Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
Transcripts from Soviet Archives
VOLUME X -1930Download PDF
Section II. Village, peasantry
Memorandum of INFO OGPU on shortcomings in collective farm construction in the North Caucasus but data as of January 1, 1930
January 13, 1930
No. 379292 Top secret
1. Weak leadership of collectivization
Collective farm construction, which has spontaneously increased in recent months (September‐December) and the transition of a number of villages and districts to complete collectivization, proceeded in most cases with extremely weak leadership and insufficient organizational coverage from the collective farm apparatus and local Soviet, party and public organizations. The organizational activity of the cluster associations was also insufficient and unsatisfactory, which should be mainly explained by the lack of experienced leaders.
In a number of districts, the spontaneous growth of collective farms made the local Soviet apparatus and party organizations completely unprepared; the great activity and initiative of the poor often did not meet with support from local organizations and were not implemented. Due to the lack of leadership for the period SeptemberNovember, according to incomplete data, 50 newly organized collective farm associations collapsed, and 35 resolutions of the poor peasants on the organization of collective farms remained on paper. The collapse of the newly organized collective farms took place mainly in the Kuban, Stavropol and Black Sea districts.
The organization of large collective farms was often carried out without sufficient preparatory work and taking into account local economic peculiarities. In some cases, the decisions to organize large collective farms were not well thought out that the work begun, due to the new circumstances that became clear, had to be stopped (Kuban Okrug, etc.).
On the other hand, it is necessary to note the extreme delay in preparatory work on the organization of large collective farms, which were started in the Yeisk district of the Don district and the Minvodsky district of the Tersk district.
The explanatory campaign has not yet reached the village in the stanitsa and is being carried out so far only in areas located near the district centers. Grassroots workers are not sufficiently prepared to resolve organizational issues. Particular ignorance and incompetence of local workers is observed in the organization of labor on collective farms, production standards and norms for the socialization of implements and buildings, payment conditions for the owners of households and their members, living conditions, etc. The inability of local workers to give exhaustive answers and explanations to the main questions of collective farm development in a number of cases leads to a refusal to join collective farms, but more often general meetings pass resolutions to postpone the decision on organizing a collective farm until the arrival of district and district workers. (See appendix facts 1‐6).
2. Slow development of work on complete collectivization
The preparatory work for the transition to complete collectivization is developing extremely slowly by the regional and district apparatuses, and this work, carried out along various lines (land bodies, cooperatives, etc.), is not united by anyone. There is also no planned management of preparatory work for complete collectivization.
The reorganization of the apparatus of the Regional Administration and the District Land Administration is unacceptably delayed. There is some confusion in the apparatus of the district collective farm unions; among a significant part of the apparatus there is a strong tendency to leave for work in other institutions.
On the issue of complete collectivization, the regional seed‐breeding union limited itself to passing a resolution on the transition to shock work on the unionʹs network and sending a number of circulars to the field; there is no practical day‐to‐day management of your network.
In the district and district centers, preparatory work is reduced so far only to the discussion of plans, but they are not doing any direct practical work either in district land administrations or in district land administrations. In a number of districts of the Maikop, Stavropol and Kuban districts, preparatory work has not even begun yet, and only in some places has begun only to discuss the appeal of the Regional Committee and the Regional Executive Committee at party meetings.
3. Kinks and distortions of the party line during collectivization
On the part of individual local workers, when organizing new collective farms, methods of command and coercion are practiced, which arouses strong discontent on the part of the main mass of the peasantry and is used by the kulaks to intensify anti‐collective farm agitation. A number of cases of coercion of the poor and middle peasants to join collective farms by means of threats to ʺexile to Solovkiʺ, ʺtransfer to kulak farmsʺ, etc. have been noted. In the Shakhtinsko‐Donetsky, Maikopsky districts, local workers in a number of cases start organizing collective farms without the consent of general meetings; the enlargement of collective farms is also carried out administratively, without preliminary explanatory work, limited to official instructions (facts in Appendix 7‐14).
4. Weak work of collective farm boards and low production discipline
The newly organized large collective farms, lacking sufficient leadership and the necessary instructions from outside, are mostly guided in their work by decisions of general meetings or collective farm boards, which are sometimes incorrect and economically inexpedient. Hastily elected governments do not enjoy sufficient authority among the mass of collective farmers and are ineffective. In a number of cases, the negative attitude of collective farm members to their boards is the result of improper decisions by the boards on fines, confiscation of property, determination of the degree of socialization of draft animals and implements according to social status, etc.
The extremely weak management of the board leads to low production discipline on collective farms, mass absenteeism, mismanagement of collective farm implements, livestock, etc. Low production discipline is also the result of drunkenness on the collective farms, encouraged in a number of cases by collective farm boards. Cases have been noted when collective farm administrations use the loans received to arrange collective drinking bouts, to drive livestock and equipment for the same purpose. Absenteeism sometimes last for several days or even weeks. Collective participation of members of collective farms in managing the production life of collective farms is absent in many large collective farms, production conferences do not function, and economic plans in most cases are not drawn up. (Facts in Appendix 15‐18).
5. The littering of collective farms and collective farm administrations by kulak and other alien elements
Despite the measures taken to prevent the kulaks from entering the collective farms and the ongoing cleaning of the collective farms, the contamination of the social composition of large collective farms by the kulak and other alien elements nevertheless remains significant. In a number of cases, the kulak element, entrenched in economically strong associations, succeeds in infiltrating the collective farm administrations and seizing the leadership.
The contamination is especially significant in the enlarged collective farms, where cleansing was carried out in a hurry, and the cleansing commissions were often influenced, and sometimes under the direct leadership of the kulaks and the anti‐Soviet element. According to a sample survey, in 160 large collective farm associations it turned out:
former white officers
former police officers
former punishers and active participants in the white movement
Moreover, according to the same data, the governing bodies turned out to be:
former white officers
As a result of the demoralizing activities of the kulak‐anti‐Soviet element within the collective farms, there are a number of cases of mass submission of applications for withdrawal from the collective farms.
By stts. Former merchants and their relatives are members of the Brotherhood and Equality collective farm in the Novo‐Titarovskaya Krasnodar District of the Kuban District. The chairman of the board is a former merchant.
A former merchant is the chairman of the Komintern collective farm in the Donetsk region of the Kuban district. The collective farm consists of 3 former large landowners. The position of an accountant on the collective farm is occupied by the son of a priest. As a result of the demoralizing work of this group, 40 applications for leaving the collective farm were submitted in October.
In stts. Kaluga Kuban District, the chairman of the collective farm ʺKrasny Mayakʺ is a former merchant.
In the hut. M. Mechetny in the Konstantinovsky district of the
Shakhtinsko‐Donetsk district, the chairman of the Novaya Zhizn collective farm, a former white man, who in 1918, during the retreat of the Red Army, drowned about 80 Red Army soldiers.
By stts. N. Tatarovskaya, Krasnodar District, Kuban Okrug, 13 poor farms were expelled from the collective farm ʺWork of the grain growerʺ, headed by a former sergeant, for absenteeism from work. Despite the fact that the majority of the poor presented valid reasons, they were not taken into account. It should be noted that the cleansing of the collective farms was carried out poorly and no decisive measures on the part of the leading organizations with regard to the removal of kulaks and other alien elements from the collective farms are being taken. Cases have been registered when the secretaries of party cells and chairmen of the village councils recommended admitting 1‐2 kulak families to collective farms ʺfor educationʺ (Shakhtinsko‐Donetsk, Maikop and Black Sea districts).
6. The class struggle around collective farm development
The growth of the mass collective farm movement, the expansion of explanatory work on collectivization, the ongoing campaign to enlarge the collective farms, and the transition of a number of villages to continuous collectivization strengthen the resistance of the kulaks and other anti‐Soviet elements of the collectivization countryside.
The anti‐collective farm activity of the kulaks proceeds mainly along the line of organizing public opinion in the countryside against the collective farms and discrediting them by spreading all sorts of provocative rumors about the destruction of the family on collective farms, churches, organized disruption of meetings on the question of collectivization, etc. On the other hand, the kulaks are working on the collapse of collective farms from the inside through their groups of podkulachnikov. The kulaks are widely practicing methods of intimidation, threats and the direct use of terror in relation to those entering the collective farms. The kulak terror against the kolkhoz activists has especially intensified in recent years, cases of threats, beatings of kolkhoz workers, arson of kolkhoz property, etc. have become more frequent. For the period from 15 to 20 December (for five days) registered in Donskoy, Kuban and Armavir districts 25 cases of terror threats from the kulaks, which often led to the refusal of terrorized collective farmers to work, 3 cases of beatings and 3 cases of arson of kulak property. A number of cases were noted when general meetings, under the influence of kulak agitation, passed resolutions on the refusal of collectivization.
As a result of the kulak agitation that “the only way out of this situation is to sell livestock and implements and enter the collective farm”, “sales sentiments” have significantly increased in recent years, a tendency towards mass sale of livestock and implements from significant middle peasant groups of the village (Armavirsky, Maikop, Kuban and other districts).
At the same time, it should be noted that the kulaks are striving to get into collective farms to decompose them from within, which is especially noted in certain areas of the Salsk, Kuban and Armavir districts, where individual kulak groups are selling off their livestock and other agricultural implements at an increased rate and submit applications (in some cases collective) about their acceptance into collective farms. Penetrating into collective farms, sometimes by pretreating the poor peasants, giving bribes and inviting them to joint drinks, wealthy kulak groups, together with groups of under‐thekulaks, as a rule, direct their activities mainly against the socialization of livestock and other agricultural property, as well as against the consolidation of collective farms. moreover, in their anti‐collective farm activities inside and outside the collective farms, kulak groups often rely on the female part of the collective farms,
In a number of regions, the kulaks, in the struggle against collectivization, use declassed, anti‐Soviet groups of former Red partisans, of whom the kulaks often form their own groups of underthe‐kulaks who spread various provocative rumors about collective farms.
Part of the kulaks reacts to mass collectivization by fleeing to other areas, and the kulaks are trying to persuade certain groups of middle peasants to organize resettlement. Recently, 35‐100 kulak and well‐todo farms have left individual villages of the Tersk District (see facts 1930).
7. Negative aspects in the mood of a part of the middle and poor peasants in connection with mass collectivization
The weak development of explanatory work on collectivization and the presence in a number of regions of a strong kulak anti‐collective farm influence determine a number of negative aspects in the mood of a part of the middle peasants and the poor.
A significant part of the middle peasantry has a tendency to enter into the primary forms of collective‐farm associations, mainly into partnerships for joint cultivation of the land. The reluctance of a part of the middle peasants to join large collective farms and protests against the socialization of the means of production and livestock are usually motivated by the fact that ʺin large collective farms it is impossible to run a farm and will have to work for the poor, who have always done nothing.ʺ The most powerful part of the middle peasantry especially refrains from joining the collective farms, pointing to the insufficient compensation of the middle peasant farms that are part of the collective farm for using the means of production they surrender in excess of the norm, to the system of distributing the product of labor according to consumers, and not according to the quantity and quality of labor, which is still practiced on collective farms. on insufficiently exemplary farming on collective farms, etc.
The reluctance to surrender productive and working cattle to the collective farm above the norm, the desire to sell livestock for money before joining the collective farms is causing a massive sale and slaughter of livestock in a number of regions by a significant part of the middle peasantry joining the collective farms. Selling sentiments among certain groups of the middle peasantry are aggravated by insufficient explanatory work and kulak agitation, provocative rumors spread by the kulaks about ʺconcrete correspondence and mobilization of livestockʺ and about the total transfer of livestock to collective farms. Mass sale and slaughter of livestock are especially noted in a number of districts of Armavir, Salsky, Kuban and Maikop districts. The proceeds from the sale of livestock are in many cases quickly squandered by the middle peasants, they get drunk: “You still have to go to the collective farm and hand over everything, so wouldnʹt it be better to sell everything and drink the money” (middle peasant of Armavir district). Another part of the middle peasants, selling their live and dead implements before joining the collective farm, seeks to stock up on money for a ʺrainy dayʺ (ʺif you jump out of the collective farm, you will be with money, you will not remain naked and barefoot, there will be something to cling toʺ (middle peasant of the Salsk district).
It should be especially noted the tendency for members of collective farms to sell off non‐socialized working and dairy cattle, which is observed especially in collective farms that have raised the question of one hundred percent socialization of cattle. In a number of cases, large livestock are exchanged by collective farm members for young animals.
The bulk of the poor and low‐power middle peasants approve of the Partyʹs decisive course towards collectivizing agriculture and fighting the kulak. The plenary sessions of the village councils and general meetings in a number of districts of the Donskoy and Maikop districts in connection with the publication of the resolution of the Regional Committee on complete collectivization were held with the active participation of the poor and middle peasants, who, having approved the resolution of the Regional Committee, demanded the immediate eviction of kulaks and persons deprived of voting rights from the villages and villages ... The poor also made proposals for the creation of special funds for the organization of machine‐tractor stations (facts 31‐37).
9. The mood of agricultural specialists
A significant part of the old specialists of regional and district land and collective farm institutions are skeptical about the planned rates of collectivization of the region, often formally referring to the work entrusted to them to draw up various plans, etc. Indicative for this part of agricultural specialists are the following speeches by agronomists and others at a recently held general meeting of specialists in the Regional House on the transition of the region to continuous collectivization: ʺCollectivization at this time is formal, only the simplest types of collective farms are growing rapidly under the sloganʺ Go to a collective farm ‐ less tax. ʺ “All is well, welcome, but now there are no tractors and there is only talk about them.” The same skepticism about the planned rates of collectivization, based mainly on the lack of tractors and sophisticated agricultural machinery, sounded in other speeches. The district zootechnician of the city of Krasnodar, Kuban District, on the issue of drawing up a plan for the development of animal husbandry in the region, said: ʺHow will I draw up control figures for 1929‐1930, when I do not believe this, when I know that all this is nonsense.ʺ ʺAll the plans that have been drawn up are completely unrealistic, it will be very good if our livestock production does not slide down over these five years.ʺ
Most of the old specialists see the roots of the mass collective farm movement in the fact that ʺthe peasant, being in a hopeless situation, not seeing the prospects of his existence in the presence of an individual economy, spontaneously rushes to collective farmsʺ (agronomists of the Sevkavpolevodsoyuz).
The mood of the young part of the specialists who have recently graduated from the universities of agronomists, livestock specialists and land surveyors, in most cases, is healthy and cheerful.
8. Shortcomings in the work of training workers for sending to collective farms
The work of recruiting workers for sending them to collective farm work is not being carried out intensively enough. On the part of the administration, there is a tendency to ʺamassʺ the most unprepared, illiterate and ideologically unstable workers into collective farms. In the city of Krasnodar, the majority of those mobilized for work on collective farms, under various pretexts, in every possible way avoid going to the village, submitting appropriate applications to the commission. Some mobilized party members, categorically refusing to go to collective farms, do not even stop before handing in party cards (chairman of the factory committee of the Stalin iron foundry, a worker at a railway cell, etc.).
Groups of party members and workers sent to collective farms do not receive the necessary instructions; neither the KraiZU nor the Field Union is supplied with instructional material and literature. Those sent to the field often leave, being completely incompetent and unoriented in matters of collective farm development and, in particular, complete collectivization.
The course of collectivization and the mood of the population in the national regions of the CCM
The organization of 4 new collective farms, of which 2 are large (500 and 1000 farms each), was accompanied by a number of significant shortcomings. Explanatory work is extremely poorly developed, in most auls it is completely absent, which creates a favorable environment for the anti‐collective farm activities of the kulaks and anti‐Soviet elements.
The careless selection of leading workers made it possible for an alien element to penetrate the boards of the new collective farms. So, the board of the largest newly organized T. Ossetian collective farm included several anti‐Soviet people, the chairman of the board is a former white. Some of the newly organized collective farms are already showing disintegration tendencies due to extremely weak management.
Local party cells take little part in the organization of collective farms, almost all collective farms are organized by regional workers specially sent to auls. Some of the communist peasants do not believe in collective‐farm construction, the Party directive on the participation of communists and Komsomol members in collective‐farm construction was ignored by the lower party organizations. As of December 15, only 16.3% of the members of the CPSU (b) are members of the collective farms in relation to the entire party organization and 17.7% in relation to the communists who are engaged in agriculture.
Counteraction to the kulak‐mule elements of collectivization
The kulaks are spreading various provocative rumors in all auls of the region to disrupt local practical measures for collectivization and discredit the idea of collectivization among the broad masses of the population: ʺOn collective farms, you will not know who our children will be fromʺ (aul Eltarnag). “There will be no property, but clothes will hang in one shed and be given out according to numbers” (aul Khasaut), etc.
In their anti‐collective farm activities, the kulaks often rely on a backward female mass opposed to collectivization. In a number of cases, in connection with measures for total collectivization, the kulaks succeeded in provoking women to mass protests against collectivization (facts 38‐40).
Particularly successful are the rumors spread by the kulaks about the forthcoming selection of livestock from those who will not go to collective farms (or, alternatively, from those who join collective farms), and agitation for the sale and slaughter of livestock.
As a result of these rumors, there is a massive sale of livestock, despite the sharp drop in prices for it. Prices for draft cattle have recently dropped from 45 to 65%, and for grocery livestock ‐ up to 30%. Part of the kulaks are selling livestock for the purpose of self‐dispossession and joining collective farms.
The lack of mass explanatory work contributes to the spread of rumors among part of the middle peasantry that collectivization will be carried out compulsorily, which causes a negative attitude of some middle peasant groups towards collectivization: ʺIf they are forced to go to the collective farm, letʹs go, and if they donʹt, we wonʹt.ʺ Cases of rejection by general meetings of auls of proposals on the organization of collective farms were noted. In the village of N. Osetinovskiy, under the influence of kulak agitation, several middle peasants, members of the collective farm, were protesting against the newly organized collective farm: “It doesnʹt matter that we have adopted the charter, but we will still work as before,” “This is not why we raised our sons so that they work for the whole village ʺ,ʺ first weʹll see what comes out of this collective farm, and then weʹll start working. ʺ
After the decision of the regional organizations to switch to complete collectivization, the pace of collective farm development has significantly revived. In a number of villages new large collective farms (300‐400 farms) have been organized and are being organized.
It is necessary to point out the insufficient leadership of regional and district organizations in collective farm construction, the lack of mass explanatory work on collectivization on the part of local organizations and the contamination of a number of newly organized collective farms by the kulak and anti‐Soviet elements. In some areas, explanatory work is replaced by local organizations by administration and pressure on some middle peasant groups of the peasantry who are reluctant to go to collective farms, which causes discontent and a negative attitude towards collectivization: ʺOf course, if forced, then there is nothing to do, but there will be little good from thisʺ (middle peasant stts. Kotlyarovskaya).
The bulk of the middle peasants and the poor have a positive attitude towards collectivization.
Local organizations have not yet begun to explain among the broad masses of the population the decisions of the regional organizations to switch to complete collectivization. The kulak‐mule elements, already aware of these decisions, intensified their agitation against collectivization, often speculating on the religious and fanatical sentiments of the population. “There is no need to join collective farms, there will be no religion, there will be no mullahs and mosques, there will be no one to bury, and therefore faith will be lost” (mullah aul Ernen‐Yurt). As a result of this agitation, the actions of individual middle and poor peasants against the collective farms were noted: “We do not want to be collective farmers, if there is a law so as not to rape, then we will not go to collective farms” (speeches of individual poor and middle peasants at a meeting in the village of N. Mansurovsky).
APPENDIX No. 1
Shortcomings in the management of collective farm construction
1. Kuban District. By stts. Chepiginskaya Bryukhovetsky district at a general meeting, it was decided on the complete collectivization of the village without preliminary study of the issue with the poor, existing collective farms and public organizations. The village council applied to the REC with a petition for the release of seed material in the amount of 2000 poods.
The Presidium of the Baturyn Village Council, having received an outfit for a vacation of sowing material stc. Chepiginskaya, together with the bureau of the party cell, not wanting to release the seeding material, at an emergency meeting of the bureau decided to immediately collectivize the entire stts. Baturinskaya. The convened civil assembly approved the decision.
Arrived 70 carts and 160 people for loading from the station. Chepiginskaya were forced to return back with nothing. After the arrival, having learned about the unsuccessful trip, a general civic meeting was called, which was disrupted by the fact that, fearing an excess, most of the party members and Komsomol members left the meeting.
Despite this, the village council forcibly expelled all those who signed up to the steppe for plowing.
The convened meeting of women in the evening was disrupted.
2. In stc. Severskaya, on the initiative of the party cell, began preparatory work to create a large grain collective farm. At the same time, local workers completely lost sight of the fact that the yurt of the village of Severskaya is mostly tobacco‐growing. Despite this, the stanitsa workers launched massive organizational work among the
population in quarters, but the district committee stopped this venture.
3. Black Sea District. In stts. Since October, the Gastagayevskaya Anapa region has been working on the organization of the collective farm ʺGigantʺ, which should unite the entire population of the village (about 8000 eaters). About 40 party members who were sent to the village were limited to holding meetings and did not carry out further explanatory work. As a result, a number of farms have applied for their unwillingness to join the collective farm.
In the village, in connection with the continuous collectivization, there is an increased sale of cattle and horses: ʺWe must hurry to sell the cattle, otherwise it will be lost in the collective and ours will no longer be ours.ʺ Neither the village council, nor the working party members are taking any measures to eliminate this situation.
In recent days, among some of the middle and poor peasants, reluctance to join a collective farm has been growing: “We will probably all give up such a collective. Let those who are tired of living go into it. ʺ ʺWe will not go to your team and do not want to think about it.ʺ Such conversations are the result of kulak agitation.
4. Kuban District. In stts. Novo‐Nikolaevskaya Slavyanskiy district at the general meeting on collectivization, the speakers were especially active in discussing organizational issues, wondering how the work would be organized, how the harvest would be divided, what would be the norm for the consumer, etc. But the agronomist who held the meeting said: “We’ll collectivize, then we’ll see, otherwise I don’t know very well myself.”
6. Donetsk district. In the hut. Zemtsovo the speaker, who turned out to be unprepared to explain to the population about the specific tasks in connection with the organization of the collective farm, said to all the questions raised: ʺThis is not your business, everything will be decided by the Board.ʺ One of the poor people present made a proposal to postpone discussion of the issue and call a special worker, which was supported by the majority. A group of poor and middle peasants after the meeting, in conversation with each other, decided: ʺIt is better not to join collective farm, since this is the case, we will still be impersonal.ʺ
APPENDIX No. 2
Kinks and distortions of the party line during collectivization
7. Kuban District. By stts. In the Novo‐Plastunovskaya Pavlovsk district, a general civil meeting convened on the issue of organizing a large collective farm without preliminary elaboration at the meeting of the poor was held with extremely weak activity of those present. The resolution on the establishment of the collective farm was voted three times. Moreover, only 8% took part in the voting. The chairman, who was holding the meeting, fearing failure, said: ʺWho is against Soviet power, against the five‐year plan and socialist construction?ʺ A significant part of those present left the meeting in protest.
However, the party members present insisted on the selection of delegates, who on the same day adopted the charter of the partnership, and which was approved by the RayZO a few days later. When land management was carried out, 34 households of the disenfranchised received their land plots in the general massif of the collective farm.
From the very first days, the members of the collective farm did not obey the requirements of the board, demanding the allocation of share allotments for individual use. Most of the collective farmers did not go to work in the autumn sowing.
The board began to resort to repression. At one of the meetings, the following resolution was passed: “From all citizens who do not obey the general decision of citizens, take away all live and dead inventory free of charge in favor of the collective farm ... not to give out the wages owed to all citizens without a kolkhoz outfit. ʺ
The following resolution was entered into the minutes of the board: “For all citizens who did not go to work for sowing winter crops, draw up lists and declare a complete boycott. To ask the village council to sue three people for disrupting the autumn sowing campaign.
The situation worsened all the time, and only after the great mass work carried out, 71.1 farms of the entire village entered the collective farm.
