Army and Red Navy soldiers loyal to Soviet power, rural teachers and agronomists - provided that they vouch for their family members.” In particular, the Resolution established the following norm:

“Kulaks and other persons deprived of the right to elect to councils cannot be members of collective farms and other agricultural cooperatives, as well as fishing cooperative partnerships (artels) and consumer societies.” (Article 1)

To ensure the most effective fight against the kulaks and the plunderers of socialist property, a legislative act was adopted, which, according to the plan of J.V. Stalin, “will discourage antisocial, kulak-capitalist elements from plundering public property.” The joint Resolution of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated August 7, 1932 “On the protection of the property of state enterprises, collective farms and cooperation and the strengthening of public (socialist) property” provides for the most stringent measures of “judicial repression” for theft of collective farm and cooperative property - execution with confiscation of property , as a “measure of judicial repression in cases of protecting collective farms and collective farmers from violence and threats from kulak elements,” imprisonment for a term of 5 to 10 years was envisaged with imprisonment in concentration camps without the right to amnesty.

In 1924-1928, peasant members of consumer cooperatives made active purchases of implements and agricultural machinery. According to the Minister of Agriculture of the Russian Federation A.V. Gordeev, “the specified “equipment” was one of the important grounds for their “dekulakization,” eviction, imprisonment in camps, and physical destruction.” Almost any peasant could be included in the lists of kulaks compiled locally. On the ground, in order to ensure the accelerated pace of dispossession, they often “pervert the party line regarding the liquidation of the kulaks” and dispossess middle peasants and “low-power peasants,” which, in particular, is reported in a number of reports. It is indicative that at the Plenum of the regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of the Central Black Sea Region, its secretary I.M. Vareikis, when asked about the definition of the term “fist,” answered harshly, “Discussions about how to understand a kulak are rotten scholasticism, bureaucratic, aimless, incomprehensible to anyone.” and also very harmful.” The scale of resistance to collectivization was such that it captured not only the kulaks, but also many middle peasants who opposed collectivization. An ideological feature of this period was the widespread use of the term “podkulak”, which made it possible to repress any peasant population in general, even farm laborers. The so-called “tverdosdatchikov” were usually called podkulakniks.

“A whole series of things were allowed to happen that discredited the idea of collectivization; there were cases when Komsomol members took away boots, a sheepskin coat, a hat from a kulak, went out into the street, put all this on and felt at the height of their situation. There were cases when everything was taken away, even boots, while such large things as a mill and large means of production remained on the sidelines. There were cases of looting when people discredited themselves by taking things that we didn’t need.”

Eyewitnesses reported the following about the course of these events:

They approached dispossession like this: “the house is good, you let it be dispossessed. They take everything out of the house, even to the point that they take off the children’s shoes and throw them out into the street... The screams of women, the crying of children, the squandering of property, the lack of accounting - all this created a picture of a night robbery

The regional newspaper “Pravda Severa” reported the following about the dispossession of the middle peasants:

In the Cheboksary region, several middle peasants and even poor peasants were “rashly” dispossessed. Dispossession took place without the participation of the poor-middle peasant gathering and while ignoring the village council. This dispossession ended with one of the dispossessed middle peasants in the Cheboksary region committing suicide.

In the Gryazovets district, some village councils allowed the dispossession of middle peasants. The Hertsem village council took away property, livestock and houses from those, for example, who sold a cart of their bast shoes or several pairs of mittens.

Similar violations are reported by the Rabochy Krai newspaper and a number of other regional publications in the regions of the USSR.

Along with the kulaks, middle peasant farms also suffer. In the village Vlasov was ordered to register the property of not only the kulaks, but also the middle peasants. In four village councils, an inventory, search and confiscation of property was carried out from peasants who had only one horse and one cow, who had never used hired labor and were not deprived of voting rights.

Evictions should be allowed only on an individual and private basis and in relation only to those farms whose heads are actively fighting against collective farms and organizing a refusal to sow and harvest. Evictions are allowed only from the following regions and in the following maximum quantities (list of regions for 12,000 households).

The final abandonment of the policy of dispossession is recorded by Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of August 13, 1954 No. 1738--789ss “On the lifting of restrictions on special settlements from former kulaks,” thanks to which many of the kulaks-special settlers received freedom. Official Soviet sources reported that if in 1927 bread production by the kulaks was 9.780 million tons, and collective farms produced about 1.3 million tons of which no more than 0.570 million tons entered the market, then in 1929, as a result of active collectivization and dispossession, the level of production bread produced by collective farms reached 6.520 million tons.

It should be noted that by 1928 the number of individual peasant farms included in collective farms was about 1.8% of the total.

The task of the final liquidation of the kulaks as a class and a complete transition to exclusively collective farm production was set by I.V. Stalin on December 27, 1929:

To attack the kulaks means to prepare for action and to hit the kulaks, but to hit them in such a way that they can no longer rise to their feet. This is what we Bolsheviks call a real offensive. Could we have undertaken such an offensive five or three years ago with the expectation of success? No, they couldn't.

For 1930, the plan for collective and state farm grain production is already about 14.670 million tons, as follows from J.V. Stalin’s speech at this meeting.

Another question seems no less funny: is it possible to let a kulak join a collective farm? Of course, he shouldn’t be allowed into the collective farm. It is impossible, since he is a sworn enemy of the collective farm movement.

The application to establish the facts of the use of political repression and confiscation of property was satisfied lawfully, since dispossession was political repression applied administratively by local executive authorities on political and social grounds on the basis of the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On measures to eliminate the kulaks as a class" dated 01/30/1930, the restriction of the rights and freedoms of the applicant’s mother consisted of depriving her of housing, all property and voting rights.

The possibility of establishing the fact of repression on the basis of testimony in court in the absence of documentary information is directly provided for by Part 2 of Article 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression.”