8. On stts. In Novo‐Myshastovskaya Krasnodar region at the
stanitsa conference on the creation of a large collective farm, out of the 850 people present, 80 people voted. Despite this, the decision of the stanitsa conference was declared legal and began to recruit members through the five created. From everyone who expressed a desire to join the collective farm, a subscription was taken about the obligation to obey the charter and internal regulations of the collective farm, although no one knew the charter.
The recruitment of members to the collective farm was carried out by individual processing of grain growers in the village council or in the quarterly komsodes. There have been cases when persons who refused to join a collective farm were boycotted in relation to the release of goods from PO. The workers with the called farmers treated rudely, trying at all costs to get the signing of an application to join the collective farm.
9. Black Sea District. When organizing a collective farm in the village. Arkhipo‐Osipovka, Gelendzhik region, the secretary of the VKP cell forces the population to join collective farms. When going round the yards and individual processing, the cell secretary took away subscriptions from everyone who did not want to join collective farms. He also called the local priest and warned him that in the event of campaigning against the collective farm, he would be brought to justice. By the resolution of the District Committee of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the secretary of the cell was removed from work.
10. Black Sea District. In the Adlerovsky village council of the Sochi region, when organizing a collective farm, at a general meeting, the secretary of the CPSU cell interrupted the speaker, the union instructor, who said that there is a production rate on collective farms, shouting: “This is not true, there are no production rates on collective farms. Everything goes to one collective farm, and whoever tells you this is counter‐revolution and sabotage. ʺ When they pointed out to him that the norms of production were mentioned in the regulations of the collective farm, he began to shout again: ʺDo we have no wreckers who write regulations, they are, and we need to fight them.ʺ
The peasants who spoke were interrupted in every possible way, as a result the question of organizing the collective farm was ruined.
11. Kuban District. In stts. In the Staro‐Myshastovskaya Krasnodar region, the chairman of the KKOV summons the poor people on the summons and categorically invites them to join collective farms. He declares to all those who refuse: “Subscribe, and then you will consult at home. If you don’t want, I’ll put you on the blacklist, and you will be given land in Solovki.”
12. In stts. Kanevskaya, when creating a continuous collective farm, in one of the quarters, the chairman of the komsodus included all those who did not want to join the collective farm on a separate list, declaring: ʺEach of those who refuse will have to choose any: either join a collective, or be a fist.ʺ Under such pressure, the entire block of the quarter in the amount of 50 households signed up for the collective farm ʺChervonny Kooperatorʺ. Land cards were taken from all farms and it was announced to them that they were collective farmers.
The same recruiting method was used in a number of other quarters of this village. Many poor and middle peasants left the meeting fearing responsibility and reprisals. During the voting, the leaders of the assemblies declared: ʺWho is against collectivization ‐ raise your hands.ʺ
13. Terek District. In stts. The cool representative council, without properly explaining the tasks of complete collectivization, at the general meeting put the issue to a vote immediately, as a result of which only 35 people out of those present at the meeting voted. Fearing failure, the Representative Council declared in his speech: ʺWhoever votes against total collectivization is the enemy of Soviet power,ʺ and after a second vote, the decision was unanimously adopted.
14. In stts. Zolskaya, at the close of meetings in the 1st and 2nd quarters of the Representative Council and the secretary of the cell, invited everyone present to sign on a previously prepared sheet, allegedly for the purpose of registration. In fact, in this way they wanted to formalize the entry into collective farms of all those who, in principle, did not object to complete collectivization. After only 8 people agreed to sign, the representative council and the secretary of the cell began to promise everyone who signed, to provide a deferral of payments, earnings for public works, etc.
APPENDIX No. 3
Deficiencies in the work of collective farm boards and low production discipline
Kuban District. Elected board of the collective farm ʺGiantʺ stts. Nekrasovskaya in the mass is not authoritative enough. There is not a single Cossack and not a single middle peasant in the board, while about half of the collective farmers are middle peasants who consider themselves offended: “There are more Cossacks in the village, but not one of ours. All nonresident newcomers settled in, who do not understand anything in the grain‐growing business. What kind of work will they do ?! ʺ
16. In p. Dolinovka of the Krasnodar region, the collective farm chairman is a colonist, in the past an active White Guard. With his assistance, a former merchant, two disenfranchised, former pastors and a number of other anti‐Soviet persons entered the collective farm. When the collective farm union proposed to cleanse the disenfranchised from the collective farm, the chairman of the collective farm achieved a resolution of the general meeting of collective farmers on the restoration of those listed in the voting rights as ʺgood people.ʺ
17. On a large farm stts. Pavlovskaya ʺThe Way of the Farmerʺ throughout the autumn sowing campaign, the state of labor discipline was very low. In one of the quarters, where there are 140 farms, 2 plows were used for plowing. The plowing was done poorly, which made it difficult and worsened the work of the gardeners. There were cases when middle peasant collective farmers, who were part of the harnesses, unharnessed their horses and left for the village, and the poor peasants who remained in the field were also forced to quit their work. Until the very last moment in this collective farm, the accounting of the work performed has not been established. There is a large number of missing working days in the timesheets, because for the work performed, lists are drawn up carelessly, and entries are also carelessly transferred to the timesheets.
18. Shakhtinsko‐Donetsk district. In the hut. Petrovsky
Tatsinscope? district organized agricultural artel named. The existing tractor uses zurupa irrationally. Artel money is not paid. Mass absenteeism has been reported. Working cattle and implements are not socialized. Members have their own individual farms.
APPENDIX No. 4
Kulak resistance to collectivization
19. Black Sea District. In stts. In the Bakanskaya Anapa region, despite the active preparatory work, the plan for the collectivization of the stanitsa yurt would have been thwarted by a group of kulaks and an anti‐Soviet element, who had previously discussed issues of disruption at illegal meetings. Fists projected an organized boycott — not to sow a single tithe and provoke a mass protest of women. As a result of the work of this group, the population of the Hut. Gorny at an organized meeting categorically refused to organize a team.
20. Maikop district. In stts. A group of three from the Labin disrupted two meetings on the issue of total collectivization. The group insisted on the removal of all members of the Komsomol and party members who were not involved in agriculture.
21. In stts. Makhoshevskaya On December 6, 3 red partisans spoke at the meeting with statements: “Comrades, we will follow our leaders Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsk. We are against collective farms, i.e., they are a yoke around our neck. ʺ In their speeches, these persons tried to discredit all those who spoke for collective farms, and the meeting was disrupted. The meeting, postponed to December 8, was disrupted again.
22. Kuban District. In the hut. Stalino of the Goryacheklyuchevsky region, under the influence of kulak agitation and threats, the poor began to apply for withdrawal from the collective farms, declaring that they were afraid of revenge from the kulaks. After operating the most active, the collective farm was replenished with new farms, mainly middle peasants.
23. In stts. N. Pokrovskaya, after the organization of a new large collective farm on the day of the harvest and collectivization, a group of kulak youth of 9 people brutally slaughtered 2 tractor‐collective farmers. Those who beat them shouted: “Through you, collective farmers, they take our bread. All of you need to be killed and your kids too. ʺ
24. Maykop district. In stts. Zassovskaya, three kulaks and one Baptist, on the second day after the meeting that passed a resolution on the complete collectivization of the village, began to talk intensively about the fact that husbands and wives would be common on the collective farm, raising children in orphanages, etc. As a result of this agitation, several poor and middle peasants began to refuse to enroll in collective farms. The withdrawal of these 4 types and the holding of a meeting with an explanation of collective farm construction gave impetus to the registration of new farms in the collective farm.
25. In the villages of Labinskaya, Kostromskaya and Gubskaya, kulaks and especially podkulaks are conducting the most frantic agitation against collective farms: “Special seals will be put on collective farms, all churches will be closed, they will not be allowed to pray, dead people will be burned, children will not be baptized, disabled and old people will be killed, there will be no husbands and wives, they will sleep under one‐hundred‐meter blanket. Handsome men and women will be selected and herded into one place in order to produce beautiful people. Children will be taken away from their parents, there will be complete incest: a brother will live with a sister, a son with a mother, a father with a daughter, etc. A collective farm means: cattle in one barn, people in one barrack, all children in an orphanage ... Collective farms cannot be built without blood. ʺ
25. Kuban District. December 17 in one of the quarters in the stc. Kanevskaya at a general civil meeting, where about 200 people were present, on the issue of complete collectivization, the present kulaks, an anti‐Soviet element, as well as podkulachnikov throughout the report tried to disrupt the meeting by shouting. When the speaker, driven out of patience, threw the phrase to one of the shouts: “You don’t want to be on the collective farm, you don’t need to do that,” the kulaks began to shout: “Citizens, come out of the meeting, we don’t want collectivization, down with it, don’t, we are leaving the meeting!” Shouting, up to 40 people rushed to the exit, knocking down the women standing at the door. After them, the rest of the grain growers began to disperse, and only about 20 poor people remained at the meeting.
On the same day, in another quarter, a meeting was also disrupted on the issue of collectivization and the creation of a collective farm seed fund.
In stts. Staro‐Myshastovskaya Krasnodar district on December 23, during the quarterly civil meetings, at which there were issues of a public nature and the reports of the commissioners for land management were heard, the latter, knowing that the party cell was carrying out preparatory work, on their own initiative brought up the issue of creating continuous collective farm. At all quarterly meetings, under the influence of kulak agitation, resolutions were passed: to abandon collectivization until the autumn sowing of 1930; only in one quarter was a resolution passed: “Recommend citizens to join the collective farm”.
Stavropol District. In with. Raguli, Divensky district, after discussing the issue of socializing the property of the Gigant collective farm due to the intensified agitation of a group of podkulachnikov who had previously walked around the yards and persuaded the poor to leave the collective farm, a group of poor people gathered in one of the houses and raised the issue of leaving the collective farm, but not Having finally agreed, she broke the minutes of the meeting.
In stts. A crowd of women in Vladimir (about 150 people) came to the village council demanding a divorce and division of property, that is, they do not want to enter the collective farm, and their husbands do not want to leave.
In a number of villages in the Labinsk District, women, having learned that their husbands have signed up to collective farms, demand their removal from the lists, threatening with divorce, division of property, appearing in village councils with the same requirements or with the exclusion of their husbands from the lists of the collective farm.
30. In p. Unarokovo, the former red partisan spreads rumors that the Soviet power is no longer in the center of Russia and it is still holding on to the outskirts: ʺThe whites will come, so they will show you how to join the collective farms.ʺ
APPENDIX No. 5
Negative moments in the mood of a part of the middle and poor
31. Kuban District. In stts. Staro‐Nizhne‐Steblievskaya, one of the collective farmers, on the issue of enlarging the collective farms, said: “I do not agree now to build large collective farms, we must first let the people rely on small ones. If large collective farms are built in the same way as small ones are built when people were driven there without bread, without huts, without feed for horses, then I will give up arable farming, damn it. Since there is no sense in small collective farms, there will be no more in large ones”.
32. In stts. Yelizavetinskaya at a general meeting, a middle peasant, a member of a collective farm, said that “when we unite with the poor peasantsʹ collective farms, the labor we have expended will be lost, and the poor peasants will sit on our masterʹs necks. With complete collectivization, the land will be taken to a common collective farm, and, possibly, to such farms that spat at the ceiling. Let the poor organize themselves by themselves, the state will give them all the loans. And we will exist on our own, and things will be better. ʺ
33. In the villages of Kanevskaya, Staro‐Myshastovskaya, Elizavetinskaya and the villages of Peschanookopsky, Romanovsky and V. Martynovsky of the Salsky district, collective farm leaders oppose the organization of large collective farms in every possible way, campaign for the disadvantage of large‐scale farming, seek decisions of collective farm meetings not to enter large collective farms, etc. etc. Among the collective farmers, due to the lack of proper work to explain the tasks of organizing large collective farms, the mood is unsatisfactory.
34. According to stts. On the issue of collectivization, a middle‐Cossack Cossack in the Arm of the [Avir] region of the strong‐Kop region said: “Next Monday I will definitely sell horses, no matter how much they give for them. All the same, you will have to go to the team and hand over everything, so wouldnʹt it be better to sell everything and spend money on drink. Another middle peasant in one of the blocks in a conversation with other middle peasants also said: “The peasantry is completely strangled by taxes. We should rather sell everything and then sign up for a collective farm.” In the group of middle peasants about 20 people on the issue of collectivization, the main meaning of the conversations boiled down to the following: “On a collective farm, it may be good to live, but in order not to get sick of your own property, you need to sell it, and then go to the collective farm, anyway everything in common will be there. ʺ
35. In the village. The crosses of the Dubovsky district of the Salsky district has recently noticeably increased the sale of working cattle by kulak and middle peasant farms, mostly well‐to‐do. By s. Selling livestock to the Podgorensk and Kiev village councils (the area where the Gigant collective farm is organized), the population, selling livestock, declares: “If you jump out of the collective farm, then at least you will be with the money, you will not remain naked and barefoot, there will be something to cling to.”
36. In stts. Belorechenskaya, there are rumors that all the peasant cattle will soon be rewritten and stamped, and the owner will lose the right to slaughter the cattle. A mass slaughter of livestock, especially pigs, began in the village. On December 18, among the members of the sowing association, the question of contracting livestock was raised and was failed.
37. According to stts. Vladimirskaya, after the report at the expanded plenum of the village council of the Livestock Union instructor on the contracting of livestock, where he pointed out that all the livestock in the village should be contracted, mass slaughter of livestock began at night. Over the past two days, only over 200 pigs have been slaughtered. A similar situation is noted in the villages of Bzhedukhovskaya, Arkhipovskaya, Labinskaya, etc.
APPENDIX No. 6
Kulaks provoke women to mass protests against collectivization in Karachai
38. In the village of Dzhegutinsky, after the decision of the general gathering to organize a partnership for joint cultivation of the land covering the entire aul with kulaks, a rumor was spread that “the Regional Executive Committee made a final decision on the transfer of the entire aul to. the collective farm and large blankets have already been ordered for this collective farm ʺ,ʺ those who do not want to join the collective farm will be taken to the GPU and expelled. ʺ
As a result of these provocative rumors, on December 1, a crowd of up to 250 women attended a meeting convened in connection with complete collectivization, whose representatives protested against collectivization: ʺIf our husbands join the collective farm, we will not let them go home.ʺ ʺCollective farms do not accept mullahs, so there will be no one to bury the dead.ʺ This demonstration disrupted the meeting.
The next day, a crowd of up to 100 women gathered again at the village council building with the same demands.
39. On 3 December, at a meeting of the poor, a crowd of women appeared again, protesting against collectivization, and this crowd did not include the participants in the first two demonstrations.
On December 5, up to 80 women attended the meeting of the poor, most of whom had stones, knives, scissors, etc. in their hands. Shouts were heard from the excited crowd: “We need to beat the regional workers, collective farms are their idea”, “we do not need the power of the communists who mocks us and forces us to do what we do not want”; disrupting the meeting, the crowd dispersed.
40. On December 18, in the village of Kizil‐Pokun, a crowd of women of up to 60 people, the overwhelming number of middle peasants, came to the Komsomol meeting convened in connection with collectivization, among whom there were 7 wives of kulaks. 4 women, selected in advance by the crowd, demanded the floor from the meeting and protested against collectivization: ʺWe women will not allow any socialization or collectivization, we better pierce our stomach with scissors than allow collectivization in our farms.ʺ The crowd dispersed after it was explained to them about the organization of collective farms.
Assistant to the head of INFO OGPU Zaporozhets Head of the 7th department Agayants Correct:
Dispatched: 1) Berry; 2) Messing; 3) Evdokimov; 4) Artuzov; 5) Olsky; 6) Dyakov; 7) Agranov; 8) Prokofiev; 9) Tovstukha (for Stalin); 10) Molotov; 11) Kaganovich; 12) Yakovlev; 13) Ordzhonikidze; 14) In business; 15) In the department.
INFO OGPU about the mass demonstration in the village. New Chukaly of Buinsk canton of Tataria. January 24, 1930
January 24, 1930
No. 379759 Top secret
January 13 p. in the village of Novye Chukaly Gorodnischenskaya parish Kulak‐anti‐Soviet elements, including Mullah Galyamov, a close relative and representative of the influential Ishanad, were arrested in the Buinsk canton. Old Zadotovka. At the time of preparation of carts and paperwork for sending the arrested from all parts of the village, groups of men and women began to gather to the village school, located next to the village council building. In the latter, at this time, a general meeting was held with an agenda on the work of the village council. After 10‐15 minutes. all those present at the general meeting left the premises of the village council and joined the crowd gathered at the school. The persuasions of the task force and the members of the village council to go home did not produce any results. The crowd kept growing and reached 700‐800 people. Shouts came from the crowd: “Free our mullah immediately. If you take him, we will not let you out of the village. ʺ From the side of the crowd there were attempts to enter the school premises: they began to break down its porch. To calm the crowd, the task force was forced to release the mullah from custody, whom the crowd greeted with shouts of ʺhurrayʺ when leaving the school and carried him to his house. The crowd met on the road two URO officers accompanying another arrested person, a former mullah, and tried to disarm them, while beating them. After seeing the mullah home, part of the crowd of 150‐200 people remained at his house, and the rest returned back to the school. A few minutes later, the rest of the crowd at the mullahʹs house again moved to the school, demanding the immediate release of all the others arrested. They began to break down the school porch, at the same time there were attempts mainly from the side of women, to enter through the window into the school. From the crowd, threatening cries and calls were heard to take up pitchforks and clubs and deal with the task force and the chairman of the village council: “We will tear you all apart here. We must send to the village of Zadorki for the peasants. Give us the chairman of the village council. We will not give a mullah and we will never join the collective. ʺ As a result of this situation, the task force, besieged by a crowd of about 3‐4 people, forced to leave the village of Novye Chukaly. At the moment of the departure of the latter, the crowd of 600‐700 people accompanying them continued to threaten them with sticks, shouting: ʺDo not come here anymore, otherwise we will kill you.ʺ After the departure of the task force, the women in droves with lanterns walked the streets, mainly along the street where the mullah lives, and of the men, courtyards and guards were set up.
On January 14, in the village of St [arye] Chukaly, located 8 versts from the village of Novye Chukaly, gatherings of men and women took place, discussing the events in the village of Novye Chukaly. At these gatherings, calls were noted for organizing all the villages.
It should be noted that in the Buinsk canton, from the beginning of grain procurements, an increase in the activity of kulak‐anti‐Soviet elements was noted. In November and December last year, there were a number of terrorist attacks and arson attacks. In some villages of individual volosts of the Buinsky canton, cases of opposition to collective farm construction were recorded, accompanied by disruptions of the meeting and terrorizing local Soviet party workers and agricultural activists.
In the case, 20 people of initiators and active participants of the speech were arrested.
Assistant Head of INFO OGPU Zaporozhets
Head of the 7th department Agayants
1) Berry; 2) Messing; 3) Evdokimov; 4) Artuzov; 5) Olsky; 6) Prokofiev; 7) Bokiyu; 8) Dyakov; 9) Tovstukha (for Comrade Stalin); 10) Molotov; 11) Kaganovich; 12) In business; 13) In the department; 14) In the department.
INFO OGPU on countering kulaks to collectivization in Ukraine. Based on materials as of January 20, 1930
End of January 1930
No. 380368 Top secret
As the collective farm movement expands, the opposition of the kulakwealthy strata and anti‐Soviet elements of the village collectivization takes on an increasingly fierce and clearly expressed counterrevolutionary character. The methods of the kulaksʹ anti‐collective farm activity are becoming more and more varied and flexible.
Campaigning and spreading rumors
First of all, it should be noted the massive nature of the kulaksʹ anticollective farm agitation and the variety of methods of this agitation. The predominant motive in the anti‐collective farm agitation of the kulaks and the speeches of the kulaks at meetings against the organization of collective farms is the assertion that ʺcollectives are the servant, the peasants will be forced to work exclusively for the stateʺ, ʺthe collectivization system is much worse than serfdomʺ, ʺwho will go to collective, that will work in the same way as under serfdom” (such performances were noted in all districts of Ukraine).
The assessment of collectivization as an event of Soviet power aimed at the final destruction of the peasant economy is especially vividly given in the next speech of the kulak at a meeting on the issue of collectivization in the village. Maidan‐Kurilovetskoe, Litinsky District, Vinnytsia District: “You think,” the kulak said, “that they, having destroyed two or three kulak farms, will limit themselves to this ... you are mistaken. All peasants are small capitalists, the turn will come, and your farms will be destroyed ʺ...ʺ Collectivization is consumption, the first stage of this disease is POP, the second is the artel, and the third stage, after which death occurs, is the commune. ʺ
In other speeches, the kulaks portray collectivization as ʺthe last agony of powerʺ, drawing from this the conclusion that ʺthe peasants must withstand this near‐death offensive.ʺ
The spreading of all kinds of provocative rumors about collective farms with the aim of discrediting the collective farm movement and intimidating peasants joining collective farms is a very widespread method of anti‐collective farm agitation of the kulaks. In Sumy, Nizhyn, Vinnitsa and other districts, kulaks, in order to ensure their agitation and [give] the rumors spread by them more weight, dress in rags and disguise themselves as beggars, pretending to be collective farmers, tell various fables about collective farms, about the difficult material situation of collective farmers, while urging the population not to join collective farms.
More active and organized methods of the kulaksʹ anti‐collective farm activities have also grown in recent years. In a number of districts, the kulaks are calling for organized resistance to the creation of new collective farms, in many cases methods of disrupting collective farm development are discussed by the kulaks at illegal kulak meetings, special kulak groups are organized and formed to disrupt collectivization, meetings on the issue of collectivization are disrupted, etc. (Kharkov, Odessa, Kremenchug, Sumy and other districts).
Extremely characteristic of the mood of the kulaks is the following statement by the kulak, who was trying to recruit a former red partisan into the anti‐collective farm grouping in order to influence the poor and middle peasant masses through him: so that the peasants follow us” (Kremenchug district).
The recruitment of the female masses by the kulaks
Kulak anti‐collective farm agitation is progressing successfully among the backward female masses of the village. A number of cases of the kulaks provoking women to mass protests against collectivization, influencing through women large groups of the middle peasants and poor peasants (“we do not join the POPs because our wives are not allowed there” (Odessa district).
In the Belotserkovsky and Korostensky districts, groups of women of 50 and 100 people, organized by kulaks, went out into the fields demanding the termination of land management work on cutting land to collective farms, and in the village. For three days, a crowd of 100 women in Shcherbatovka, Malinsky District, prevented them from plowing the land belonging to the collective farm. Women who are promoted by the kulaks are often the initiators of the disruption of general meetings on the issue of collectivization, the instigators and participants in mass protests against collectivization. With regard to the impact on the female mass of the village, a special role is played by priests and various sectarians who insist on the need to “look after their
husbands and prevent them from joining collective farms” (Shevchenko District). The main motive of the anti‐collective farm agitation of the churchmen is the indication that “on collective farms it will be prohibited to attend church,
Flyers and terror
Among the anti‐Soviet manifestations on the basis of collectivization, it is necessary to point out the recent increase in the spread of anticollective farm and anti‐Soviet leaflets and kulak terror against collective farm activists. So, in the first 20 days of January, 49 anticollective farm leaflets were found (Chernigov, Kremenchug and other districts).
During the same period, 21 cases of kulak terror on the basis of collectivization were registered, of which 15 were burns of farms of active collective farmers. In a number of districts, the kulaks are moving from setting fire to the property of individual collective farmer activists to the destruction of the socialized property of collective farms (Priluksky, Kievsky, and other districts).
The struggle of the kulaks against the collective‐farm movement is taking on especially sharp and fierce forms in areas that have gone over and are going over to complete collectivization, as well as in border districts.
Self‐dispossession and flight
In a number of districts, there is an increase in self‐dispossession tendencies, the flight of kulaks to other areas of the Union continues with the preliminary liquidation of their farms, and during the liquidation of kulak farms, there are cases of malicious sabotage, expressed in the deliberate damage of complex agricultural machines and their sale for scrap, slaughter, etc. etc. (“now everything is not ours, but the people’s, so let everything be lost”).
Negative moments in the mood of the main strata of the village
The extremely insufficient deployment of mass explanatory work, the intensified anti‐collective farm kulak agitation and the perversion of the class and party line observed in a number of districts during collectivization and dispossession of kulaks cause a number of negative moments in the mood of a part of the poor and middle peasants in connection with collectivization. In a number of regions, individual middle and poor groups, under the influence of kulak agitation, are strongly infected with anti‐collective farm sentiments (ʺthe collective is a trap, it will turn the peasants into farm laborersʺ, ʺwe are being pulled into the collective so that we are eternal slavesʺ ‐ Odessa, Chernigov, etc.. district). In Proskurovsky and other districts, there are a number of cases of leaving collective farms. Individual middle peasant groups are characterized by anti‐poor and wait‐and‐see moods regarding joining a collective farm: “Letʹs wait, weʹll see, how things will go on the collective farms, but for now it is risky to join” (Sumy District). A number of cases of liquidation by individual middle peasants of their property (sale of livestock and agricultural machinery) were also registered. In a number of villages in the Kharkov, Odessa and Kremenchug districts, the cases of the distortion of the class line during dispossession and forced collectivization that took place in a number of villages caused strong discontent among the main strata of the village, which is largely used by the kulaks to strengthen anti‐collective farm and anti‐Soviet agitation.
I. Methods of anti‐collective farm kulak agitation and calls for organized resistance to collectization
Vinnytsia district. Fist from the village. Maidan‐Kurilovetskoye of the Litinsky district, speaking at a general meeting of peasants on the issue of collectivization, said: “You think that they will stop there by destroying two or three kulak farms ... you are wrong. All peasants are small capitalists. The turn will come and your farms will also be destroyed”.
Speaking a second time at the same meeting, he said: ʺCollectivization is consumption, the first stage of this disease is POPs, the second is the artel, and the third stage, after which comes death, the commune.ʺ Mogilev‐Podolsk district. In with. The kulaks of Mervin in the Luchinsky region are agitating against the organization of collectives, they say: “Collectives are the servant ... The peasants will have to work exclusively for the state, receiving a well‐known ration. They will have to do whatever they are ordered to do there. ʺ
Kharkov district. In with. Marafa, Krasnokutsk District, a group of kulaks disrupted a womenʹs meeting dedicated to the issue of collectivization. The kulaks argued to the women: “There can be no collective in the village. Collectivists will walk hungry and ragged. The authorities will take away bread, cattle and money. ʺ
Korostensky district. In with. M. Yablonec of the Barashevsky district kulak, speaking at a general meeting of youth on the issue of collectivization, said: “Hope for you. If further such pressure is exerted against the peasants, the farms will be completely ruined. Already, everyone is feeling the impending hunger. A peasant who takes out grain to the market is chased by 20 buyers and paid 5‐6 rubles per pood.
Shevchenko district. In with. Dubievka of the Smolyansky district, the kulak in a conversation with the peasants said: “The power is not ours, but the workers’s. We are being driven into a collective in order to give a source of wealth to the panamas and underpants of the Soviet regime ... The collective is the panache that our grandfathers and greatgrandfathers fought against. We must also resist this bondage. ʺ
Kharkov district. In with. Zybino kulaks, speaking at a general meeting on the issue of collectivization, said: “We do not join a collective because we know that the poor will use our property. Better we will destroy our farms in an organized manner, burn our property, than give it to these lazy people. ʺ
Pervomaisky District. In with. Lipnyatska, the kulaks in a conversation with the middle peasants said: ʺIf you are drawn into collectives, drive them with sticks, it is enough to deceive the peasants.ʺ
Kharkov district. In with. B. Wells kulak, calling on the peasants to sell their property, said: “Livestock is not needed in POPs. There the Soviet government works the land with tractors. If the cattle is not sold now, then the collective will confiscate it. ʺ
II. Spreading provocative rumors
Sumy district. In with. Bobrik, Ternovsky district, rumors were spread with their fists that a “glass man” had arrived in the village, who would make signs to everyone who joined the collectives. And the children of collectivists will be hanged. The rumors made a great impression on the peasants. The students fled crying to their homes.
Nezhinsky district. In with. In Ivan‐Gorod, Pliskovsky district, kulaks are spreading rumors that five people in a neighboring district in one of the collective farms have gone mad from hunger.
Vinnytsia district. In Turbovsky, Lipovsky and Malinovsky districts, facts were noted when kulaks, disguising themselves in rags, gather groups of peasants in bazaars and, posing as members of the collective, complain about the ʺdifficult financial situationʺ and urge everyone to refuse collectivization. Rumors about an impending war are also spreading here.
Kremenchug district. In with. Ustimovka, Semyonovsky District, according to the chairman of the KVP, he received a provocative letter, which said that life in one of the Crimean communes is worse than under serfdom. The members of the commune, allegedly the authors of the letter, warn that no one should go to the collectives. It is established that the letter was fabricated by a group of kulaks.
III. Disruption of collectivization by kulak groups
Odessa district. In with. There was a kulak group in the Zavadovka of the Berezovsky district, which actively opposed collectivization. The group tried to act through the middle and poor who fell under its influence.
In the hut. Pʹyano‐Gorka, a group of kulaks is conducting subversive work against the organization of the collective. The kulaks openly come out with such statements: ʺLet them not force you to collectivize ... This is a voluntary matter, but, meanwhile, you are being dragged into collective farms under pressure.ʺ
Kremenchug district. In with. In the vicinity of the Brigadirovsky district, a kulak group was organized, consisting mostly of former political bandits and officers. The group, for a more successful resistance to collectivization, began to cultivate the poor man, the former red partisan Hasan. Kulak Maniy, a member of the group, in one of the instructive conversations with Hasan said: “We decided to invite you to our company. The power mocks us, the peasants were robbed, everything was taken away, arrested and driven into the POPs. We need to act: either pan, or disappeared, or we, or they. We need to do so to undermine all local organizations ‐ KSM, KNS, POP, etc. We will not allow them to carry out collectivization. We must make sure that the peasants follow us. ʺ
Chernihiv district. On the whole, the campaign for the complete collectivization of the Kulikovo District is proceeding satisfactorily. The kulaks are fiercely opposing collectivization. The mood of a significant part of the poor and middle peasants is expectant. In with. Kulikovka the kulak Murza processed and gave drink to the poor man, who, with her speeches, disrupted general meetings. Murza is a member of a close kulak group that maintains ties with the priest Milovzorov, who said in one of his conversations: ʺBe patient as Christ tolerated, you will be saved.ʺ
In with. In Avdeevka, Kulikovsky district, the poor and middle peasants fell under the influence of the kulaks. A number of gatherings on the issue of collectivization were disrupted due to the demonstrative withdrawal of the peasants. In with. Saltykova‐Devitsa at a general meeting of peasants on the report on complete collectivization, a noise arose, from the crowd shouts were heard: ʺWe do not want a commune, we will not go to collectives, we will not go and we will not let our husbands in, do whatever you want.ʺ
Proskurovsky district. Continuous collectivization with. Yakhnovets of the Volochissky region caused active opposition from the kulakschurchmen. The kulak, the leader and organizer of ʺTertsiyazhevʺ, rallying the kulak Polish youth around him, is campaigning against collectivization, spreading rumors that those who have joined the collective will be prohibited from visiting the church and performing religious rituals. Thanks to the activities of the second kulak group, headed by Tkachuk, a former gendarme, and Diplevsky, an expert kulak, out of 700 farms in the village, only 200 have so far joined the collective.
In with. Lonki of the Volochissky region out of 150 farms have signed up for the collective farm so far 60. There is an active kulak group in the village, which includes expert kulaks. This group agitates against collectivization and spreads provocative rumors that “upon joining collective farms, all disabled and old people will be destroyed so that. they didnʹt interfere. ʺ
In the villages of Zavaliyki and Kurniki, a kulak group under the leadership of a priest agitates against the organization of the collective, intimidating the peasants with a future war and intervention. Thanks to the activities of this group, the issue of complete collectivization of villages has not yet been resolved.
In with. Tarnarudy of the Volochis district, complete collectivization is hampered solely by the subversive work of a kulak religious group. The group gathers in Sokratskayaʹs house, where anti‐Soviet conversations are held after religious rites. The women who visited this house, who had previously joined the collective, applied to leave the latter.
IV. Womenʹs opposition to collectivization and mass protests
Kharkov district. Sun. Shevchenkovo, a group of women, under the influence of the agitation of the kulaks, convened a meeting of the zemstvo community, where the question of organizing the collective was discussed. The women shouted: “We will not go to the SOP. We have not been and will not be slaves. ʺ
Sumy district. In with. Veeraʹs meeting of women on collectivization was disrupted by the women themselves. Those present at the meeting directly stated: ʺDo not pull us into collectives, we do not want to go.ʺ
Odessa district. In with. N. Zarnitskaya of the Frunzensky district, the peasant women said to the land surveyor who arrived to organize the POP: ʺIf you cut the land, we will beat you and the commission.ʺ On the same day, 11 poor people applied for withdrawal from the POP.
Belotserkovsky district. In with. Taborovo V. Polovetsky district two kulaks organized a group of women of 50 people who came to the field and demanded that the land surveyors stop the work on cutting the land to the collectives. At the same time, shouts were heard: “We do not want collectives, there is cold and hunger. Collectives are a panache and a yoke for the peasants. ʺ
Korostensky district. In with. Shcherbatovka, Malinsky District, a crowd of 100 women prevented the plowing of the land belonging to the collective. Within 3 days, the women refused to obey the order of the village council and did not give the opportunity to start work. It was found that the initiator of the womenʹs performance was the kulak Brovinsky.
Shepetivsky district. In with. Kind Lozi, Polonsky District, a kulak polka, a former noblewoman, deprived of voting rights, campaigned against the organization of the POP. To this end, she walked around the huts, gathered groups of women and conducted conversations with them of the following nature: “Do not go to POP, you will feel bad there. Only dark people are registered in collectives. ʺ As a result, several poor people left the POP.
In with. Gorodnyak Sudilkovsky district, during the organization of the collective on the initiative of the chairman of the religious community Savitsky, his daughter‐in‐law gathered an illegal meeting of believing women, at which the question was discussed: how to disrupt collectivization in the village. The next morning a crowd of women gathered near the apartment of the land surveyors and demanded that the latter leave the village immediately.
V. Kulak Terror Based on Collectivization
Nezhinsky district. Kulak Kpyuzko, resident of the village. Dremailovsky, in an interview with the representative of the Zemsovostvo Krasik said: ʺIf you do not stop the work on collectivization, you will be destroyed.ʺ
Fist from the village. Buromka Ichinsky district, addressing the poor who joined the collective farm, said: ʺIf you take the best land for the collective, everything will burn.ʺ
Odessa district. Fist from the village. Elizavetovka of the Berezovsky district, addressing the members of the collective farm, shouted: ʺWe will cut out all of you collective farmers in one night.ʺ
Pervomaisky District. Kulaks in the village. Krasnopolye Golovanensky district said: ʺWhoever takes up the organization of the team ‐ kill like a dog.ʺ
Kulak, addressing the activists conducting collectivization, said: ʺThe reprisal against them will be short ‐ we will burn their houses and bread.ʺ
Priluki district. Sun. Berezhovtsy, Ivanitsky district, a stable with 13 horses in it, which belonged to the agricultural artel ʺCominternʺ recently organized in this village, was set on fire. The horses were killed.
Chernihiv district. Fist s. Ryabtsy of the Chernihiv region smashed the head of the head of the collective. After that, in a conversation with a fellow villager, he said: “Soon we will take over. We will disperse the collective, break the heads of one or two collectivists, and then they will scatter themselves. ʺ
Kherson district. In with. M. Kopanyakh, Golopristansky District, on the night of January 13, unknown attackers destroyed the monument to those who died in the struggle for the October Revolution, which stood in the center of the village. Recently, local kulaks had stubbornly opposed collectivization.
Vi. Self‐disposal tendencies
Shevchenko district. In with. V. Buromka of the Chernobaevsky District, a group of 10 kulaks is strenuously selling livestock and agricultural implements out of fear of forced collectivization.
Sumy district. In a number of villages in Olshanskiy, Shtepovskiy and Yunakovskiy districts there are mass cases of liquidation of their farms by kulaks.
Shepetivsky district. In the village of Vorobievka, Polonsky District, kulaks, dissatisfied with collectivization, are selling livestock and agricultural implements. On this occasion, the kulak Belebnik said: “I don’t want to be a kulak, I will become a poor man, and although in two years I will be accepted into the collective.”
Dnepropetrovsk district. In the Rudaevsky village council of the Bliznetsovsky district, two kulaks filed an application to renounce their land plots. The local kulak Potrivan did the same, saying: “I have come to surrender my land plot. Housekeeping is now impossible. They tortured us with grain procurements, and by collectivization they will drive us into a coffin. ʺ
Shepetivsky district. In with. Denisovka, Lyakhovetsky district, kulaks, without exception, give up part of their land, and sometimes from the entire land allotment.
Vii. Tendencies towards the creation of kulak collective farms
Zinovievsky district. Hut fist. N. Samarskoe, Bobrinetsky district, explained his joining the collective farm as follows: “There will be no coup in the spring, the power will hold out for another two years. During this time, she will do us a lot of harm and can even completely strangle us. In a collective, we can live peacefully and without damage this time, and there only chips will remain from the communists. ʺ
Kremenchug district. In with. Gorishne‐Plavni, Potoksky district, two kulaks who managed to get into the SDP, in a group of peasants said: ʺWe entered there with the aim of driving him into a dead end, then everyone will know what collectivization is and will not think about it anymore.ʺ
Kamyanets‐Podolsk district. In with. Mustard of the Dunaevets district kulaks are energetically preparing to create their own collective farm from among the most powerful peasant farms. It was decided that there should not be a single poor man in the collective.
Proskurovsky district. In with. Sleshkivtsi of the Felshta region, kulak Kushetskiy has repeatedly spoken out in favor of the creation of separate kulak collective farms. On this occasion, he said: ʺWe fully support the idea of collectivization and would gladly join the collective farm if the authorities allowed us to create a collective of strong owners who love to work, and not those who enter there to play a bummer.ʺ
Konotop district. In the Burynsk District, there is a great movement among the kulaks for the creation of their own kulak farms.
VIII. Excesses and perversion of the class line during dispossession and collectivization
Kharkov district. In a number of settlements in the Okrug, a gross curvature of the class line is noted when collectivization is carried out by the grassroots Soviet apparatus.
In with. Second Plants all property was taken from one middle peasant, only winter clothes were left. Even his underwear was taken from one middle peasant.
By s. Ivanovka, five low‐powered middle peasants have taken all their livestock, including the worker.
Odessa district. In the village. Maryanovka at a general meeting of peasants on the transition to complete collectivization in response to some negative cries of those present, including the poor, the speaker and the chairman of the village council said: “If you don’t want to join the collective, they will force you. The GPU must be called here, it will find the culprit. ʺ
Kremenchug district. In with. V. Lipnyagi, Semyonovsky District, the question of mass collectivization was raised without preparatory work. The speaker on this issue proposed to carry out collectivization ʺin no timeʺ. As a result, the meeting was disrupted.
Tulchinsky district. In with. The Vilakhs of the Tulchinsky District, the general meeting of peasants issued a resolution on collective membership of the already previously organized agricultural artel Trud. Having limited to the specified resolution, without any preparatory and explanatory work among the poor and middle peasants, the village council singled out two village activists ‐ a teacher and a secretary of the Komsomol cell, whom he instructed to start an inventory of the property of all peasants. At night, activists called peasants to the village council through the village executives, where, intimidating with repressions, they entered the peasants on the lists of “volunteers to join the collective”. The peasants, who stubbornly refused, were told that they were deprived of the right to receive goods from the cooperatives, and some, at the initiative of these activists, were attributed to the enemies of Soviet power in the matter of collectivization.
Such methods caused great dissatisfaction among the main strata of the village, which was used by the kulaks for their subversive work. As a result, part of the poor and middle peasants, agitated in advance by the kulaks, came to a meeting on the question of collectivization and failed.
IX. Negative moments in the mood of a part of the poor and middle peasants
A M S S R. V s. Kortnoe, Slobodzeya district, middle peasants Karpov and Sarachan are working on organizing collectives, and they have already managed to recruit up to 200 people who want to join collective farms. Both say that “we need a collective without communists. We will organize two of these ... the communists will take our crops and will not allow our children to attend church. ʺ As a result of such a statement, members of the previously organized collective ʺKotovskyʺ leave the latter and join new agricultural associations. Sarachan is a member of the Central Executive Committee of the AMSSR.
Sumy district. Srednyak from the village. Kozelnoe of the Olshansk District, in a conversation with the peasants about collectivization, said: ʺLetʹs wait, weʹll see how things will go in the collectives, but for now itʹs risky to join.ʺ
Starobelsky district. The middle peasant from the Starobelsky district believes that “the middle peasants can join the collective when there are no poor peasants who have done nothing and are not doing anything”.
Shevchenko district. The middle peasants, in conversation with the peasants, urging them to refuse to join the collective farms, said: “Let them hang, but I will not go to the collective. In the spring there will be a different government and then all the collectivists will be outweighed” (Nesadkovo village, Aleksandrovsky district).
Shevchenko district. Srednyak from the village. Yablunevo, Kanevsky district, in a conversation with peasants, said: “I sell a cow, a horse and all my property, and only then will I go to the team. Enough to work for the beggars, let the team feed me. ʺ
Kremenchug district. In with. Kutsevolovka, when joining collective farms, the middle peasants sell good horses, and in return they buy others, much worse. So, the middle peasant Polovy, a Komsomol member, sold a horse for 200 rubles and bought it for 60 rubles, another middle peasant sold the horse and bought a foal, etc.
[X.] Poor people
Chernihiv district. A poor man, a member of the CNS, speaking at a general meeting in his organization, said: “The collective is slavery. I served with the kulaks, landowners and worked in the mines, but now I have a small, but my own farm, and now I am made a slave and driven into a collective. ʺ
At a general meeting of the poor in the village. Poor Bugrimova spoke on the issue of collectivization in Vykhvostovo Gorodnyanskiy district with the following words: “Let the middle peasants go to the collective first, and then we will go too. We must wait, look around, where to hurry. ʺ
Odessa district. In the Durbailovsky village council of the Grossulovsky district, some of the poor people had the following statements: “We do not join the POPs because our wives are not allowed there”.
Chernihiv district. In with. Borki Ostersky district at three meetings of the CNS on the issue of collectivization, only 14 poor people signed up for the organized POP. Most of those who refused to join were motivated by the disagreement of their wives.
Assistant to the head of INFO OGPU Zaporozhets Head of the 7th department Agayants Correct:
1) Berry; 2) Messing; 3) Evdokimov; 4) Artuzov; 5) Olsky; 6)
Agranov; 7) Tovstukha (for Comrade Stalin); 8) Molotov; 9) Kaganovich; 10) Ordzhonikidze; 11) Yakovlev; 12) .....; 13) In business; 14) In the department; 15) In the department.
INFO OGPU about anti‐Soviet manifestations and abnormalities during collectivization and dispossession in the Moscow industrial region. Based on materials from January 1 to February 17, 1930
At the earliest February 17, 1930
The activity of anti‐Soviet elements in the countryside, opposing the ongoing measures of collectivization and dispossession of kulaks, is characterized, first of all, by a significant number of facts of terror against the workers of the grassroots Soviet apparatus, public workers and collective farmers.
For the period from January 1 to February 17 from. in the region registered (according to incomplete information) 47 terrorist attacks. (In September, 48 cases were registered, in October ‐ 66, in November ‐ 76, in December ‐ 15.)
The largest number of terrorist attacks (19 cases) falls on the Moscow District. In the remaining districts: in Tula and Kolomenskoye ‐ 6 facts each, Kimrsky ‐ 5, Bezhetsky and Kaluga ‐ 4 each, Tverskoy and Orekhovo‐Zuevsky ‐ 2 and Ryazansky ‐ 1.
By the nature of terrorist manifestations, we have:
It should be noted that sabotage, as one of the methods of countering the kulaks to collectivization, is being used significantly.
In addition to the cases of arson indicated in Table 24, facts of damage to collective farm equipment, draft animals, deliberate pollution of water in wells, etc.
Collectivization and dispossession of kulaks (38 cases) are the immediate causes of terrorist attacks.
Terror is mainly directed against the leaders of collective farms and the
Soviet activists of the village (31 cases), as well as against grassroots Soviet workers (11 cases).
The social status of the actual perpetrators of terror can be seen from the following table:
Other anti‐Soviet element
(See Appendix # 1)
2. Mass demonstrations
The last period has seen a significant increase in mass demonstrations in the region. In September last year, there was 1 case, in November and December 5 cases were registered, from January 1 to February 17 this year. we have 14 performances.
The number of participants in the performances is also growing significantly. So, if in 1929 the total number of participants was 6858 in 28 performances, then 4225 people took part in 14 performances for 1/2 month of the current year.
The largest number of performances falls on the Ryazan district ‐ 5,
Kaluga ‐ 3. In the other districts: in the Moscow and Tverskoy ‐ 2 each, Kimr and Tula ‐ one each.
The number of participants and the nature of the performances can be seen from the following table:
Of them with the number of participants
Up to 100 people
Up to 500 people
Up to 1000 people
Of the speeches, the following deserve special attention:
Ryazan env. Ermishensky district, with. Tsarevo. January 26 this year when the kulaks were evicted, a crowd of more than 100 people gathered at their shouts, most of the women, who shouted: “Donʹt touch our kulaks, we canʹt live without them, we demand that we give them everything we took away, we demand complete freedom for our kulaks,” etc. They seized two members of the brigade ‐ collective farmers, and with shouts of ʺhurrayʺ rolled them through the snow and threw them into the air. There were also shouts from the crowd against the Soviet regime and the collective farms.
Ryazan env. Pronsky district, Novo‐Arkhangelsk settlement. January 28 p. An organized crowd of women of up to 300 people came to the village council shouting: “Down with the collective farms, we wonʹt go, donʹt drag us in,” and so on. They immediately passed on lists of those who did not want to go to the collective farm, after which they dispersed.
Ryazan env. Ryazhsky district, Zakhupskaya settlement. January 10 of this year a crowd of 80 women in Ryazhsk came to the assistant to the prosecutor and the chairman of the RIK, demanding to open a church and release the arrested priest Orlin (a former member of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, arrested for agitation against collective farms). After an appropriate explanation, the women dispersed.
Tver env. Rameshkovsky district, with. Builovo. The priest of the church, which was presented with insurance payments in the amount of over 2,000 rubles, appointed a service on January 7. When a significant crowd of women gathered in the church, the priest spread a rumor that the village council was closing the church and he was serving for the last time. An excited crowd of over 300 people, under the influence of the priest, went to the Alyosha village council, shouting: ʺDown with the communists, we will not give the church, we will cover all expenses, we will help the priest.ʺ The crowd increased to 1000 people and all night walked around the village with anti‐Soviet shouts.
Kaluga env. In the Barabinsk region in the village. Vyazovka On February 13, a mass demonstration took place in connection with the fact that the head of the Russian Academy of Education, who was conducting a collectivization campaign in the village, decided to dump the seed fund in the church (the decision to close the church was made 2 weeks before, but practically the closure of the church had not yet begun).
A crowd of women gathered near the church. Someone from the crowd sounded the alarm, a crowd of peasants from the village gathered near the church. Vyazovka and a neighboring village, up to 300 people. The head of the RAO and the policeman left the village amid shouts, whistles and threats from the peasants.
For the MPO districts for the period from January 1 to February 17 of this year. 40 cases of distribution of anti‐Soviet leaflets were registered, mainly directed against measures related to collectivization and dispossession of kulaks.
The most affected districts are: Ryazansky ‐ 14 cases and Tula ‐ 11. In other districts, the following were registered: in Kaluga and Kimrsky ‐ 4 cases each, Moscow ‐ 3, Kolomenskoye ‐ 2, Orekhovo‐Zuevsky and Serpukhovsky ‐ one each. (See Appendix # 2.)
4. Anti‐Soviet groups
In the Moscow District, a number of anti‐Soviet groups consisting of former landowners, officers, kulaks, merchants and ʺformer peopleʺ have recently been identified and liquidated. The groupings systematically carried out anti‐Soviet agitation, especially actively in the last 2‐3 months, agitated against joining collective farms, called for organizing and preparing for an armed uprising against Soviet power.
Attention is drawn to the grouping in the ʺVeshkaʺ and ʺLipkiʺ state farms of the Moscow Zootechnical Institute.
The group consisted of former officers and nobles. The heads of state farms (a cornet and an officer ‐ a former lawyer) grouped anti‐Soviet people around themselves and replaced them with all responsible positions. The grouping disintegrated the state farms economically and politically. Anti‐Soviet and anti‐collective farm agitation was carried out among the surrounding population. The leaders and groups had links with abroad. 10 people were arrested in the case (1 former general, 5 officers of the tsarist white army, a major tsarist official, three landowners‐nobles).
In the Communist area, pos. Khlebnikovo, a 17‐member group of former factory owners, police officers, homeowners and kulaks, was led by the former owner of the gymnasium. The group set itself the goal of uniting all those offended by the Soviet regime and provoking a broad peasant movement against all measures of the Soviet government and the party in the countryside.
The entire group was arrested.
Agitation of the kulaks
The kulaks in their antikolkhoz activities make extensive use of women ‐ peasants and individual middle peasants and poor peasants who are under the kulaks.
Anti‐Soviet and provocative rumors are spreading that ʺa crusade against the Bolsheviks will be announced in the spring.ʺ ʺKerensky and Trotsky with the white army will come to the USSR in the springʺ (Tula environs), about the inevitability of hunger and the collapse of collective farms, the socialization of women on collective farms, and so on.
Tula env. In the Uzlovsky district, with. Smorodino, local kulaks in connection with the upcoming dispossession of kulaks, wishing to appease the poor, distributed clothes, cattle, etc. n. At the same time, the kulaks were agitating, saying: ʺIn a year the Soviet power will burst, what is the use of going against us.ʺ
In the village of Zapolye of the Kobylinsky village council, rumors are spreading with their fists that ʺif the peasants are weak to enter collective farms, then 10 people from each village council will be shot.ʺ
Bezhetsk env. In the Eskovek village council, kulaks are spreading rumors that ʺwhen joining a collective farm, women will have their hair cut and handed over for scrap, women will be stigmatized,ʺ etc.
Moscow env. Under the influence of kulak agitation in the Ramensk region, a number of villages entirely left the collective farms. According to the Aleshinsky village council, 6 villages came out. In the village of Konstantinovka, out of 120 farms that signed up for the collective farm,
Kaluga env. In Detchinsky district, village Pridacha, the disenfranchised kulaks got drunk on the podkulachnik Amozov, who, having appeared at the meeting, perpetrated a mass beating of the poor, thereby disrupting the organization of the collective farm.
In with. Pokrovskoe, under the influence of the agitation of the kulak,
60 owners filed applications for leaving the collective farms.
Similar facts took place in a number of other districts.
Along with this, the kulaks are actively campaigning through wandering beggars and monks (moreover, kulaks often act as beggars). Beggars are bribed with their fists, instructed and sent to the villages (Ryazan, Kimry, Bezhetsk districts).
Bezhetsk env. In with. Khobotskoye, under the influence of a beggar womanʹs story that she had recently been a member of a collective farm, where everything was taken away from her and she was forced to beggar, 50 owners left the collective farm the next day (there are 500 farms in the collective farm).
Kimry env. In the Leninsky, Kimrsky and Konstantinovsky districts, beggars appeared who, posing as former collective farmers, tell the peasants that ʺthey were forced to leave the collective farms, since nothing came of it except strife, fights and debauchery.ʺ
Ryazan env. In the Ryazan region, near the commune ʺRed workerʺ, two beggars were detained, who were conducting anti‐collective farm agitation. When these beggars were checked, it turned out that one was the daughter of a priest, and the other was the daughter of a landowner.
Detained three beggars who campaigned against the collective farm in the Sapozhkovsky district.
In the same area, two monks appeared, campaigning for the ʺimminent coming of the Antichristʺ and ʺthe imminent end of the world.ʺ
Similar facts are noted in p. Troitsky, Saraevsky district, Ryazan district, in the village of Sukovo, Vesgonsky district and Dyakovo,
An attempt to disrupt logging with fists in the Kimry environs.
In the Leninsky district in the local forestry, 600 carts of peasants from the villages of the former Pereyaslavsky district, Vladimir province, are working to transport timber. A rumor was spread among the carters with their fists that all their property was being taken away from their homeland.
Panic arose, many carters demanded a calculation, which threatened to disrupt the logging plan.
By urgently adopted explanatory measures by the district party committee, the panicky mood of the drivers was dispelled.
A lively anti‐collective farm activity on the part of the clergy was also noted.
Tver env. In the Zavidovsky district, a priest disrupted a demonstration of collective farmers.
In the area of the Zavidovsky village council on February 10, about 500 farms joined the collective farm. The organization of the collective farm on February 10 was supposed to be marked with a mass demonstration, by the departure of 400 carts to neighboring villages.
In order to disrupt the demonstration, the pop sat down. Zavidovo Dmitriev had spread a rumor the day before that on February 10 he was performing his last, especially solemn service.
The unusual bell ringing on February 10 and rumors spread the day before drew up to 400 local peasants to the church, due to which the planned demonstration of collective farmers was disrupted.
At the end of the service, the priest made a political speech in which he urged the faithful ʺto rally more firmly around the church and by all means not to allow its closure.ʺ
Kimry env. In the Leninsky district, with. Mineevo, a local priest, in a conversation with a group of women, threatened to be
ʺexcommunicatedʺ from the church if they joined the collective farm, since ʺthe collective farm is an antichrist nest.ʺ
In one of the villages of the Goritsky region, the psalmist organized a meeting in the church (up to 1,000 people participated), at which he said: ʺCollective farms are an institution of the Antichrist, only atheists go there.ʺ
Ryazan env. All L. Zakhupty of the Ryazhsky region, the priest, together with two nuns, campaigned against joining collective farms: “Next year there will be a big famine. All the same, all the collective farms will fall apart. ʺ
In with. Dubrovo, Shilovsky District, a group of Baptists campaigned:
ʺThe Scriptures say that collective farms are the kingdom of Antichrist.ʺ Administration for collectivization
Collectivization measures in a number of districts are accompanied by administration. Facts of arrests and threats of execution, exile to Solovki with confiscation of property, etc., were recorded for refusing to join the collective farm.
In a number of cases, the question of joining a collective farm was posed as subordination or disobedience to the orders of the Soviet government, and the vote was made only ʺwho is against.ʺ
Orekhovo‐Zuevsky env. In the village. Vyalovo and others of the Orekhovsky district, the working brigade, inviting an investigator and a policeman with them, made arrests of all those who did not want to enroll in the collective farm. As a result, the middle and poor peasants of the village were arrested. Ivanovo 11 people, in the village. Golovino ‐ 7 people, etc.
To the objection of the local workers who were present at these outrages, the head of the brigade Dyukov replied: ʺWe will take away union cards and expel from work if you object.ʺ
Similar facts were noted in the Kurovsky district.
Ryazan env. In the Izhevsk region, villages. Village, middle peasant Vlasov was forcibly involved in the collective farm by local organizations. As a protest, Vlasov went on a hunger strike and fasted for 5 days.
Moscow env. In the village. Golovino, Mozhaisky District, when organizing a collective farm, the middle peasant Bordomov refused to join the collective (the whole village entered the collective farm, including Bordomovʹs wife). The chairman of the village council insisted on his entry. Once, having come to Bordomov in a drunken state, he threatened him with exile to Solovki. Bordomov said to the chairman of the village council: ʺYou will not see me alive again.ʺ After the chairman of the village council left, Bordomov stabbed a horse, set fire to the buildings and hanged himself. The chairman of the village council ordered not to remove Bordomov from the noose, although he found him with signs of life.
Tula env. At st. Gorbachevo at a meeting on collectivization, the speaker (member of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks) stated: “Whoever does not go to the collective farm is the enemy of Soviet power, we will have a short reprisal against him. Perhaps we will send such people to Dukhoninʹs headquarters. ʺ The resolution on the organization of the collective farm was adopted.
Similar cases took place in Serpukhovsky, Kaluga and OrekhovoZuevsky districts.
Tula env. In with. Popovo, Aleksinsky district, cell secretary Plakhov imposed a fine of 200‐300 rubles. middle peasants who refuse to join the collective farm. At the meeting of the peasants, Plakhov appeared with weapons and threatened the peasants: ʺIf there is any spell, we will beat everyone.ʺ
Special attention should be paid to the case of exceptional disgrace on the part of local workers, which took place in the Ryazan District (the village of Apeksandrovka, Shatsk District).
Commissioners for collectivization and the spring field campaign Meshchaninov, Gulyaev and Zavsegdataev, together with the chairman of the village council Ignashin, did not carry out absolutely any explanatory work and got drunk beforehand, proceeded to ʺcreateʺ a seed fund.
They carried out their work through searches with threats of weapons, the seeds were taken from the peasants.
A crowd of peasants, about 50 people, outraged by such actions, gathered near the village council, shouting: ʺWe will not give to drunks and hooligans.ʺ
Due to this, the “authorized” were forced to leave the village, but after a while they returned with an armed detachment of 30 people hastily formed from local communists to “pacify”.
The leader of the detachment, the chairman of the commune, Andreev, did not understand what was going on and believed the delegates, panicked the village and began to arrest the peasants. Among the ʺleadersʺ were: 1 farm laborer, 2 poor peasants and 5 middle peasants.
By this time, an employee of the OGPU okrotdel, who had arrived, canceled the arrests and, to clarify the situation, proposed to convene a general meeting of peasants.
At the meeting, after a report on the significance of the seed fund, it was unanimously decided to create it, and the next day the existing seed with red flags was taken to a public barn.
On the admission of kulaks to collective farms
Facts of admitting kulaks and other alien elements to collective farms have been recorded in some areas.
Ryazan env. In the Kasimovsko‐Tatar region, on the initiative of the party worker Aportov, not only the poor and middle peasants are accepted into collective farms.
So, in the village. Tarbaevo, the former landowners Akzhitovs were admitted to the collective farm.
In with. A former breeder, now a kulak Sharinsky, was admitted to the collective farm, to whom Aportov said: ʺGo, we will make you a secretary and will not force you to work,ʺ and so on.
The curvature of the class line during dispossession
Dekulakization in a number of areas took place spontaneously, without sufficient leadership from local organizations and was often carried out in relation to persons whose farms were not kulak (middle peasants, families of dignity of priests).
Characteristic is the case of deprivation of voting rights and dispossession of kulaks, who arrived from the ODVA, and a Red Army soldier of the Terdivision, who have middle peasant farms.
Orekhovo‐Zuevsky env. Dekulakization in the Dmitrovsky district began without the knowledge of the regional organization from the inventory of the property of those who owed agricultural tax arrears (139 farms). Since no explanatory work was previously carried out, the inventory and seizure of property from the debtors caused panic among the population.
In the Kurovsky district, instead of the planned 300 farms, an inventory was made of 400. This number included up to 70 farms of workers, some of them had all their shoes and clothes described.
Tula env. Volovsky district. Dekulakization began without any preparatory work. At the district meeting of the party activist, the secretary of the district committee of the All‐Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was instructed that ʺthere is no need to be afraid of excesses, do not be afraid of a possible bending towards the wealthy.ʺ As a result of this attitude, many middle peasants were included in the lists by local organizations.
Serpukhov env. In the Kashira region dispossession of kulaks began without the knowledge of the district party organization, as a result of which significant distortions took place. No preparatory work has been done. Dekulakization was carried out under the guise of collecting arrears, inventories were made of 200 peasants, of which 25% turned out to have middle peasants and poor peasants. The persons making the inventory were given instructions according to which it was recommended to select everything, including food.
Moscow env. In the village. Stroganovo, Volokolamsk district, committed suicide by a middle peasant who had been deprived of his voting rights a few days earlier. The population, outraged by this incident, expelled from the village the secretaries of the VKP (b) cell and the chairman of the RIK, who had come to carry out dispossession.
In the village. Klimovo, Ramensky district, the general meeting of peasants at the first vote refused to accept the resolution he proposed to evict 12 kulaks and wealthy owners from the village (during the second vote, the resolution was adopted). Later it turned out that among those scheduled for eviction were persons whose families were participants in the civil war. It was planned to evict the family of a former merchant who stopped trading in 1917, the son of the said merchant ‐ a member of the Komsomol, the technical secretary of the village council.
In the Lotoshinsky district, two middle peasants were dispossessed, one of which was a platoon commander who had just arrived from the ODVA, and the other was a Red Army soldier of the Terdivision, who had previously been deprived of voting rights.
In the same area, the middle peasant Danilov, who is a student of the art school, was dispossessed. Danilov was previously stripped of his voting rights as the son of a former contractor who died before the revolution.
The facts of dispossession of middle and poor peasants are also found in Ryazan, Kolomenskoye, Serpukhovsky, Bezhetsky, Kimrsky and other districts.
During the dispossession of kulaks, there were cases when workers who came to the villages raised fire, intimidated the population, arousing the discontent of the peasant masses with their actions.
Attention is drawn to the cases of mismanagement of property confiscated from the kulaks and the division of confiscated between members of the collective farm, drinking parties arranged with the money received from the sale of confiscated property.
Moscow env. Resurrection area. In with. Solovkovo, when registering the property of the kulaks, the secretary of the cell, Galkin, threatened with weapons. Defects made during the inventory and seizure of property from the kulaks in the village. Solovkovo, aroused the sharp discontent of the peasants, who organized a meeting (attended by 90 people) and decided to protest against this kind of searches and property inventories and to allocate a delegation to travel to Moscow with a complaint about the actions of local authorities.
Tver env. In the Likhoslavl region, with. Zolotino, during the seizure of the property from the priest Vinogradov and the deacon of Kavsky, part of the property was plundered by members of the commission headed by Chairman Kokorev. The eviction commission ended with a threeday booze in the house of the evicted deacon, who was allowed to take back part of his property. The chairman of the village council, in a state of severe intoxication, walked the streets and shot aimlessly into the air.
Orekhovo‐Zuevsky district. In the Kurovsky district, the property taken from the kulaks was piled up in a completely unsuitable room, where it was damaged.
Ryazan env. In the Spassky, Shilovsky and Ukolovsky districts, there were a number of cases when the property confiscated from the kulaks was not handed over to collective farms, but was distributed among the population.
Similar facts took place in the Kolomna, Kimrsky and OrekhovoZuevsky districts.
It is also necessary to note the facts of hooliganism that offend the religious feelings of believers.
Kaluga env. In with. Babynino of the same district, a group of young people, having opened a church and taking church utensils, put on a priestʹs vestments on a horse and rode through the village with red flags.
Kimry env. In with. Pushpolas from the Verbilkovskaya porcelain factory arrived workers with an orchestra to stage the performance. Since the premises in the teahouse for staging the play turned out to be insufficient, Zhukovʹs hut suggested staging the play in the church, which was done. The arrangement of the performance in the church caused discontent among the population.
In the Tula environs. there were several cases of suicide by kulaks after dispossession.
In with. Chulkovo, Skopinsky district, on February 8, a fist was shot and his property was confiscated. They were left with a note: ʺI cannot live in the current conditions, there is strong persecution by the authorities.ʺ
In with. Knyazevo tried to hang himself with a fist subjected to dispossession.
Negative aspects of workersʹ mood in relation to collectivization
Antikolkhoz sentiments among workers associated with agriculture
Antikolkhoz sentiments at the industrial enterprises of the MPO are shown by certain groups of workers with ties to agriculture.
In a number of enterprises, the workers registered the facts of ʺdumpingʺ of land allotments, refusal to join the collective farm and withdraw from the collective farms (Moscow, Moscow, Tula, Kimrsky and Tverskoy districts).
The reluctance of workers to join collective farms and the desire to sever ties with agriculture are often caused by fears: ʺif you join a collective farm, you will be cut off from productionʺ or ʺthe earnings of family members on the collective farm will be socialized.ʺ
The spread of antikolkhoz sentiments in a number of cases is due to the weakness of mass work on the part of local parties and trade‐union organizations.
It should be especially noted that individual members of the CPSU (b) are also carriers of anti‐collective farm sentiments.
In the city of Moscow, Moscow, Tula and other districts, facts have been recorded when individual party members have a negative attitude towards collectivization and dispossession measures, liquidate their property in the countryside, and refuse to travel to work on collective farms.
(See Appendix No. 3)
In connection with the measures directed against the kulaks, the manifestation of anti‐Soviet activity on the part of a socially alien element that has penetrated into the working‐class environment (associated with the kulak economy, ʺformer peopleʺ, etc.)
Their anti‐Soviet agitation is basically of the same character as the agitation of the kulaks in the countryside.
ʺThe end of the Soviet regime will come soon because the policy it pursues brings patience to the limit and ruins the peasantry and workersʺ (Promcooptovostovstvo plant ʺVesyʺ, Moscow). ʺCollective farms are also serfdom, not a single peasant will voluntarily go thereʺ (lifting equipment plant, Moscow). ʺThe communists in the countryside are engaged in robbery and violence against the peasantry ... The village groans with the tyranny of the communistsʺ (the ʺProletarkaʺ factory, Tverskoy okr.), Etc.
In some cases, anti‐Soviet workers disrupted peasant gatherings dedicated to collectivization.
(See Appendix No. 4)
Information on the shortcomings of collectivization and preparation for the spring sowing campaign is given in a separate appendix.
(See Appendix No. 5).
APPENDIX No. 1
The facts of terror and sabotage
Bezhetsk env. Vesyegonsk district. In the village. Pesterovo January 10 of this year two wealthy peasants killed an activist of the same village Shabanov for active social work.
Kimry env. Leninsky district. January 20 p. on the way to the village. Mishukovo, the corpse of a murdered Komsomol member was found, he is also the chairman of the Mishukovsky village council, which was actively working on collectivization.
Kolomna env. Ashitkovsky district. In February of this year. in the village. The old one was burnt about 300 poods. hay belonging to the collective farm. The fire broke out at a time when a general meeting of peasants was taking place at the local school on the report of the village council and the approval of the plan for the sowing campaign.
Kolomna env. Resurrection area. In the village. At Kosnikovo, hay lying near the collective farmʹs stockyard was set on fire, in order to set fire to the stockyard and the collective farmersʹ dwellings.
Moscow env. Zagorsk region. In the village. Adamovo January 17 this year the collective farmer Adamovaʹs house burned down from an arson. At the time of the fire, it was discovered that the door and the gate outside were bolted with stakes.
Moscow env. Leninsky district. In the village. Sadovaya Sloboda, during the dispossession of the kulak Nosik, the son of the latter attempted to murder the chairman of the village council, but the blow was deflected.
Tver env. Likhoslavl region. February 6 this year at st. Baranovka, October Railway from the arson burned down a mill belonging to the collective ʺZarya kommunizmaʺ near the village. Baranovka.
Tver env. Tolmachevsky district. January 15 this year the agronomist Knyazev, returning from the Verny Put collective farm, was attacked by two unknown citizens, one of whom struck Knyazev on the head with a stone. The attacker turned out to be the son of a kulak, cleared from the collective farm.
Tula env. Uzlovsky district. In with. Prokhorovka was stabbed in the back by the agricultural representative, collective farmer Astapov, while drawing up an act for moonshine brewing in the citizen Negodyaeva. He was wounded by a fist from the same village for Astapovʹs active work on collectivization.
Moscow env. Shakhovsky district. On the farm at the village. The settlement podkulachnik Zharov was engaged in sabotage: he put nails in the food of collective farmers.
Moscow env. Communist region. In the village. Ivashevo, 3 cases were registered when the deprived Filippova and the wealthy Kostyreva poured kerosene into the well.
A similar fact took place on the collective farm of the village. Stolbovo,
Moscow env. Ramensky district. In a number of villages, the kulaks took cattle away from the collective farmers and hid them in the forest.
In the collective farm ʺMigrantʺ, the fact of damage by kulaks of collective farm implements was noted.
Ryazan env. Aleksandro‐Nevsky district. In with. Rust fists cut off the tails of meat from five horses of the collective farmers.
APPENDIX No. 2
Tula env. On February 7, a handwritten leaflet was sent to the Secretary of the Bogoroditsk District Committee of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks with the following content:
“Comrades, you have gone far in your predatory policy, oh how far. And intoxicated with robbery and robbery, they forgot about the danger that threatens you. You seized power into your own hands, established your dictatorship, taking over everything that was in the country. The people followed you firmly, believing in the freedom and universal equality that you promised. But where is what you promised. Where? Instead of living freely, enjoying all the rights of free citizens, the people should, just as in the former tsarist times, look out from under a stick and from a stick who, who promised him complete freedom.
It is hard to see such a difficult situation in our country, to which you, you, who have taken on a most difficult task and have not been able to fulfill it, have brought it.
You promised complete freedom, where is it? Where is freedom of speech, where is freedom of the press? There is no trace of them. The people are scared to such an extent that they are afraid to say a word and whisper in the corners. The newspapers are full of lies. Where is the truth? She is nowhere to be found. It is not in your speeches either. In your reports, you give figures about the achievements of your construction, about the brilliant growth of your economy, but all this is empty ravings, the empty flowers of your eloquence, there is not even a grain of truth in them.
On the contrary, the economy is collapsing, falling into decay, we have an acute shortage of consumer products, building materials, etc.
But your biggest mistake was the question of the collectivization of agriculture. Here, on this front, you have not disappointed your resources and now you yourself will answer to the people. By dispossessing the wealthy part of the village, by confiscating the property and houses of former merchants in the city, you thereby acquired such enemies for yourself, which the tsar did not have. By forcibly driving the peasants into the collective farm (we say forcibly because this is actually the case), you increase discontent among the peasants and know that it will be bad for you when the time comes to pay for everything you have done. Do not think that all this will pass with impunity, it is not true, the hour of retribution will come, and the time of reckoning will come. But do not blame anyone for this, you yourself are to blame. With your drastic measures, you achieve your doom. What are you doing? You have introduced the Red Terror. Arbitrariness and violence reign in the country, you have embittered the masses against yourself. You have undermined the trust of everyone who trusted you before. Everyone turned their backs on you, and know that you will not have defenders and you should not rely on anyone. Your peasantry constitutes the main mass, but in their eyes you have long ago lost your authority. Sing, comrade dictators, “spring will not come for me”, and you will not be mistaken in that. Spring will come, but not for you. You must know this for sure. ʺ
Tula env. Odoyevsky district. In the village of Odoev on February 5 this year. a handwritten leaflet was found with the following content: “A small handful of lying communist robbers went too far in their violence. Having left the people, she bends her brothers in an arc, strangles them with taxes, drives them to the collective farm with a stick, forcing them to give up all their property, acquired by sweat and blood, while they themselves do not go there. Not only that: instead of improving the situation of the population in 13 years, they put everyone on a quota, robbing the population of millions of poods of grain, they, sending it to no one knows where, give the poor people 300 grams, and even then not everyone.
Citizens, promising good things in the collective farms, they deceive you, as they deceived you in 17, putting on a sheepʹs skin, turning out to be in fact wolves. Do not go to collective farms, do not let yourself be deceived, for soon sheepʹs tears will pour out to the wolves. The hour of vengeance and vengeance will soon strike ‐ it is not far off. (One of many)ʺ.
Tula env. In the city of Efremov on January 31 of this year. a handwritten leaflet was posted at the corner of two streets with the following content: “Worker and peasant, go to the collective farm, they will give you sugar and they will strip you like a squirrel. Brothers rise up against this collective farm building! Is that why we made a revolution to put on our chains?! By driving you to a collective farm, they take away everything that you have earned with sweat and blood.
Moscow env. Kuntsevsky district. In the village. In TrinityGolenishchevo, poor disabled man Gusev hung out on the doors of the cooperative an appeal with the following content: “Comrades, Red Army men! You defend the rights of free citizens and the population, but look what is happening around you. They recognized your father as an individualist, exiled for 5 years, took property, threw your mother out into the cold, your brothers moan from the cold, they were deprived of bread. There is violence and robbery in the country, you cannot say a word, there is nowhere to look for protection. We ask you: save us and the country, turn your bayonets against the rapists. Long live freedom, long live free peasants! ʺ
The specified poor man is the author of this appeal and led systematic agitation against the collective farm, for which he was expelled from it.
Kimry env. Kuznetsovsky district. February 12 in the village. B.Housewarming leaflet taken from the telephone pole with the following content: “30th year. Citizens, we urge you, do not be fainthearted, give a strong rebuff to the brigadiers, not considering ourselves subject to them, for they lead us to the ruin of our economy and to poverty. Do not attach importance to their words, they splurge, get ready for an uprising. Down with the Red Terror, long live the thought of capital! ʺ
Ryazan env. In the Shilovsky district with. Toffee February 7 this year 4 copies of leaflets were found, pasted in different places, with the following content: “Comrades, do not go to the collective farm, in the spring there will be a war and all the collective farmers and communists, we will hang the Komsomol, pour kerosene and burn it. Comrades donʹt go to the collective farm, but fight back the communist. Down with communism and the Komsomol and its henchmen! ʺ
Kolomna env. In the Kolomensky district, der. Vasilyevo, a leaflet written in pencil was found on the gates of the fire shed: “1930th year. Oppression is worse than tsarism. What does the CPSU (b) mean? ‐ All‐Russian Serfdom of the Bolsheviks. Comrades communists, we do not want to be under oppression, let us out of your iron ring. ʺ
Serpukhov env. In the Lopasnensky district, a handwritten leaflet was posted on a telegraph pole: “Attention! Down with Soviet power! Long live the war, which is greeted with delight by the entire bourgeoisie, we workers and peasants, down with it, hurray! Get ready. It is enough to rob people. Lenin and Kalinin are robbers to the whole people. ʺ
APPENDIX No. 3
Antikolkhoz sentiments among workers associated with agriculture
Mountains. Moscow. Plant ʺBoretsʺ Mashinotrest. Stirzenshchik said: “The last cows in the village were taken away from me. Everyone is trying to get me to go to a collective farm, but I have stated many times that I will not go to a collective farm, that peasants will never live on collective farms, since the peasants are used to living independently of anyone. ʺ
Wine‐making plant ʺProletarian Laborʺ. The worker said: “The collective farm is taking away agricultural machines from the peasants. Weʹll have to make sure in time to sell everything that is in the village before they take it away. ʺ
20th printing house ʺRed Proletarianʺ. The typesetter said: ʺI decided to liquidate the economy in the village and move to live in Moscow.ʺ Plant ʺRusskabelʺ No. 3. There were no volunteers in the allocation of the collective farms. Of those appointed by the cell, many party members applied to the cell with a refusal to go (Alayansky, Samokhvalov, Kozlov, etc.). The workers say about this: ʺCommunists know how to speak in words, but when it comes to business, they drift.ʺ
Calico‐printing factory named after Sverdlov. A commission was set up to carry out the allocation for sending workers to collective farms. Of the members of the All‐Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Ulanov, outlined by the commission, said in the cell: ʺIf you want, mobilize, but I still wonʹt go.ʺ A member of the CPSU (b) Yashin gave his consent, and then categorically refused, and a member of the CPSU (b) Pilevin also refused.
Moscow env. A member of the VKP (b) Samovarov, assigned from the Vysokovsk factory to work on the collective farm, among the workers said: ʺCollective farms are a sharp knife for me and I will take all sorts of measures to somehow stay in place or get back from the road.ʺ
At the Izmailovo spinning and weaving mill (Reutovsky district), Fedorovich, a member of the AUCP (b), in a group of non‐party workers said: “I do not agree with the decree of the Central Committee of the AUCP (b) about sending workers who do not understand anything to responsible leadership work in collective farms ... The party, probably, in the fury of ultimate death, sends hopes, just to fulfill its decree. ʺ
Naro‐Fominsk factory. About 50 cases of workersʹ refusal to join collective farms were registered
Ateptsovskaya Stationery Factory ‐ 18 cases of refusal.
8 farms of workers of the factory. Rudzutaka (Noginsk district) left the collective farm. The workers explain the exit from the collective farm by the difficulty of simultaneously working on the collective farm and in production.
Tula env. Tula Arms Factory. In a construction workshop, among individual workers associated with the countryside, conversations were noted: “The peasants will be forced into collective farms, which will not bring good, but will only ruin our farms ... We will never go to collective farms. Communists are mistaken if they think that the peasants will voluntarily and willingly ruin themselves, renounce their goods and put lazy people on their shoulders. ʺ
Sugar factory (Tula). A worker associated with a village in a group of 10 people said: “In the village, they harass my family to go to the collective farm. I think to write a letter and offer to sell all the livestock and all property, but in no case go to the collective farm. ʺ
Tula Cartridge Plant. In a rolling workshop, the annealing man, speaking about collective farms, said to a group of workers: ʺI have a father in the village, even if he goes to a collective farm, I will never go there and Iʹd rather give up the land.ʺ
Tula Arms Factory. In a model workshop, two workers who have connections with the village sent an application to the village council to have their land plots removed from them, since they did not want to join the collective farm.
Tula Arms Factory. The workers, members of the CPSU (b), Efimov and Prokhorov, in a group of non‐party workers, said: ʺThe present policy of collectivization in the countryside is violence ... The peasants are being driven into the collective farms with a revolver and a rifle.ʺ
In the same place, in the capital construction department, almost allparty workers who have connections with the countryside gave up land so as not to go to collective farms. Some party members ‐ Stroganov, Lazeev and others, expressing dissatisfaction with the partyʹs policy in the countryside, said: ʺThe party has taken a very steep line, the peasants are forcibly forced to enroll in collective farms.ʺ
In the same place, in the warehouse department, a member of the Komsomol Panfilov at first voluntarily agreed to go to the collective farm, and a few days later began to categorically refuse and handed over the Komsomol ticket to the cell, saying: ʺI will never go to the collective farm, let them do whatever they want with me.ʺ
Gortram (Tula). The chief of the city station Shuturkin (candidate of the CPSU (b)) was sent to work on collectivization in the Laptev region. A few days later he returned and began to say among the workers: ʺI will no longer work in the village, it has become impossible to live there, the peasants are embittered, all the people are dark, and they will kill him.ʺ
Kosogorsk metallurgical and cement plant. The candidates of the AllUnion Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the locksmith Efimov and Kaznacheyev, spoke of collectivization among the workers: “This issue will not work anyway. Everything that is now planned will not come true. Lenin died and without him our rulers will sooner or later have to close. ʺ
Tver env. Wagon plant. The workers who had connections with the peasantry said: ʺThe life of the peasants who joined the collective farms is ruined, I do not want to do anything, some thought to improve their economy, now they decided to abandon those who have livestock ‐ it is better to give it up for nothing, just not to give it to the collective farm.ʺ
Kimry env. At the porcelain factory with. Verbilki and Zaprudne, a project was developed for the socialization of vegetable gardens owned by workers, as well as their livestock. The project on Zaprudnya was discussed 3 times and failed three times, as the workers categorically speak out against socialization: ʺIt may be expensive to maintain a cow, but it is her own, not a public one.ʺ
APPENDIX No. 4
Facts of kulak sentiment among workers
Mountains. Moscow. 16th factory Moskvoshvey (Moscow). A carpenter who has land and a house in the village and who leases the land to the peasants used to say in a group of workers: “The five‐year plan will pull out all the veins of the workers and peasants. There is no difference between corvee and collective farm building. ʺ
Building No. 101 Gospromstroy (Moscow). A painter (a former contractor, dispossessed) in a group of workers said: “At this time in the village all the peasants are forced into the collective farm and for this purpose 25,000 workers are sent from the cities. By this they want to create the old corvee, the collective farms will be what the landownersʹ estates used to be”.
Plant ʺBoretsʺ Mashinotrest (Moscow). A foundry worker who has a well‐to‐do agriculture in the village said in a group of workers: ʺThe peasants are forcibly driven into collective farms ... As soon as a war starts, we would hang all these bastards communists.ʺ
Garment factory ʺKrasnaya Oboronaʺ Moskvoshvey (Moscow). The ironer of the 1st group (who has a well‐to‐do farm in the countryside) said about grain procurements and collectivization: ʺThey take all the last from the peasants, all the same they will not succeed with collectivization.ʺ
Moskomstroy hostel (Moscow). The worker, receiving letters from the village, talked among the workers: “The local government is ruining the peasants, taking away the last bread and cattle, forcibly enrolling in collective farms; quit work and defend their interests. ʺ Under the influence of his agitation, part of the workers, including 15‐20 people, quit their jobs and together with him left for their homeland in January.
Koferazveska Tsentrosoyuz (Moscow). In a group (5 people), an employee of the raspberry branch (personally known) said: “Why are they now putting such pressure on the fist. After all, if the Soviet government does not put into practice the measure of dispossession, then the stick will turn in the opposite direction and something like St. Bartholomewʹs night will turn out. ʺ
Bukharinsky trampark (Moscow). The inspector said: “State and collective farms are one communist utopia. Whoever goes to collective farms dooms himself to certain death. Collective farms are no different from serfdom: then they exploited and beat the peasants with a stick, so it will be on the collective farms. ʺ
Plant ʺKleytukʺ No. 6 TEZHE (Moscow). Regarding the sending of workersʹ brigades to the countryside, three factory workers said: ʺNow they are sending workers to collective farms in order to completely ruin the peasants and whoever goes will not be in good luck.ʺ
Moscow environs in the village. Shapilovo at a meeting against collectivization, two workers of the factory. Uglanov, saying: ʺWe will not go to the collective farm, weʹd better leave the land and go to the factory.ʺ As a result of their speech, the meeting was disrupted and the question of the collective was postponed.
On the same day, the initiator of the collective farm organization received a threatening anonymous letter.
At the October factory, at a general meeting of workers, a weaver (a former church headman) spoke out against the organization of the collective farm, saying: ʺWe cannot be forced into the collective farm, we have nothing to do there,ʺ after which he demonstratively left the meeting, taking about 40 people with him.
The workers of the Zubov factory, associated with the peasantry, disrupted a number of meetings in the villages of Zubovo, Mishnevo and Yeltsevo on the issue of collectivizing the countryside.
Tula env. At the Tovarkovo coal mines, anti‐Soviet elements are spreading rumors about the confiscation of property from the poor and middle peasants and that all workers will be driven into collective farms. These rumors covered almost the entire working mass and were reflected in a decrease in productivity. So, for example, coal production has fallen sharply recently: instead of 2,100 tons per day, 1200‐1400 tons were supplied upstairs. Up to 30% of workers did not go to work on shift. Performance dropped by an average of 10%.
Tula Cartridge Plant. Worker Isaev, a former member of the CPSU (b), expelled during the purge, is agitating among the workers against the partyʹs policy in the countryside, saying: “Everything is taken from the peasants by force. Now we have the power of the real bourgeoisie, and not of the workers, as it plunders at the same time both the peasants and the workers ... It is necessary to cut off all the commissars, together with them the Jews, these henchmen of the Soviet power, and the communists. ʺ
A former member of the CPSU (b) Shirokov, expelled from the party for purge as a criminal element, is also conducting anti‐Soviet agitation, saying: “Now we will soon wait for our time and show our rulers that we really are workers, not henchmen. We see all the outrages that are being arranged with the workers and peasants. ʺ
A cartridge‐case worker, who had connections with the countryside, in a group of 5 workers said: “Collective farms are worse than corvee, they force us to go there, we will live there under a whip. Now they donʹt stand on ceremony with our brother‐peasant. Damn this Soviet power, let it have no bottom, no tires with these collective farms. ʺ
Tverskoy okr. Factory ʺProletarkaʺ. Mechanics department. Workers of the plumbing and heating plant Rubtsov, Zhernov and others said: “The policy pursued by the Party and the Soviet government towards the kulak is wrong. The Soviet government does not destroy the kulak, it does not exist, but is destroying exemplary peasant farms, the communists in the villages rob the peasants and rob their own property. Everyone is imprisoned, all the prisons in the republic are overcrowded with working peasants, the whole of Russia groans from communist oppression. ʺ (A member of the CPSU (b) Zhavoronkov, being present, did not mind this).
Water supply and heating workshop. Three firemen of the shop (homeowners) with a peasant farm said: “The communists in the villages are engaged in robbery and violence against the peasantry, they force the peasants to unite into collective farms, they rape the peasants in the countryside, and the workers in the city. The village groans from the tyranny of the communists. ʺ
The fireman of the shop said: “The communists are doing wrong, destroying kulak farms; the organization of collective farms is a useless thing, the party and the government terrorize the peasants, the peasantry has never experienced such oppression as it does under Soviet rule. The moment will soon come when the peasants and workers will pay back with blood for their blood, the communists will be responsible for robbing and robbing the peasants. ʺ
APPENDIX No. 5
Information about the shortcomings of collectivization and preparation for the spring sowing campaign in the Ryazan, Kaluga and Kimry districts of the MPO on February 17, 1930
Collectivization progress in the district
On average for the district on February 17 this year. 50% of peasant farms were collectivized, but in some, the largest regions, the percentage of collectivized farms is much lower (Sapozhkovsky District — 17.5%, Sasovsky — 26.3%, Ukolovsky — 31.8%).
In Sasovskiy, Spasskiy, Kadomskiy and other districts, the simplest forms of associations prevail ‐ partnerships for joint cultivation of the land, work on transferring them to statutes of higher forms of association is not being carried out.
In a number of regions, small, ʺdwarfʺ collective farms predominate. Thus, in the Sasovsky district, out of 22 collective farms, there are less than 50 farms — 17, in the Chuchkovsky district — out of 45 — 24, in Sapozhkovsky — out of 20 — 10, in the Ukolovsky — out of 17 — 10.
The socialization of the means of production on the collective farms is proceeding at an extremely slow pace; in some areas this work is only just beginning.
Having in the district on February 1 with. On average, 50% of the socialized working cattle, in some areas collective farmers socialized in Erakhtursky ‐ 2.5%, Storozhilovsky ‐ 1.7%, Tumskoye and Petelinsky ‐ 3% each.
It should be noted that on the part of the village council, a formal, bureaucratic attitude towards collective farm construction is often noted.
In the Shilovsky region, 19 district village councils limited themselves to general information about collectivization at meetings and plenary sessions of village councils.
The absolute majority of the village councils of the Spas‐Klepikovsky district does not take any part in the work on collectivization.
Individual members of the village councils, and in isolated cases and the village councils as a whole, directly oppose collective farm construction.
In Erakhtursky district (village Khlebnikov), the chairman of the village council at a meeting of the poor on collectivization proposed and by means of pressure passed a resolution: ʺApprove the measures of the
Soviet government, refuse collectivization.ʺ
In Saraevskiy, Kasimovskiy, Spasskiy, Ukolovskiy and other districts a number of facts of refusals of workers of village councils to join collective farms were registered, and these refusals are usually accompanied by statements: “We must wait with collectivization. The peasants will not go to collective farms, and if this is so, then we cannot break away from the masses either. ʺ
Delivery and distribution of machines
The delivery and distribution of agricultural machinery is proceeding unacceptably slowly. On February 1 of this year. 30,038 plows out of 35,029 plows were delivered in the district according to the plan, and 294 were distributed; seeders delivered 294 pcs. (20% of the planned delivery), 93 pieces were distributed. and out of 338 factory cultivators (30% of the planned delivery) I.
Of the tractor parts demanded by the district in the amount of 47,000 rubles. received mainly parts of secondary importance in the amount of about 9000 rubles. and the application for 670 tons of section iron was satisfied only by 15%.
The situation with the repair of agricultural machinery, and especially tractors and implements attached to them, is extremely unsatisfactory.
So, Ryazhskaya and Ryazan tractor workshops, on assignment, must repair 87 tractors and 64 trailed implements. Renovated on February 1 this year. d. 8 tractors and 2 trailed implements.
Semfond OkrZU and regional organizations actually started to create a sefond only in February this month. g.
Collectivization progress in the district
On February 1, pp. 19.6% of peasant farms were collectivized in the district, some districts significantly exceeded the average percentage of collectivization in the district (Peremyshl ‐ 61%), at the same time, a number of districts were extremely behind (Borovsky ‐ 6.3%).
Shortcomings in the work of local organizations
District organizations have no information about the work of collectivization workersʹ teams. The work of the latter is carried out without coordination with local organizations.
The OkrZU plan for the sowing campaign was drawn up in a ʺcabinetʺ order, without taking into account the real possibilities, places and, in addition, extremely cumbersome (on 62 pages with a mass of various tables and information attached).
OkrZU and the Kolkhozsoyuz manage regional organizations extremely insufficient and they do not have accurate information about the work done.
In a number of districts of the okrug, work with the poor is clearly insufficient, it is purely random.
In Babyninsky, Ugodsko‐zavodsky and Maloyaroslavsky districts, groups of the poor have not been created.
There are 4 groups in the Kaluga region, none of them works.
In the same district, the Pervomaiskaya party cell included the entire poor of the village in the group of the poor at the village council.
The situation is similar in the Ferzikovsky district.
Conducted in the month of January c. On the issue of collectivization and sowing campaign, district non‐party conferences of peasants were not sufficiently provided with delegates from the poor part of the village and the middle peasants. Elections of delegates by the grassroots Soviet and Party organizations were carried out ʺhastilyʺ, due to which there was a significant contamination of the conferences by anti‐Soviet elements. For example, in the Babyninsky district, the podkulachniki (delegates of the conference) did not allow the poor woman to speak, who rebuked their anti‐Soviet statements. A group of podkulachnikov tried to disrupt the conference with noise and brawl.
A number of anti‐Soviet speeches were at a conference in Cherepetsk and other regions.
Semfond and collection of advances for machine supply
Semfond collected at a rate of 13.9% (by February 1); sorted seeds 9.8% of the planned target.
In Babyninsky district, there are 4 collective farms out of 170 villages in the district and 13 out of 38 collective farms. According to the plan, 26885 centners were to be sorted in the district no later than January 15, while only 1103 centners were sorted by February 1.
In the Maloyaroslavsky district, a semen fund was created in 8 out of 24 collective farms and sorted out 26% of the planned target for sowing material.
Deposit for a tractor out of the planned 120,000 rubles. only 12,729 rubles were collected.
Delivery and distribution of machines and mineral fertilizers
The situation with the delivery of agricultural machinery in the Kimry environs is also not good.
Failure to deliver (against the planned target) is expressed: plows ‐ 3471 pcs. (out of 7190), seeders ‐ 152 (out of 205), graders ‐ 17 (out of 32), etc.
The districtʹs application for mineral fertilizers has been cut by 50%.
On the part of local organizations, there is a negligent attitude towards contracting issues, as a result of which rye was contracted 141 ha out of 4,000 under the plan, oats — 150 ha out of 28020, flax — 60 ha out of 11,764.
The issue of agricultural personnel is extremely acute: there are only 19 people in the district.
Assistant Head of INFO OGPU Zaporozhets Head of Division 1
KRO OGPU ʺPreliminary results of the operational work of the organs of the OGPU in the fight against counter‐revolution in the countryside from January 1 to April 15, 1930ʺ. April 29, 1930
April 29, 1930
The past months of 1930 (January‐April), in an atmosphere of extensive socialist construction in the countryside, the complete collectivization of a number of regions of the USSR and the line on the elimination of the kulak as a class, are characterized by an especially sharp intensification of the class struggle in the countryside.
Against the background of a significant aggravation of the class struggle in the countryside, against the background of a general rapid growth of counter‐revolutionary kulak activity, the counterrevolutionary element of all shades and trends has extremely intensified its work.
White Guards, White Insurgents, Petliurists, former bandits, SocialistRevolutionary element, Dashnaks, Ittihastists, Mussavatists, clergymen, sectarians, etc. and so on — all of them, in a close‐knit front with the counter‐revolutionary kulak, waged a stubborn, fierce struggle against Soviet power and its measures, especially collectivization.
The rapid growth in the activity of counter‐revolutionary kulak elements during these months largely followed the line of organized counter‐revolutionary activity. The role of organizers usually belonged to the ʺoldʺ counterrevolutionary cadres (a terry White Guard bandit element).
The counterrevolutionary kulak activity of this period is characterized primarily by the fact that, along with frenzied, stubborn resistance to the measures of Soviet power, counterrevolutionary kulak White Guard bandit elements, regarding the situation as extremely ʺfavorableʺ for a ʺgeneral uprisingʺ and the overthrow of Soviet power, no longer only worked the underground plans of struggle for the overthrow of Soviet power, not only carried out preparatory counterrevolutionary work, but in a number of places also went directly to the implementation of their plans, to direct insurrectionary military actions.
If in 1929 the counter‐revolutionary kulak element, resisting and opposing the measures of Soviet power, more and more showed insurrectionary tendencies, then in the past period in a number of regions we have already had these tendencies implemented in the form of kulak counter‐revolutionary uprisings and uprisings in order to overthrow Soviet power and widespread banditry, which also changed, in comparison with recent years, their goals and objectives.
If earlier for the activities of gangs the most characteristic were moments of self‐preservation, moments of scattered sabotage actions (raids, robberies, destruction) and terror, but now the actions of gangs were basically strictly subordinated to the main goal ‐ the organization of widespread armed actions and uprisings to overthrow Soviet power.
It was through these two main channels ‐ great resistance to the measures of the Soviet government and organized counterrevolutionary insurrection (kulak uprisings) ‐ that counterrevolutionary kulak activity was directed in the past months of 1930. It was for these purposes that kulak counterrevolutionary groups, underground organizations and gangs arose and operated. It was for these purposes that counterrevolutionary groups and organizations entered the arena of a kind of “legal” activity, with a pronounced tendency to expand, to grow into mass organizations. For counterrevolutionary formations, this last tendency is especially characteristic: by all means and means, by all means, by malicious, provocative agitation, provocative use of the excesses and distortions of the party line that have taken place to attract the poor and middle peasants into their ranks, provoke them into mass counterrevolutionary actions, involve them in uprisings, gangs, etc. It is also important to note that during these months there were no longer separate, scattered actions of the counterrevolutionary element of different nationalities, but almost everywhere ‐ a united front of the united front in the name of overthrowing Soviet power Russian counter‐revolution with national (mainly Cossack and Eastern), a united front of counter‐revolutionaries of different nationalities, etc. The emerging and rapidly growing counter‐revolutionary insurgent formations have significantly expanded territorially, not only covering individual regions, districts with their activities, but also going beyond the borders of the region, the republic (a kind of
ʺextraterritorialityʺ). The link between the counter‐revolutionary elements in town and country has grown considerably, strengthened;
If earlier, in 1918‐1929, the counterrevolutionary kulak element and its counterrevolutionary formations (groups, organizations), conducting preparatory work for counterrevolutionary uprisings, were mainly engaged in gathering cadres, retaining and strengthening them, then in the reporting period we already had more or less the complete political and military organization of these counter‐revolutionary formations. Preparing directly for counterrevolutionary mass uprisings and kulak uprisings and conducting them, forming gangs and directing their activities, counterrevolutionary insurgent organizations in matters of basic program, organizational and tactical attitudes consider themselves as if the day after the successfully ended uprising and overthrow of Soviet power. They (these counterrevolutionary formations) ʺresolveʺ not only questions of organizing armed personnel for an uprising, questions of leading mass demonstrations, questions of organizing and leading uprisings, but also questions of ʺtomorrowʺ ‐ they have more or less significant programmatic guidelines on questions of new ʺpowerʺ , instead of the overthrown Soviet; during counterrevolutionary uprisings, these ʺdirectivesʺ are put into practice, they are even constructing bodies of new power, are working to ʺconsolidate this powerʺ, etc.
On the other hand, along with the transition of the most organized counterrevolutionary cadres to a direct insurrectionary struggle against Soviet power, we also had a significant change, a kind of ʺimprovement in the qualityʺ of the actions of counterrevolutionary kulak elements, directing their counterrevolutionary activity towards countering and disrupting the measures of Soviet power.
If in previous years the counterrevolutionary activities of the kulaks (organized in kulak groups and acting singly) in opposing and disrupting the measures of the Soviet government were mainly due to such methods of struggle as agitation, the desire to penetrate the village councils or extend their influence to them through dummies ( bribery of the poor, disruption of meetings, individual kulak terror, etc.), then in the reporting period, kulak counterrevolutionary groups and counterrevolutionary loners, in addition to the extremely rapid development of their counterrevolutionary activities in these areas, very quickly and often went over to the path of a more organized struggle against Soviet power: in the form of preparation and leadership of massive counter‐revolutionary actions,attempts to develop these actions to the level of kulak counter‐revolutionary uprisings for the overthrow of Soviet power.
This period of time is characterized not only by the close interaction of these two main lines of counterrevolutionary manifestations (1. Counteraction to measures of power; 2. Insurrection), but also by the development of the first into the second, the development of the most acute, armed form counteracting into counterrevolution ‐ counterrevolutionary insurgency and banditry. To a certain extent, this growth was facilitated by the transition in a number of places to the side of the counterrevolutionary kulaks of provoked groups of middle peasants who considered (as a result of excesses and distortions and provocative activities of counterrevolutionary kulak elements) mass demonstrations and counterrevolutionary insurrection as ʺwaysʺ of combating excesses and distortions of the party line ...
As a result of the work of the OGPU bodies to combat all the above manifestations of counter‐revolution in the countryside, during the reporting period, the following were liquidated: counterrevolutionary organizations ‐ 206, arrested participants ‐ 8740; counterrevolutionary groups ‐ 6827, participants arrested ‐ 50 009; active political bands ‐ 229, arrested participants ‐ 8913; malicious single counterrevolutionaries ‐ 73,062. Total counterrevolutionary formations ‐ 7262, arrested ‐ 140724 people.
In addition, in the process of liquidating counter‐revolutionary kulak uprisings and gangs, 2,686 leaders and active participants were killed, 7,310 people voluntarily surrendered. Withdrawn weapons: firearms ‐
5533 units, cold ‐ 2250 units.
Note: 1) detailed data for individual regions of the USSR are in the appendix; 2) the number of counter‐revolutionary formations is not shown completely and the number of those arrested for them is actually much higher, and the number of single counter‐revolutionaries is less.
When comparing these figures with the data for the entire 1929, the quantitative and qualitative growth of counterrevolutionary activity is clearly visible (it is necessary to take into account the above‐mentioned new qualitative indicators characteristic of the reporting period).
For the entire 1929 liquidated: counter‐revolutionary organizations ‐ 255, arrested participants ‐ 9159; counterrevolutionary groups ‐ 6764, participants arrested ‐ 38405; active gangs ‐ 281, members arrested ‐ 3821; arrested individual counter‐revolutionaries ‐ 73823. In total ‐ 7305 counter‐revolutionary formations, arrested for them ‐ 95208 people.
In these data, attention is drawn to the number of counter‐
revolutionary organizations liquidated in 4 months. It is also important that very often counterrevolutionary organizations of the current period numbered over 100 (and in some places 300‐400) people ‐ facts that are rather rare in 1929. The density of gangs is also significantly high (178 people on average per gang in the reporting period instead of 14 people in 1929).
II. Kulak terror, agitation, mass demonstrations
One of the channels of the extremely increased activity of counterrevolutionary kulak elements in the period under review is, as indicated above, frenzied, especially stubborn opposition to the measures of the Soviet government and the Party in the countryside, primarily the collectivization of agriculture, by:
a) extremely strong, malicious counterrevolutionary agitation for not joining the collective farms, often carried out under religious slogans, in the form of threats (ʺours will come, all collective farmers will be shotʺ, ʺcollective farms, communists ‐ anti‐Christ causeʺ, ʺeach collective farmer will have a stigma according to which will be recognized at the Last Judgment”);
b) a wide wave of all kinds of provocative rumors; distribution of counterrevolutionary leaflets, anonymous letters, often with threats addressed to collective farmers and representatives of local authorities;
c) terror against representatives of local authorities and collective farmers; property sabotage;
d) provocative interpretation of orders and measures of the Soviet government; using the excesses and distortions of the party line in order to incite discontent among the poor and middle peasants and provoke them into mass counter‐revolutionary actions;
e) especially intensified counter‐revolutionary activity among women to incite and channel their discontent with excesses and distortions along the counter‐revolutionary channel; the use of women as instigators of mass counterrevolutionary actions in the expectation that ʺthe Soviet government will not dare to deal with women harshly, but we will gain time and gather strengthʺ;
f) organizing mass counterrevolutionary actions, which are almost always accompanied by the defeat of collective farms, the defeat of the village councils, the arrest (and often murder) of local workers and rural activists, and the release of the arrested counterrevolutionary kulaks. In a number of places ‐ frenzied counter‐revolutionary activities to develop these counter‐revolutionary mass actions into kulak uprisings in order to overthrow the Soviet regime.
Note: quantitative and qualitative analysis of kulak terror, mass counter‐revolutionary actions and counter‐revolutionary leaflets was given by INFO in a special report.
The counter‐revolutionary kulak activity of this (opposing) type proceeded both at the expense of a huge number of counterrevolutionary kulak groups and at the expense of individual counterrevolutionary kulaks (loners).
Typical for counter‐revolutionary kulak groups of the reporting period:
1) The composition of the groups is a terry kulak; White Guards, bandits, and former members of political parties participate in a number of groups, organizing, directing and directing the counterrevolutionary activities of the kulaks.
2) In a number of districts ‐ a large number of counter‐revolutionary groups, consisting of churchmen or sectarians, who carried out extremely intensified counter‐revolutionary activities.
3) For the western regions, as well as foreign colonies, a large number of counter‐revolutionary kulak groups of kulak‐nationalists are characteristic. In the activities of such groups, quite often there were facts of communication with foreigners and foreign missions (sending letters, complaints, sentences, etc., sending walkers), activation by the latter of the counter‐revolutionary activities of groups to counter and disrupt events; organizing a provocative campaign in order to appeal to foreigners against the actions of the Soviet government; organizing a no less provocative campaign for emigration abroad, etc.
In the NVK (Republic of Volga Germans), a number of large groups that had ties with the German Embassy in Moscow were liquidated; In the Byelorussian SSR, a number of liquidated counter‐revolutionary kulakgentry groups were closely connected with priests and the Polish embassy, as well as with Poland (intelligence agencies). In the Western Region and the LVO, part of the counter‐revolutionary groups were associated with the employees of the Latvian Embassy.
4) The activities of the majority of counter‐revolutionary kulak groups proceeded mainly along the line of open mass counter‐revolutionary agitation, the spread of provocative rumors, counter‐revolutionary leaflets, terror, etc.
Out of the total number of liquidated counterrevolutionary kulak groups (6827), counterrevolutionary groups of the ʺopposingʺ type — 5595 (with 39795 members); terrorist groups ‐ 490 (with 2860 members).
5) A fairly large number of kulak groups prepared and led mass counter‐revolutionary actions.
1. In the Ukrainian SSR, 88 counterrevolutionary kulak groups that led the mass counterrevolutionary actions were liquidated.
2. According to the NVK ‐ 29 counter‐revolutionary kulak groups.
3. In Bashkiria ‐ 54 counter‐revolutionary kulak groups.
4. According to the SVK ‐ 23 counter‐revolutionary kulak groups.
5. In the Nizhniy Novgorod region ‐ 21 counter‐revolutionary kulak groups.
6. In the Central Black Earth Region ‐ 10 counter‐revolutionary kulak groups.
7. In Tataria ‐ 17 counter‐revolutionary kulak groups, etc.
6) The activities of counterrevolutionary kulak groups in the reporting period are extremely characterized by their very rapid organizational formation, significantly greater planning in counterrevolutionary work, significantly greater territorial coverage, communications in other settlements, and finally, rapid growth into insurgent counterrevolutionary groups and organizations.
7) Simultaneously with the activities of the counter‐revolutionary kulak groups in the period under review, we had an extremely violent activity on the part of the single acting counter‐revolutionary elements. This activity basically went along the same lines as that of the counterrevolutionary kulak groups.
The results of our measures to suppress the counterrevolutionary activities of single individuals, as indicated above, were expressed in the arrest of 81976 people (mostly kulaks), of which, according to very incomplete data, 1530 were the leaders of counterrevolutionary mass protests; active participants in mass demonstrations ‐ 7099 people; lone terrorists ‐ 1370 people.
III. Organized (insurgent) counter‐revolution
The period under review was extremely characterized by the rapid growth of organized counterrevolutionary formations, an extremely rapid process of accumulation of forces by them, the overgrowth of counterrevolutionary formations by an activated counterrevolutionary element, their rapid development into insurgent centers, and the transition to direct insurrectionary actions.
In the activities of counter‐revolutionary insurgent organizations in the reporting period, the following main points are especially characteristic:
1. If in the past, 1929, counter‐revolutionary insurgent organizations only outlined open armed struggle in order to overthrow Soviet power as their main prospect, had mainly tendencies towards open insurrectionary activity, then in the reporting period a number of organizations managed to translate these tendencies into action ...
Some of the insurgent organizations were liquidated by us literally on the eve of their counter‐revolutionary uprisings.
1. The counter‐revolutionary rebel organization in Chechnya, headed by Shita Istamulov (the old ideologue, inspirer and organizer of the counter‐revolutionary uprisings that took place in Chechnya), carried out preparatory work to raise an uprising throughout Chechnya. Thoroughly organized and had a strong‐armed cadre, the uprising was averted by timely measures taken just before its outbreak.
2. The counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization of the KabardinoBalkarian Autonomous Region (JCC), associated with the active gangs, given the rather large counter‐revolutionary intensity, developed a plan for the uprising in detail, timed to coincide with February 20. Liquidated the day before the uprising.
3. The counter‐revolutionary organization in the Ishim district (Ural), which covered a number of districts of the Urals and Kazakhstan, carefully prepared the uprising by organizing 24 combat groups. Eliminated two days before the armed uprising.
4. The counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization in the Novosibirsk district, which called itself the ʺFamily of an exemplary society,ʺ developed a detailed plan for organizing the uprising, created armed personnel for future counter‐revolutionary formations on a territorial basis. The organization was liquidated on the day designated for the uprising (February 10).
5. The counter‐revolutionary rebel organization of lamas and bays (Buryat‐Mongolian Republic), which had links with Tibet, prepared an armed uprising, trying to use the discontent over the confiscation of the property of the bays. It was liquidated the day before the start of the uprising.
A number of counter‐revolutionary insurgent organizations succeeded in realizing their plans to raise an uprising. These organizations, as a rule, in an atmosphere of general great counter‐revolutionary tension, arose extremely quickly, forcedly carried out preparatory work, quickly amassed armed cadres and raised uprisings.
1. The counterrevolutionary uprising in the Sapsk district of the JCC was led by a counterrevolutionary rebel organization (ʺGovernment of 20ʺ).
2. The counter‐revolutionary kulak‐mule uprising in the KarachayCherkess region (JCC) was headed by a counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization (ʺPeopleʹs Insurrectionary Committeeʺ).
3. The counterrevolutionary uprising in the Chervono‐Insurrectionary region of the Moldavian [A] SSR was led by a counterrevolutionary rebel organization (ʺParty of Peopleʹs Willʺ),
4. The counterrevolutionary uprising in the Muromtsevsky district of the Barabinsky district of the Siberian Territory was organized and raised by a counterrevolutionary organization.
5. A counterrevolutionary rebel organization headed by a former member of the CPSU (b) Tolstoukhov and former white officers led the uprising in the Ust‐Kamenogorsk region of the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan.
A significant number of other counter‐revolutionary insurgent organizations (not related to each other) outlined the date for the uprisings they were preparing for the spring of 1930 and in this connection carried out extremely intensive preparatory work.
For a number of insurgent organizations operating mainly in the central regions (Central Black Earth District, SVK, LVO, Defense Ministry, etc.), along with insurgent actions (recruiting insurgent personnel, developing plans for an uprising), violent activities to counter and disrupt modern events (malicious counter‐revolutionary agitation; disruption of meetings, terror, provoking mass demonstrations).
1. A counter‐revolutionary kulak organization in the Talovsky district of the Borisoglebsk district, the Central Black Earth District. The organization slowed down grain procurement and disrupted collective farm construction. January 30‐31 p. g. provoked the population with. New Chigla to a mass protest under the slogan: ʺDown with collective farms, down with Soviet power!ʺ After the speech, some of the members of the organization (including 35 people) were arrested. The rest of the organizationʹs members again organized mass demonstrations in a number of villages in the districts, and issued leaflets calling for an uprising. The organization created a ʺheadquarters for the uprisingʺ in the village. N‐Chigla, it was planned to organize four detachments in different settlements.
2. Counterrevolutionary kulak‐bandit organizations in a number of villages in the Tokarevsky district of the Borisoglebsk district, the Central Black Earth Region.
1) opposition to the measures of the Soviet government;
2) terrorist acts against co‐workers and activists;
3) preparation for the overthrow of the Soviet regime.
3. The massive counter‐revolutionary uprising that took place in February‐March with. in the Bezhetsk district, Moscow region. (Sandovsky and Vesyegonsky districts), led by a counterrevolutionary insurgent organization headed by the former SR Novozhilov. The tasks of the organization are to raise a mass uprising against the Soviet regime under the slogan: ʺDown with the commune, down with the five‐year plan, you give free trade, the restoration of churches, freedom of thought and press, the organization of a peasant union and the release of the arrested kulaks!ʺ The organization made a record of the available weapons in the villages; carried out special work among women, using them as initiators and direct executors of the destruction of collective farms and Soviet institutions; carried out a frenzied counter‐revolutionary agitation for the disruption of Soviet events.
4. Counter‐revolutionary kulak organization in the Samara district, Chapaevsky district of the SVK. The organization fought against the measures of the Soviet government, in particular counter‐revolutionary work to disrupt collectivization. The organization covered 9 settlements with cells; the leaders at these points were linked to the center of the organization. The tactics of the struggle were discussed at illegal meetings. In addition to counterrevolutionary agitation in order to disrupt collective farm development, the organization widely used bribery and soldering of the poor. Recently, at its meetings, the organization discussed the issue of an armed uprising against Soviet power. One of the leaders of the organization is a former Red Partisan who recently had a kulak economy.
2. In the reporting period, in contrast to previous years, a number of counter‐revolutionary organizations have clearly formulated political platforms, definitely developed programs and developed plans of action, and all this means the period of time ‐ after the overthrow of the Soviet regime. A number of counter‐revolutionary organizations definitely see themselves as representatives of the ʺfuture powerʺ in the very near future. In a number of places, there were even attempts to construct organs of the “new government”.
For the tactics of counterrevolutionary insurgent organizations in the reporting period, masking of their real (often typically monarchic) attitudes with ʺpopularʺ slogans propagandizing the new government as ʺpeopleʹsʺ, ʺpeasantʺ, ʺpure Soviet powerʺ, ʺthe power of the Constituent Assemblyʺ, etc. is very characteristic. etc., etc.
This disguise is aimed at more successful provocative involvement of the poor and middle peasants in the insurrection.
1) The counter‐revolutionary organization that arose on the eve of the counter‐revolutionary mass unrest in the Salsk district of the JCC and switched these unrest to the path of an armed uprising, organized a ʺgovernment of 20ʺ and led the uprising under the slogan ʺPure Soviet power, without collective farms, with the participation of the entire population.ʺ
2) The counterrevolutionary kulak, Sharia elements who led the uprising in the Didoevsky sector of the Andean district of Dagestan, defeating the organs of Soviet power, created the ʺShariah Sovietsʺ, ʺShariah Courtsʺ, etc.
3) The counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization led the uprising in the Muromtsevsky district of the Barabinsk district of Sibkrai under the slogan ʺPure Soviet powerʺ.
4) The counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization, which led the uprising in the Ust‐Kamenogorsk region of the Semipalatinsk district of the KSSR, proclaimed the slogan ‐ ʺOverthrow of the Soviet regime, the formation of an independent Siberian state headed by the peasant government, the Constituent Assembly.ʺ
3. A characteristic feature of the tactics of counterrevolutionary insurrectionary organizations of the recent period is a close bloc of counterrevolutionary elements of various sects and trends.
In a number of regions (KSSR, Siberia, Ural, DVK, SKK) we had facts of a bloc of national (eastern) counter‐revolution with Russian (mainly Cossack) counter‐revolution. This is all the more characteristic if we take into account the fact that the national counter‐force, together with the Russian counter‐force, goes to fight ʺagainst the colonialist policy of the Russian Bolsheviks.ʺ
Altaians and Russian Cossacks (Oirotia), Buryats, Russian Cossacks (Buryatia, Mongolia, and DVK), Russian and Kazakh nationals (KSSR) participate in a number of uprisings and gangs (led by counterrevolutionary organizations). In some places, Russian Cossacks lead uprisings and gangs of nationals and vice versa (Oirotia ‐ Bochkarevs, Tashkinov; Karakum rebels of Kazakhstan; Mukhor‐Shibir and Chita). In a number of uprisings, we have a ʺtouchingʺ unity of counterrevolutionary organizations, consisting of counterrevolutionary elements that have long been at odds with each other (the Dashnaks and Ittihastists in the TSFSR ‐ ʺthe unity of the Koran and the Gospelʺ; sect leaders in Chechnya, the JCC, etc.)
4. In connection with the specific formulation by counterrevolutionary organizations of the issues of overthrowing the Soviet power as immediate and urgent, as the issues of today, the preparatory underground work of counterrevolutionary insurgent organizations is significantly accelerated along the lines of expansion, quantitatively and territorially. Organizations stake on the involvement of the masses in their sphere of influence. All forces and means are used for this. Stubborn and urgent work is being carried out to involve in the organization not only individual, strictly verified, tested persons, but broad cadres, and not only from the counter‐revolutionary element itself. If earlier counterrevolutionary organizations mainly put together small strong cells in the expectation that they would be able to ʺlead the restʺ, then in the reporting period there was a wide recruitment of cadres.
In the preparatory work of the counter‐revolutionary organizations, it should be noted:
a) Instead of general judgments about the need for weapons, weapons are being bought, taking into account the existing ones; bandits and underground fighters exchange the manufactory plundered in cooperatives for weapons, and create original weapons repair shops.
b) Instead of counting the members of the organization who have weapons, with a relatively distant task of forming combat detachments from them, active work has been launched to organize and arm gangs ‐ the advanced units, ʺvanguardsʺ of uprisings; supplying them with food and sending them to the forests, mountains, taiga, sands before the end of the preparatory work, or setting the tasks of organizing uprisings in neighboring areas.
c) Organization and laying of food and ammunition bases, the predominance of military forms in the structure of insurgent organizations (regiments, hundreds, partisan detachments) instead of working out general plans on these issues.
If earlier counterrevolutionary insurgent organizations were recruiting key personnel in a purely secretive manner, with strict personal selection, now mass recruitment is carried out with the help of:
a) frantic insurrectionary agitation, the spread of provocative rumors about uprisings in other regions, about the overthrow of Soviet power that has already taken place there, about the movement of foreign troops, about landings, the arrival of prominent counter‐revolutionary leaders and military leaders of the White armies from abroad, etc.;
b) the use of the moments of bends, distortions and bungling on the part of local collaborators;
c) threats and terror against middle and poor groups of the population, intimidation with reprisals against them after the overthrow of the
Soviet regime, etc.
5. The ties between the counter‐revolutionary elements in town and country have grown considerably. A number of organizations that developed their activities in the countryside had leading centers in the cities and, on the contrary, urban counter‐revolutionary elements infiltrated the countryside, led and directed counter‐revolutionary underground insurrectionary work there.
1) The counter‐revolutionary organization, which consisted of decayed and demoralized Red partisans, had its center (several white officers) in the city of Minusinsk, Sibkrai.
2) The counter‐revolutionary organization, which consisted of kulaks who fled from various regions of Ukraine, was led by former white officers living in the city of Dnepropetrovsk.
3) The counter‐revolutionary organization ʺOkhotnikiʺ, which covered a number of villages in the Barnaul district, had its own ruling center in the city of Barnaul.
4) The Chistoozersk counter‐revolutionary organization of the Urals, liquidated on the eve of the uprising, had counter‐revolutionary ties in a number of cities in the Urals and Kazakhstan. The headquarters of the organization, which consisted of former white officers, was in the city.
5) The counter‐revolutionary organization liquidated in the Kuban (SKK) had its center (former white officers) in the city of Krasnodar.
6. The kulak elements in the national (western) regions and foreign colonies have significantly intensified their counter‐revolutionary activities. There are a number of cases of links between counterrevolutionary organizations and individual foreigners and foreign missions. Communication was maintained by correspondence, sending information, sentences, sending walkers, etc. Often the connection went through the ministers of a religious cult.
1) The kulak insurgent organization of the Pavlograd and
Petropavlovsk districts of the Dnepropetrovsk district (Ukrainian SSR), setting itself the task of preparing an armed uprising, tried to establish contact with Poland.
2) The liquidated (Yagodnaya Polyana, Atkarsky District, Republic of the Volga Germans) counter‐revolutionary organization campaigned against the collective farms and for emigration to America and Germany. Support was promised to those wishing to emigrate from
Germany. The leaders of the organization had connections with Germany and received money and counter‐revolutionary literature from there.
3) In s. Geffental (RNP) around the former member of the State Duma, the cadet Kpit, a counter‐revolutionary group was created, which had ties with the German consulate in Moscow.
A number of counterrevolutionary organizations (predominantly Petliura), liquidated in Ukraine (especially the Right Bank), were closely associated with Poland.
Very significant activity of counter‐revolutionary kulak and gentry elements in Belarus. The sabotage and insurgent organizations liquidated here have developed intensified activities both in the area of espionage and preparation of sabotage, and in the area of violent opposition and disruption of the measures of Soviet power, preparation of an uprising, etc.
1) The sabotage‐insurgent organization in the Ostroshitsko‐Gorodetsky district of the Minsk district of the BSSR from the former members of the Polish sabotage gangs associated with Poland until now, was preparing sabotage actions in case of war.
2) A sabotage and insurrectionary organization in the city of Minsk of the BSSR made up of former underground partisans and defensive officers who, under the leadership of their relatives, officers of the Polish army, were preparing for an insurgency among the Polish population.
3) A large sabotage and bandit organization in the Mozyr district of the BSSR, including 123 kulaks. Under the continuous leadership of the ringleaders of sabotage gangs who systematically came from Poland, a sabotage‐insurgent organization was created and fully formed, which by the time of liquidation had outlined a number of objects for sabotage and prepared sites for the landing of military aircraft.
4) Counterrevolutionary sabotage and insurgent organization in the
Smolensk District of the Western Region, which consisted of a noblegentry element. The organization was headed by a troika headed by the former landowner Kaspatsky‐Yakoldo. The activities of the troika were reduced to training cadres from the Polish gentry and kulak elements for the sabotage and insurrectionary movement in case of war.
7. In some places (DCK, Siberia, Ural, SKK) there was an activation of the decomposed ex‐red partisans who had gone out of their way, and their united front, together with White Guard officers and bandit cadres, against Soviet power.
1) The counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization liquidated in the Minusinsk district (Sibkrai) consisted of former Red partisans and was led by former white officers.
2) The counter‐revolutionary action in the Didoevsky sector of the Andean district of Dagestan was led by the former commander of the Red partisans, Vali Dolgaev.
3) Vasinskaya counter‐revolutionary organization in the Novosibirsk district of the Siberian region was led by former red partisans.
8. The reporting period is also characterized by the fact that in a number of insurgent counter‐revolutionary organizations participate (and sometimes lead) members of the CPSU (b) purged from the party (Siberia ‐ Shustov, Dobytin; Kazakhstan ‐ Tolstoukhov, etc.).
9. The activities of counterrevolutionary rebel organizations and a number of counterrevolutionary rebel groups in the past period have been closely intertwined and even directly merged with the activities of gangs. The so‐called political (ʺprofessionalʺ) banditry was absorbed, became involved in the general stormy activity of counterrevolutionary insurgent organizations, which went over to an open armed struggle against the Soviet regime in order to overthrow it. The wide scale of the insurrection significantly activated the overseas gangs. These latter received from foreign counterrevolutionary centers the task of actively supporting local banditry and counterrevolutionary kulak actions, and often the task of organizing uprisings on our territory, the task of direct leadership of banditry and uprisings.
The gangs operating at the beginning of the reporting period, having joined the general channel of counterrevolutionary rebel movements, constituting the armed nuclei of counterrevolutionary rebel forces, are also changing their methods of work.
The activities of the gangs are strictly subordinate to the main goal of the counter‐revolutionary insurgent organizations ‐ the overthrow of Soviet power. Gangs from robberies, raids, isolated terror pass to active armed counter‐revolutionary work, to participation (often organizing) in uprisings.
Gangs ʺprofessionalʺ, gangs formed by counterrevolutionary rebel organizations, gangs formed by fleeing counterrevolutionary kulaks, fulfilling the assignments of counterrevolutionary rebel organizations and groups, working for an uprising, are carrying out intensive organizational work and agitation for increasing their forces, striving for widespread growth. Being the center of attraction for counterrevolutionary kulak elements, the gangs are developing wide activities to involve the poor and middle peasants in gang formation. To this end, the gangs carry out ʺpoliticalʺ work, organize gatherings, send‐offs, rallies and conferences, where they provocatively ʺexplainʺ the measures of the Soviet regime, incite discontent arising on the basis of excesses and distortions, striving for such provocative recruitment, and in some places threat, violence,
1) The Bochkarevsʹ gang (Oirotia, Sibkrai), having occupied the village of Khabarovka, organized a rally, at which they called on the population to join the gang. As a result, the latter was replenished with 40 people.
2) Alibai Bikeevʹs gang (Kyrgyzstan, Talas canton), occupying with. Dmitrovka, held a rally, calling for joining the gang. As a result, the middle peasants left the gang.
3) The gang of Mukantai Sametov (KSSR, Kustanai district) held a number of rallies in villages, at which they called for an uprising against Soviet power.
4) The well‐known bandit of Ingushetia, Mutaliev Bersanuko, convened large‐scale rallies, at which he called for an armed struggle against the
5) The Baksan Gorge gang under the command of Pourzhev Hatsu held rallies and gatherings in a number of auls, at which they campaigned for the overthrow of the Soviet regime and joining the gang. As a result, the gang from 11 people within 4 days increased to 300 people.
6) The Gabibekov gang (Nakhichevan [A] SSR) held meetings and rallies and thus increased its number from 20 to 300 people.
7) The Sandzharikov gang (NVK) held a rally in the village. BaraBukhusy (Malo‐Derbetovsky ulus of the Kalmyk region) and increased its number from 17 to 140 people.
And now a number of gangs, their main cadres and leaders, having gone through a series of uprisings, having received tough blows, having lost those who departed (as a result of decisive measures on coincidence lines in correcting excesses and distortions, as a result of our decomposition and operational work) from uprisings, a threat and by provocation, the middle and poor groups involved in the movement, consisting mainly of the surviving old bandit cadres of participants in counterrevolutionary organizations and defeated counterrevolutionary uprisings, or renew their attempts to openly armed struggle against Soviet power, or underground ʺput their ranks in orderʺ in anticipation of more favorable conditions for the struggle.
The counterrevolutionary insurgent cadres (participants in counterrevolutionary organizations, uprisings, etc.) that are part of the gangs will undoubtedly still inspire and activate the rebel aspirations of the gangs. The growth of banditry, its switch to the rails of counterrevolutionary kulak insurrection and the emerging in some places the reverse transition of the surviving centers of insurgency to banditry, achieved largely as a result of our operational measures, is characterized by the following figures:
On May 1,
Professional gangs and their members
Bandits, rebels, armed rioters
Gangs and bandits, remnants of armed rebel cadres
Thus, the average density of ʺprofessionalʺ gangs from 10 people by January 1, 1930 increased by the time of the greatest development of the insurrection (March ‐ see below) to 178 people and by May 1 it had decreased to 24 people, significantly exceeding, naturally, the density of gangs by the beginning of the reporting period. The decrease in the number of gangs by May 1, compared to February‐March, also exceeds the number in January (instead of 68 ‐ 146). It is obvious that banditry for a certain period will still represent a rather serious active counterrevolutionary organized force.
In the reporting period, the development of banditry, switched by counterrevolutionary organizations to insurgency, went along the following main lines:
Counterrevolutionary rebel organizations built strong armed fists underground or in some places united small groups operating separately into bandit groups. These gangs were working to expand the territory of the uprisings being prepared, to create a material base, to form and equip new cadres and gangs, and to establish ties with counter‐revolutionary elements in neighboring regions. The gangs carried out terror against representatives of the Soviet government and the party; smashed Soviet institutions, disarmed the militia and coworkers; robbed economic and cooperative organizations in order to seize money and goods for the exchange of the latter for weapons. The gangs launched wide agitation, spreading provocative rumors about the alleged uprisings and the overthrow of Soviet power in the neighboring regions and about the movement of foreign troops.
1) The counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization in Chechnya created a number of armed gangs, tasked with agitating for an uprising, smashing up co‐institutions, and robbing cooperatives. The looted manufactory was exchanged for weapons in Dagestan and Georgia.
2) Aksanovʹs gang, created by the counterrevolutionary rebel organization of the Arkhiz district (Karachay‐Cherkess Autonomous Region of the SKK), is carrying out an almost 150‐kilometer raid to establish contact with the rebels of the Uchkenen district. Starting the raid with 40 people, the gang increases its number to 250 people in a few days.
3) Gangs created by a counterrevolutionary rebel organization in the Irgiz and Kustanai districts raid the auls, smash Soviet institutions, spread provocative rumors, take away the population of entire auls, provoke the poor and middle peasant groups.
4) The counter‐revolutionary insurrectionary organization
(Bichurskaya) in the Mukhoshibirsky and Maletinsky regions (BuryatMongolia and the DVK) begins an uprising with the organization of gangs, which are centers of attraction for counter‐revolutionary elements.
5) The counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization in the MaloKabardinsky district (Kabarda, SKK), headed by Kudaev, organizes gangs and sets them the task of destroying railway tracks and bridges.
6) The Yakubinskaya gang, which operated in the Qadabeg region of the Gandja district of Azerbaijan and was liquidated on February 27, 1930, was the armed nucleus of the terrorist unit of the Mussavat counter‐revolutionary organization. Carried out tasks of the counterrevolutionary terror organization.
The surviving members of the liquidated counterrevolutionary rebel organizations hid in the mountains and forests, organized gangs, gathered around themselves counterrevolutionary kulaks fleeing from the villages, members of counterrevolutionary formations escaping from arrest, and all counterrevolutionary elements looking in banditry as a way to counteract the measures of the Soviet government, and developed vigorous activity by organizing uprisings, in places forcing the timing of the uprising.
1) The members of the Oirot counterrevolutionary insurgent organization who fled during the liquidation organized a gang (Bochkarev‐Tashkinova) and launched an extensive work to prepare the uprising.
2) When the counter‐revolutionary insurgent group was liquidated in the Maikop district (an offshoot of the Shapsug counter‐revolutionary organization of the Black Sea district), the leader of the Pshenichny group and several active members fled from arrest, formed a gang, absorbed the members of another counter‐revolutionary cell of the same organization (Goryacheklyuchevskaya). The gang operated, maintaining contacts and receiving instructions from the Shapsug counter‐revolutionary rebel organization, which was intensively preparing an uprising.
3) In the Armavir district (JCC), on the eve of the declaration of the uprising, the counter‐revolutionary insurrectionary organization preparing it was liquidated. During the liquidation, one of the detachments created by the organization was completely removed, another detachment left and operated, preparing a new uprising.
After the liquidation of the uprisings, active counterrevolutionary cadres, who survived the defeat, leave for the forests, mountains, taiga and continue the struggle against the Soviet regime, trying to raise a new uprising. Such gangs (from participants in counterrevolutionary uprisings) also carry out physical and property terror against representatives of the Soviet government and the party, carry out raids on populated areas, smash Soviet institutions and economiccooperative organizations, continue to fight our detachments by methods of ambushes and sudden raids.
In a number of cases, the gangs hide in hard‐to‐reach places, where they either “put their ranks in order” and wait for a more “favorable” situation for organizing a new uprising, or try to leave the cordon.
1) Participants of the uprising defeated in Suzak and Sary‐Suu districts (Syr‐Darya district, KSSR) and participants of the liquidated counterrevolutionary insurgent organization that prepared this uprising, more than 2 months after the liquidation, organized a gang and are preparing a new uprising.
2) In Kazakhstan, the participants in the liquidated uprising in the Karak region of the Kyzyl‐Ordynsky district fled and now, having formed a gang, they are making attempts to organize a new uprising.
3) The remnants of the armed insurgents of the Irgiz district of the Aktobe district of the KSSR who survived the defeat disappeared into the sands of Kara‐Kum, joined the gangs operating here and raised a new uprising with up to 4,000 participants.
4) The organizers and participants of the uprising in the village of Kumsko‐Loovskoy (Karachay‐Cherkess region, SKK) and members of the counter‐revolutionary organization that led this uprising formed a gang after the liquidation, went into the mountains and a month later raised the uprising again, which engulfed a number of villages with up to 1 Ooo man.
5) The leaders, organizers and active cadres of the uprising in Armenia and the Nakhichevan [A] SSR, who escaped defeat, went to the mountains and continued the struggle, raiding our squads, smashing Soviet institutions, beating up Soviet party workers and provoking the population to a new uprising.
6) The remnants of the participants in the liquidated counterrevolutionary uprising in the Ust‐Kamenogorsk region, led by Tolstoukhov, went to China.
7) The remnants of the participants in the uprising in the Vedibassar region of Armenia went to Turkey.
8) In a number of cases, in the border regions of the USSR, there were tendencies towards the withdrawal of participants from the liquidated counter‐revolutionary uprisings to the cordon.
In connection with the general sharp intensification of the counterrevolution in the reporting period, there was an increase in the activity of the Trans‐Cordon gangs, especially in Persia and Afghanistan.
Trans‐cordon gangs, having close ties with the counter‐revolutionary bandit element and counter‐revolutionary insurgent organizations on our territory and inspired by counter‐revolutionary émigré organizations and foreign intelligence services, aimed to escort counterrevolutionary kulaks and bais with their families and property behind the cordon, organize and raise uprisings.
1) The Kabilya gang raided twice from Persia to the territory of
Armenia, which organized counterrevolutionary elements of the Karabakh district, campaigned at rallies for the overthrow of the Soviet regime and prepared a counterrevolutionary uprising that engulfed several dozen villages. During the return raids, the gang took with them about 150 kulak farms.
2) A well‐organized and armed gang of Sapar Shaitan, numbering 200 people (one of the kurbashis Ibrahim Bek), raided the territory of the Tajik SSR from Afghanistan. The gang had the goal of raising an uprising in Tajikistan.
3) During the months of February and March on the Central Asian border, in the area of only one 42 border detachment, there were 20 incidents of invasion and attempts to invade our territory by Transcordon bands.
10. The extremely increased activity of the counter‐revolutionary kulak element and the activity of counter‐revolutionary insurgent organizations, which set as their task the practical implementation of plans to overthrow Soviet power, resulted in a number of major counter‐revolutionary kulak uprisings.
During the period from January 1 to April 15 in the USSR, we had 27 counterrevolutionary kulak uprisings that covered large territories, with the number of direct active participants about 25,000 people.
The counterrevolutionary kulak uprisings acquired the greatest scope in March, when we had 16 uprisings with about 15,000 participants. Counter‐revolutionary insurgent organizations began uprisings with small, sometimes armed cadres (gangs). In the course of the uprising, these shots quickly grew due to:
a) the fugitive counter‐revolutionary kulaks;
b) hiding members of liquidated counter‐revolutionary organizations, groups and bandit elements;
c) gangs operating in the area.
Making full use of the excesses, bugs and distortions of the party line committed by the local authorities in the field of collective farm development, kulak, White Guard, kulak‐mule, Sharia and other counterrevolutionary elements launched a frenzied insurrectionary agitation, widespread provocative activities to involve the main mass of the peasantry in the uprisings.
As a result of this activity, the main counter‐revolutionary insurgent armed cadres were also staffed by:
a) individual poor and middle peasant groups of the population, by threats and provocations involved in the uprising;
b) the middle peasants and poor peasants who voluntarily joined the uprising, who see in the uprising (as a result of the provocation of counter‐revolutionary elements) a way of combating the excesses and distortions of the party line, admitted locally.
1) The counter‐revolutionary insurgent organization, which led the uprising in the Ust‐Kamenogorsk region, captured several settlements, and carried out a violent mobilization of the poor, middle peasants. After the blow inflicted on the rebels, the middle‐poor part of the rebels voluntarily surrendered.
2) The poor and middle peasant elements of Karachai and Circassia were forcibly, threats and provocations, involved in the uprising.
3) In the Syr‐Darya district of Kazakhstan, “khan” Sametov, who led the uprising in the Irgiz region, “decreed” the mobilization of the male population from 16 to 60 years old.
4) In the gang of Zimin (a former red partisan, middle peasant) there was a significant part of the poor and middle peasants (Sretensky district, DVK).
Decisive measures to correct the mistakes, excesses and distortions made on the ground, the extensive explanatory political work carried out and the KGB operations that led to a departure from the counterrevolutionary kulak uprisings of the middle and poor groups of the population that were forcibly involved or involved in them ‐ all this led to a turning point in the curve development of such performances. The counter‐revolutionary insurgency begins to decline, despite the continuing provocative activities of the counterrevolutionary elements (the main, leading insurgent cadres).
1) In Karachaev, over 1000 participants in the uprising volunteered for two or three weeks.
2) In the Alma‐Ata district (KSSR), soon after the arrival of our troops, 300 participants in the uprising in the Irgiz district voluntarily surrendered. Those who had surrendered went to our detachments with a red banner.
3) In the same district, the poor, who joined the Urunaev gang, voluntarily surrendered and betrayed the leader.
4) The participants in the uprising in the Balkhash region (KSSR) surrendered and handed over the leaders.
5) The poor, involved in the insurrection in the Tuluk region (Sibkrai), voluntarily appeared and surrendered to our troops.
6) In Armenia (Darapagez and Zangezur districts of the Nakhichevan [A] SSR), after a series of blows inflicted on the rebels, about 1000 people voluntarily surrendered.
7) The voluntary turnout of the participants of the Karachay‐Cherkess uprising after a number of our events reached about 1000 people.
11. The counterrevolutionary kulak uprisings that reached extremely high severity in a number of places in the period under review were characterized by the following main points:
a) Insurgent armed forces are organized according to the type of military formations (regiments, hundreds, platoons, groups). Militarily trained persons are appointed (elected) to command positions (former white officers, the so‐called non‐commissioned officer cadres ‐ sergeants, sergeants, etc.), former white rebels, etc. Headquarters ʺ,ʺ Commanders‐in‐Chief ʺ, etc. As part of the rebel detachments, groups of excellent riflemen are organized (in the KSSRʺ mergen ʺ), armed with the best weapons and well supplied with cartridges. Excellent shooters receive special tasks of exterminating the command staff of our units.
b) The insurgent detachments conduct combat training, are trained in shooting, felling, etc. In a number of places, Russian counterrevolutionary kulaks direct the military training of the nationalist insurgents. To support the insurgent forces, arms workshops, food bases, food committees, etc. are being created in the
c) Insurgent detachments (especially in the Transcaucasus and the JCC) show extraordinary persistence in battles and conduct the latter competently in a tactical sense, sometimes adhering to the main provisions of the combat regulations of the Red Army. The rebels are actively offensive to encircle and destroy our troops. The battles are distinguished by their duration (5‐10 hours) and significant losses on both sides.
d) The rebels in a number of places, through offensives organized according to the plan, seek to seize the district and even district centers (Mikoyan Shahar and Kislovodsk in Karachaev; Nukha, Zagataly,
Kakh, Belokany in Azerbaijan; Irgiz in the Aktobe district, KSSR, etc.);
e) Occupying populated areas, the rebels smashed Soviet institutions, arrested and exterminated Soviet and party workers and created bodies of ʺnew governmentʺ.
f) Violent mobilization of the entire male population capable of carrying weapons was widely used.
g) Extensive work was carried out to consolidate the uprising by holding meetings, gatherings, conferences, etc.
Summing up the results of the four‐month operational work of the OGPU bodies in the fight against organized counter‐revolution in the countryside, it should be noted that these four months gave us an unprecedented (for previous years) wave of organized rebel counterrevolutionary kulak activity. The organs of the OGPU, with the tasks set by them by the party and the Soviet government, on the whole coped with the timely mobilization of all the forces and means of the apparatus, inflicting a decisive blow on the organized insurgent kulak counter‐revolution, defeating a number of powerful counterrevolutionary organizations, liquidating a number of counterrevolutionary kulak uprisings and bands, eliminating a huge number of counter‐revolutionary kulak groups.
Assistant to the head of the KRO OGPU Nikolaev
Assistant to the head of the 6th department of the KRO OGPU
INFO OGPU about excesses and distortions in the course of current economic and political campaigns and the growth of mass demonstrations in Ukraine. November 9, 1930
November 9, 1930
Kinks and curvatures of the class line
In the course of ongoing campaigns in a number of regions, there has been an increase in the number of excesses and gross distortions of the class line, especially in the practice of grain procurement.
Along with insufficient pressure on the kulaks, in a number of regions, massive repressive measures are used against the middle peasants and even the poor (mass inventories and sale of property of the middle peasants, mass arrests of the middle peasants and poor peasants, imposing solid grain assignments on the poor and low‐power middle peasants, etc.).
The secretary of the Kotovsky District Party Committee of the former Dnepropetrovsk District and the authorized representative of the Dnepropetrovsk City Party Committee, while touring the district, gave instructions to the asset about the arrest of all non‐delivery workers of grain surpluses, regardless of even the poor. As a result, the poor were arrested in the villages of Zeplevka and Gupelovka. There were cases of calls to the village council of the poor, who were threatened: ʺGive bread, otherwise we will bring you under the 4th group and take you ourselves.ʺ There are cases of mass inventory and sale of property of middle peasants.
In with. Cherneshchino, when distributing the loan, the peasants are given an explanation that coupons for manufactured goods will be issued to everyone in accordance with the amount for which they signed up for the loan.
In with. Penchevo N. Mirgorodsky district of the former Odessa okrug some of the kulaks with large grain surpluses are under‐supplied, and some kulaks are completely freed from the delivery of grain. At the same time, the plan was brought to the attention of those farms that had no crops at all. Members of the local party cell, which are mostly candidates, keep in touch with the kulaks; some members of the cell with a criminal record. A member of the cell bureau in the circle of party members and an authorized RIK spoke out for the need to find a ʺreliable kulakʺ who should be entrusted with the creation of a kulak group and provoke it to any performance, in order to justify the cell for the poor conduct of current campaigns (the village lags far behind in the implementation of grain procurements, agricultural tax, etc.).
In the village. Denkovka of the Shpikovsky district of the former Vinnitsa district, the grain procurement plan was brought to the courtyard of 14 farms paying tax from 11 to 39 rubles, which were offered to hand over up to 230 poods. of bread. One middle peasant paying 11 rubles. 54 kopecks tax, it is proposed to hand over 220 poods of bread.
In with. The plan has been brought to the courtyards of farms that pay taxes of 4‐6 rubles. There are similar facts in a number of other villages of the region. In connection with these distortions, groups of women, led by the wives of the middle peasants who were on the lists, come to the plenary sessions of the village councils and disrupt them. No action is taken by the district organizations.
The grossest distortions of the class line were allowed in the work to collect various arrears and debts in the Arbuzinsky district of the former Odessa district, which caused massive discontent among the population.
Raiselbank carries out a secondary collection of already paid loans, illegal inventories of the property of the poor and middle peasants, etc. Peasants in groups (up to 40 people) come to Raiselbank and, presenting receipts, demand payment of the amounts due to them, but neither the regional selbank nor the Raikoopzerno pay to them attention, invariably answering: ʺComplain, we are not to blame, but the former credit partnership.ʺ Despite the fact that many peasants still repaid their loans last year, Raiselbank, without making a sample, sent out old lists of debts to tipping points with a proposal to collect the amounts indicated in the list from the suppliers when paying for grain. This situation also caused indignation of the grain‐bearers, who declared: ʺThis is a robbery of people in broad daylight, there is no control over you.ʺ Acceptors of grain in their justification to the peasants answer: “Do I rob you, this is such a law, the Soviet government gives orders, but I keep it. ʺ RIK does not react to the outrageous behavior.
Increase in the number of mass demonstrations on the basis of grain procurements
Measures to strengthen grain procurements and the more frequent in a number of regions cases of bends and distortions of the class line in the absence of sufficient explanatory work caused an increase in mass demonstrations and bagpipes on the basis of grain procurements in October. Only for 20 days of October, according to incomplete data, 60 mass demonstrations on the basis of grain procurements were registered, of which 34 took place in the second of October decade (for the entire September, only 17 protests were recorded on the basis of grain procurements).
The bulk of the participants in the performances are still women, and rural youth are beginning to take an active part in the performances. As a rule, almost all actions are directed against the confiscation of grain, inventories of property and other repressive measures applied in relation to malicious non‐donors of grain and kulaks, and in some cases, commissions and brigades for confiscating grain as a result of speeches, threats of terror, etc., are suspended work.
In with. Antonovka N. Bursky district of the former Nikolaev district On October 11, a crowd of women of 150 people did not give the commission that arrived to seize property from the malicious nondonors of bread, beating a policeman who tried to calm the crowd. Shouts were heard from the crowd: ʺEnough to rob the peasants, we are not afraid of anyone, we have already been to the GPU and they have not done anything to us and will not do anything.ʺ
The commission was forced to suspend its work. There is confusion among local communists. The village council and activists do not conduct any explanatory work.
In with. A crowd of women burst into the room where the commission for promoting grain procurements sat in the side of the Dolinsky district of the former Krivoy Rog district, extinguished the lamp, knocked over tables and beat the grain procurement officer. The next day, the crowd again appeared at the meeting of the commander and invited the delegate to leave immediately, threatening to kill him. Shouts were heard from the crowd: “We do not trust the Soviet regime, but we trust Tsar Nicholas. We have no kulaks, and we will not let the plan be brought to the courtyard. ʺ Some members of the village council refuse to work on grain procurement, declaring: ʺHaving made me a member of the village council, you are thinking to set us on the people, we do not need your village council and Soviet power, we need you not to come here with your plans and laws anymore.ʺ ...
In a number of cases, mass demonstrations are relatively organized in nature and are distinguished by their persistence, tenacity and duration. A number of speeches were recorded in which the participants were armed with pitchforks, knives and hunting rifles and were accompanied by beating and wounding of grain procurement commissioners and local workers, and in some cases by the destruction of village councils, the unauthorized release of those arrested, etc.
In the hut. Denisovka Karnogorovsky village council crowd of 40 people forced the commission, which arrived to seize the grain surplus and property from the malicious non‐donor of bread, the former landowner Denisov (a farm named after him), to leave. On the second arrival of the commission, the latter, before reaching the farm, was greeted by a crowd led by the relatives of the former landowner. The members of the commission were beaten. The detachment, which arrived at the farm, led by a representative of the GPU, managed to arrest only one leader of the bagpipes. The crowd, armed with pitchforks, sickles, etc., again attacked the commission members who had arrived and did not allow them to proceed with the confiscation of bread and property from Denisov. As a result of the collision, 3 policemen were severely beaten, one of whom was robbed of a rifle and cartridges by the attackers from the crowd.
In the hut. Novoselovka, the arriving group to remove the anti‐Soviet element was also greeted by a crowd armed with pitchforks, knives, sickles and hunting rifles. Several members of the group were beaten up.
In with. Chernega‐Slobodka of the Smolyansky district of the former Shevchenko district on October 15, during the confiscation of property from a local kulak for non‐payment of tax, the kulak hit the deputy chairman of the village council and a policeman, for which he was arrested. Then the relatives of the kulak gathered a crowd of peasants and together with it moved to the village council demanding the release of the kulak. When the release of the kulak was denied, the crowd began to smash the village council, smashed windows, tore up business papers in the office of the village council and released the kulak. In the defeat of the village council, women and young people showed themselves most actively.
In with. Vodyanoe, Kamensky district of the former Zaporozhye district, a crowd organized by a group of the wealthy opposed the commission to confiscate bread from the kulak. Participants in the performance shouted: ʺDo not give offense to your own people, stop picking.ʺ A crowd of peasants, armed with pitchforks, were set up. Attempts to organize and involve the entire population of the village were noted.
In with. Novo‐Balovka, a crowd of 100 women, provoked by fists, stopped carts carrying grain to the collection points and forced the peasants to return. The next day, a crowd gathered at the building of the village council, shouting: ʺWe will not give bread!ʺ
In with. Tonchino, Tsaritsyn district of the former Dnipropetrovsk district, motivated by dissatisfaction with grain procurements, a crowd of women attacked a local activist farm laborer and beat her. Upon learning of the arrest of those guilty of beating up the farm laborer, a crowd of 100 women came to the village council demanding the release of the arrested. Without waiting for an answer, the crowd rushed into the village council and arbitrarily released the perpetrators of the beating. A few hours later, the same crowd detained the peasants who were carrying grain to the collection points and threw sacks of bread along the road. On the same day, women dispersed the work of schoolchildren in the commune, and the crowd attacked the teachers, cursing and shouting: ʺWe send the children to school to teach them, and not so that they work in the commune.ʺ
In with. Chabanovka, Rubezhensky district of the former Artyomovsky district, the plan of grain procurement, contracting and meat procurement was not adopted by the village. The secretary of the village council is a former kulak; there are a number of kulaks and a former policeman on the collective farm. The village asset is extremely weak and inactive. During the inventory of the property, a crowd of 100 women gathered at the malicious non‐donor of bread, the kulak of Garmeta, who, in order to prevent the inventory of property, for 4 days categorically refused to go home. On the morning of October 17, after a categorical refusal to disperse, the crowd was dispersed with the help of a cavalry detachment. The mood of the village was agitated.
Special attention is drawn to mass demonstrations, which are the result of excesses and gross distortions of the class line in the practice of grain procurement (mass inventories of property and arrests of middle peasants and poor peasants, re‐taxation of grain assignments, fines, etc.) admitted by local organizations. The following statements are characteristic in this respect:
In with. On October 11, Bobrikovo, Dmitrovsky district, former Dnepropetrovsk district, on the basis of sharp distortions of the class line during grain procurements and property inventories from a number of middle peasants, a crowd of women resisted the commission that came to confiscate property from the local kulak. The crowd tried to beat the members of the commission, shouting: “Why are you disposing of kulaks?! We will not let you sell: start with them, you will reach us; There are no kulaks, we cannot fulfill the grain procurement. ʺ The commission was forced to leave. Crowds of women of 30‐40 people for several days remained on duty at the houses designated for sale, not allowing the production of inventories and the sale of property.
On the eve of the womenʹs performance on October 10, two leaflets with the following content were posted in the village:
“Comrades women organize yourself in two groups and go to defend those who will be selling this Saturday, October 11th. Please, everyone. Pavlovka and the first group are organized. ʺ
In with. Znamenovka Novomoskovsky district of the former Dnepropetrovsk district, the grain procurement plan was brought to the courtyard of low‐power farms, which are heavily overloaded with grain assignments. Many poor and middle peasants received a notification about the export of grain within two days with a warning that if they did not comply, they would be prosecuted and fined. At the same time, members of the commission for promoting grain procurement are drinking with the kulaks, who were warned about the alleged seizure of grain from them, as a result of which some kulaks managed to hide the grain. On this basis, on October 13, bagpipes began in the village. A crowd of peasants, numbering 300 people, gathered in the market square, shouts were heard: ʺWe wonʹt give bread anyway, we have no bread.ʺ ʺYou yourself are pushing us to the performances that were in the spring.ʺ One of the peasant women to her application, that ʺyou stabbed and tortured us,ʺ the representative of the RIK replied: ʺWe donʹt need to cut you, you yourself will die.ʺ On this occasion, shouts were heard from the crowd: ʺYou are pushing us to revolt.ʺ The peasants in batches threw the received notifications about the export of grain.
In with. Borisovka, Berdyansk district of the former Mariupol district, no bread arrives. Attempts by the commission to confiscate grain run into increased resistance from the crowd. At the general meeting of members of the KNS, out of 147 people, 50 turned up, who made a decision that there was no bread. Women in groups walk around the village shouting that ʺwe will not give bread.ʺ The chairman of the village council, while drawing up the lists, hid his relative, the son of a kulak, who was exiled to the north. A member of the village council does not rent his grain surplus, he squanders his property and inventory. The poor are overburdened with grain tasks at the expense of the middle peasants and the wealthy. Many villagers who handed in grain and even received marketable products, due to the lack of accounting, are listed by the village council as non‐delivery people.
P / P. Assistant to the head of INFO OGPU
Head of Division 1 Dubinin
Correct: Secretary of INFO OGPU Kucherov
Dispatched: 1) Menzhinsky; 2) Berry; 3) Messing; 4) Evdokimov; 5) Poskrebyshev (for Stalin); 6) Molotov; 7) Kaganovich; 8) Postyshev; 9) Rykov; 10‐16) OGPU; 17) In business; 18‐19) In the department.
Memorandum of INFO OGPU on the forms and dynamics of the class struggle in the countryside. No later than November 19, 1930
No later than November 19, 1930
The forms and dynamics of the class struggle in the countryside throughout the entire course of the NEP are constantly changing as the reconstruction measures in agriculture intensify.
During the restoration period of the NEP, characteristic of the manifestations of the class struggle in the countryside is the tendency of the kulak to strengthen its economic positions in the countryside and to restore its pre‐revolutionary influential position in the peasantry.
Trying in every possible way to adapt to Soviet conditions and to ensure for itself the possibility of unhindered accumulation, the kulak is waging an active struggle for mastering the village soviets and conquering an influential position in the entire social and political life of the village (group struggle in the re‐elections of village soviets, boards of cooperatives, KKOV, etc.).
At the same time, the kulaks are striving to slow down the process of class differentiation of the peasantry, throwing out the slogan ʺunity of the peasantryʺ, which found its vivid expression in the ʺcross‐unionʺ agitation, which was very widespread at that time.
But already by 1927, as the offensive against the capitalist elements in the countryside intensified, the class struggle acquired an ever more distinct anti‐Soviet counter‐revolutionary content and took on ever more acute forms.
The collapse of the attempts of the kulaks ʺby peaceful meansʺ to win the role of hegemon in the social life of the countryside was primarily reflected in the final collapse by 1929 of the ʺcross‐unionʺ movement. Gradually fading away, it almost ceases by 1929.
The kulak from attempts to adapt to Soviet conditions goes over to an open struggle against all economic and political campaigns and measures carried out in the countryside, with the aim of disrupting them.
In the activities of the kulaks and counterrevolutionary elements in the countryside, an insurrectionary line of struggle with the installation of preparing a decisive action for the moment of the expected intervention is becoming more and more apparent. From organizing groups of local importance to fight against individual measures in the countryside, the kulak goes over to organizing counterrevolutionary, conspiratorial organizations aiming to prepare armed uprisings under the slogan of overthrowing the Soviet regime (SKK, NVK, Ural, Dagestan, etc.).
The exacerbation of the class struggle in the countryside itself found its expression in the intensification and exacerbation of the kulak terror against all Soviet activists and the poor.
The dynamics of the growth of the main types of terror (murders and arson) for the period 1927‐1929 is given by the following figures: there were 80 murders in 1927, 212 in 1928 and 353 in 10 months of 1929. Arson in 1927 ‐ 78, in 1928 ‐ 307 and in 1929 ‐ 1604. Moreover, in 1929 there were over 400 terrorist attacks against collective farms and collective farmers. All types of terrorist attacks (along with wounds and beatings) were in 1927 901, 1928 — 1152 and 1929 —9137.
In 1928, the kulak, using the food difficulties in the industrial centers, for the first time tried to give a general battle to the Soviet power during grain procurements under the slogan of a ʺgeneral grain strikeʺ, hoping to lead the masses of the middle peasantry. At the same time, the development of kulak activity in the direction of organizing mass actions of the peasantry, the number of which, starting from 1927 (32 actions in total), significantly increases from year to year (in 1928 ‐ 709, in 1929 ‐ 1307) ...
The first period of deployment of measures for collectivization and dispossession of kulaks (late December 1929 ‐ February 1930)
By the end of December 1929, counterrevolutionary cadres, partially defeated during the grain procurement period, went underground in places, the kulaks, under pressure from the growing activity of the poor and middle peasants, prioritized the struggle against collectivization.
The kulaks responded to the widespread expansion of collectivization and dispossession with malicious economic sabotage and sabotage, which, due to the lack of timely measures, took large proportions. Increased squandering and slaughter of livestock began almost everywhere (the kulaks managed to involve part of the middle peasantry in this movement). By the month of February, almost in all regions of the Union (first of all, where dispossession and eviction had already begun), the flight of the kulaks took over from their region, okrug, region with a preliminary sale, and in some places simply by the destruction of their property.
The greatest proportions were acquired by the flight of kulaks and selfdispossession in the SVK, NVK, SKK, Ukraine, Central Black Earth Region, Siberia, Belarus, etc.
In parallel, there was a revival of the emigration movement among the kulak‐wealthy elite of the German population in a number of regions of the Union, by the same time there were tendencies for the flight of the kulaks abroad from Ukraine and Belarus, an increase in the emigration movement in the border zone of Armenia, Turkmenistan and especially Kazakhstan and the DCK.
Some of the kulaks are trying to ward off the blow by penetrating the collective farms in every possible way, splitting up the economy, making relatives with the poor, ʺassigningʺ most of their farms to them, and so on.
During this period, numerous cases of divorces in kulak families, the separation of children from their fathers and relatives, the marriage of daughters to the poor and farm laborers, etc., were recorded.
All these methods of inhibiting collectivization and economic maneuvering, used by the kulaks in the first period of collectivization and dispossession (January) in order to adapt to the situation and selfpreservation, testifying to some confusion of the kulak, were very shortlived. With the further development of measures for collectivization, dispossession of kulaks and evictions, the kulaks more and more definitely turn to open counter‐revolutionary activity. Soon in all regions of the Union, along with the intensification of mass anticollective farm agitation, the facts of the convocation by the kulak‐antiSoviet elements of illegal meetings and conferences with the raising of the question of the struggle against collective farms became more frequent. The kulaks also tried to attract the poor and middle peasants to these meetings, and especially the former Red partisans.
The kulaks begin to bypass the houses of the poor and middle peasants, agitating against the collective farms, for withdrawing from them, for resisting dispossession and eviction. Special attention is paid to the female masses of the village. The kulak, counting on the fact that ʺwomen cannot be brought to justice,ʺ sets them on the collective farmers and Soviet workers.
As a result of the activation of the kulaks in processing the bulk of the population, numerous cases of disruption of meetings devoted to collectivization and dispossession of kulaks are recorded.
Cases of creation of inter‐settlement groups from the anti‐Soviet elite of a number of neighboring villages, villages, auls are becoming more frequent. These groups have already directly raised the question of preparing for an uprising and deploying a bandit movement. Insurrectionary calls, calls to retreat into the mountains and forests, and to organize gangs begin to dominate kulak agitation as we approach the end of February.
At the same time, kulak terror is growing, provoking mass demonstrations and the spread of anti‐Soviet leaflets. The dynamics of active anti‐Soviet manifestations in the countryside during this period is shown by the following comparative data:
1. The number of mass demonstrations in just two months, January and February 1930, exceeds the level of the whole of 1929 and is expressed by the figure of 1467 (for the whole of 1929 there were 1307 demonstrations).
2. The number of terrorist attacks in January was 808, and in February this figure rises to 1368.
3. For January‐February 1288 leaflets and anonymous letters were found, while for the whole of 1929 only 2390 of them were found, and during the months of the greatest aggravation of the struggle for bread (September‐October) ‐ 360.
The given data must be supplemented with the following notes:
1. Both the growth of mass demonstrations and the growth of kulak terror in January‐February are mainly due to collectivization and dispossession (out of 1,467 mass demonstrations, 918 took place on the basis of collectivization, dispossession and withdrawal of the antiSoviet element).
2. The quantitative growth of mass demonstrations was accompanied by an even sharper increase in the anti‐Soviet activity of the participants in the demonstrations, the organization and duration of the speeches. The slogans in the speeches acquired an ever more clearly expressed counter‐revolutionary character: ʺDown with Soviet power, down with collective farms, communist brigadiers, let’s tsar!ʺ etc. In a number of regions, the speakers wore white flags (Central Black Earth Region, Moscow Region), black flags (Belarus), and a blue flag (Ukraine, border stripe). In a number of cases, the speakers had weapons (Central Black Earth Region, Moscow Region, Ukraine, etc.). At the same time, the number of participants in the speeches has significantly increased. In a number of cases, the entire population of the village, stanitsa, and aul took part in the performances.
End of February ‐ April 1930
The end of February and the first half of March were the periods of the greatest aggravation of the class struggle in the countryside. The mass excesses and distortions of the Partyʹs and class line directives in the process of collectivization, dispossession, eviction of the kulaks and preparation for spring sowing, which by that time had caused serious fluctuations of the middle peasant, were used by the kulaks not only in order to slow down and disrupt collectivization and dispossession, but also mainly in the purpose of organizing the insurgency. As a result, this period was marked by an exceptional growth of mass demonstrations that covered a number of districts and districts in Ukraine, in the Central Black Region, NVK, SKK, SVK, Moscow Region,
Uzbekistan, Tatarstan, Bashkiria, etc. In the Moscow region, in the Central Black Earth Region, in the Ukraine, in the Caucasus, Kazakhstan, Siberia and the national regions of the JCC, mass demonstrations in some districts resulted in insurrectionary outbreaks, in some cases covering a number of villages and even districts. The kulak terror has also reached unprecedented proportions. Everywhere there was a further increase in rebel agitation, the spread of anticollective farm, anti‐Soviet and insurgent leaflets.
This period also includes the greatest activation and exit from the underground and the emergence of numerous new kulak groups and
Encouraged by such real latest results of their activities and massive exits from collective farms, the insolent kulaks began in many places to openly call for the dissolution of village councils, the expulsion of workers of the village councils and all activists from the village, ʺdispossessionʺ and eviction of communists, Komsomol members and activists.
To characterize the size of growth during this period of the main antiSoviet manifestations in the countryside, it is sufficient to cite the following comparative data:
1. The number of mass demonstrations increased from 401 in January to 1066 in February and 6513 in March.
The number of participants in the performances increased from 109,850 in January to 214,200 in February and 1,434,600 in March (it should be borne in mind that these numbers are much less than the actual number of participants, since the number of participants has not been established for 2305 performances out of 7980 ‐ for three months).
Ukraine alone from February 20 to April 20 unrest covered 1895 villages (398 districts in 41 districts).
The number of mass demonstrations in one month of March is much higher than the total number of demonstrations in the whole of 1929 and in the first two months of 1930 combined.
2. The number of terrorist attacks during this period increased from 808 in January to 1368 in February and 1895 in March.
3. The number of anti‐Soviet leaflets discovered increased from 460 in
January to 828 in February and 1,048 in March.
April ‐ July 1930
The rout of the main cadres of the village counter‐revolution (1st category), the campaign to evict the kulak (2nd category), accompanied by a decisive struggle of the party against the distortions of the class line in collectivization and dispossession of kulaks, caused the beginning of a turning point for the better in the political mood of the countryside. Since April, there has been an almost universal decline in all types of active anti‐Soviet manifestations (mass demonstrations, terror, insurgency). Nevertheless, the number of mass demonstrations and terrorist acts in these months (April‐July) is several times higher than the high level of these manifestations in the corresponding months of 1929.
The defeated but not yet finished kulak, putting up stubborn resistance, is rebuilding its ranks, continuing anti‐Soviet and counterrevolutionary activities in other forms.
This position is sufficiently confirmed by the following comparative data:
A sharp decline in mass demonstrations is observed in almost all regions, especially in the areas of the consuming belt and in the eastern national republics and regions.
Thus, in consuming regions, the number of performances fell from 809 in March to 595 in April and 171 in May; in the eastern regions during the same months the number of performances decreased from 989 to 298 and 202, respectively. A slightly different dynamics is given by the producing regions. Here, the decline in mass demonstrations in most regions (with the exception of Ukraine and the Central Black Earth Region) is proceeding at a slower pace (from 1090 in April to 998 in May), and in some regions (Siberia, NVK), a further, albeit insignificant, increase in mass demonstrations continues, which in mainly due to performances on the basis of food difficulties, sowing campaigns and the distribution of the seed fund.
Comparative data on mass demonstrations in Siberia and NVK for the months of March‐May.
Serious attention should be paid to the intensified kulak agitation during this period for the return of the displaced kulaks, which in a number of regions had significant success among part of the middle peasants and the poor. Rumors about the return of the kulaks from exile in connection with the alleged upcoming war, the ʺabolition of collectivizationʺ, etc. became widespread. The tendentious letters from exile received by the relatives of the exiled kulaks played a significant role in strengthening the movement for the return of the exiled kulaks. It should be noted that the movement for the return of the deported kulaks in some places proceeded with the assistance of a part of the lower Soviet apparatus: individual village councils assured, sometimes for a fee, the petitions of land societies and individual groups of peasants to return those expelled to send these petitions to the kulaks to places of exile. Mass explanatory work, in contrast to the whole campaign for the return of the kulaks, raised by the relatives of the exiled, was carried out almost nowhere. The movement for the return of the deported kulaks assumed the largest proportions in the Ukraine (Kiev district), in the NVK (especially in the ASSR NP) and in the SVK. In the North Caucasus, in the Central Black Earth Region and in a number of consuming regions, in the process of mass demonstrations, demands for the return of expelled kulaks were often put forward simultaneously with anti‐collective farm slogans.
At the same time, in some areas there is a growing movement for the return of kulak property seized in the order of dispossession, and for the restoration of the kulak‐anti‐Soviet element in electoral rights. The kulaks themselves are showing increasing activity in the struggle for self‐restoration (the month of May). There are more and more cases when kulaks forcibly occupy houses taken from them, expelling the poor or cult organizations from there.
In the Kominternovsky district of the Kiev district and in other districts, there have been cases of unauthorized return of kulaks from exile. In four districts of the same district, children of the deported kulaks appeared, brought by relatives who specially traveled to the place of exile. Numerous cases of unauthorized return of kulaks, deported in the 2nd category, are recorded in the Central Black Earth Region.
The kulaks and anti‐Soviet elements of the village were used to agitate and spread rumors about the “surrender of Soviet power to the kulak”, explaining this allegedly by the upcoming war with Poland, and their unauthorized return (flight) and the failure of local authorities to take measures to return the fugitives. Romania.
The dispossessed people themselves, resettled in the villages, stubbornly sabotaged the sowing and development of the plots allotted to them, waiting for a ʺchange of courseʺ and the return of property to the dispossessed. In most of the districts of the Central Black Earth District, many dispossessed people categorically refused to plant spring crops. At the same time, the dispossessed tried to agitate to sabotage the sowing of the middle peasants, intimidating them with the upcoming alleged “aversion”.
In N. Kalitvinsky District of the Rossoshansk District, the settled kulaks of 190 households and the Fedorovites of 280 households categorically refused to sow. Under the influence of agitation by dispossessed people throughout the region, up to 1000 farms were abandoned from sowing.
Basically, the anti‐Soviet movement in the countryside during this period, which still had a fairly large base in the person of a significant mass of dispossessed kulaks, but for a number of reasons, were not expelled and not resettled kulaks, is being held under anti‐collective farm slogans. In kulak agitation, emphasis is placed on the need to oppose collective farm sowing.
Insurgent slogans continue to be thrown out, both in leaflets and during mass demonstrations.
In connection with the growing movement in some regions (NVK, Ukrainian SSR) for the restoration of the kulaks, slogans directed against the class policy of the party in the countryside, against the slogan ʺliquidation of the kulaks as a classʺ are becoming widespread.
The kulak insurgent and White Guard organizations discovered in the Central Black Earth District and the NVK, focusing in their activities on the possibility of weakening the strength of the party and a split in the CPSU (b) as a result of the activities of the right, borrowed for their program directives and popularized among the masses some of Bukharinʹs opportunistic positions.
Also noteworthy is the call to protect Comrade Bukharin, contained in an anti‐collective farm leaflet found in the village. Novo‐Spassky, Berdyansk region, Mariupol district (Ukrainian SSR).
Here are the kulak anti‐Soviet slogans most characteristic of this period. 1. ʺDown with the commune, give individual farms!ʺ (Ural).
2. “Down with the collective farms, long live the peopleʹs power! Return the seeds, open a church” (Moscow region, BSSR).
3. ʺDown with the Jewish party, down with the collective farms!ʺ, ʺDown with the collective farms and the communists!ʺ (SVK, BSSR).
4. “There are no fists, the authorities have invented a fist, we will not give out fists” (Tataria, Ukraine, Central Black Earth Region, Crimea).
5. “In each village, in each settlement, organize armed detachments. Listen to the masses. ʺ
6. “Down with violence! Long live free labor! Long live the true electoral right! ʺ (Siberia).
7. “Down with Soviet power and collective farms! Down with collective farm sowing, donʹt let the collective farmers sow! ʺ (Ukraine, CCM).
8. “Down with the giants! Long live your own individuality! Down with communism! ʺ (CCM).
9. “Hide the bread, there will be hunger. Do not take loans, the party will soon fly off, do not go to collective farms, there you will die, beat the party trash, revolution is coming soon” (Ural).
10. “Soviet power is an enemy; religion is a friend” (TsCHO).
Withdrawals from the collective farms as the harvest approached under the influence of the incessant kulak agitation and as a result of the demoralizing activities of the kulaks and anti‐Soviet elements who penetrated into the collective farms and held on there, in some regions increased somewhat (Ukrainian SSR, SVK, SKK). In Ukraine, the strengthening of the anti‐collective farm movement, in particular, was facilitated by a good harvest of winter crops, which, according to the explanation of the directors, should have been the personal, nonsocialized property of the collective farmer, which intensified the tendency to leave collective farms even before the harvest (ʺwe will live with one winter harvestʺ).
An intensification of the anti‐Soviet movement in June and July is outlined in a number of regions in connection with the disappearance of silver from circulation, the bargaining chip crisis and the massive dumping of paper money by the peasantry, which led to an increase in demand for manufactured goods (market panic). The disappearance of silver in the border areas was preceded by widespread rumors about the war and the upcoming alleged rejection of the Right Bank of Ukraine by Poland.
The exiled kulaks, which gradually settled in the places of their new settlement, established ties with the local population, came into contact with the local kulaks and anti‐Soviet elements, begins to become active, are involved in anti‐Soviet work, are involved in local counterrevolutionary organizations (Ural), in some places subjugates the local Soviet apparatus (ibid.).
In July, the number of mass demonstrations sharply decreases not only in comparison with the months of January‐April, but also in comparison with May‐June, mainly due to a decrease in the number of mass demonstrations arising from food difficulties, dispossession of kulaks and the eviction of kulaks. At the same time, there is a slight increase in the number of anti‐collective farm protests, clashes between collective farmers and individual farmers in connection with the beginning of the harvest. In Ukraine, SKK, NVK and SVK, performances on the basis of grain procurements are already recorded.
August ‐ October 1930
The period of August‐October is again characterized by a significant intensification of the anti‐Soviet activity of the kulaks and other counter‐revolutionary elements, an exacerbation of the class struggle in the countryside, aimed mainly at disrupting grain procurements and autumn sowing. The lack of a favorable political situation in the countryside for organizing open mass anti‐Soviet uprisings is forcing the kulaks to significantly change their methods of struggle.
Anti‐Soviet activity over the past 3 months has developed mainly through mass anti‐harvest, anti‐sowing and anti‐harvest agitation and the spread of all kinds of provocative rumors, through anti‐worker and anti‐city sentiments in the peasantry based on a lack of manufactured goods. In a number of districts, attempts were noted by the kulaks to organize a massive anti‐Soviet campaign in the countryside under the slogan of “starving encirclement of the city” until the supply of goods is improved. In the North Caucasus, the kulak‐prosperous strata vigorously spread provocative rumors about the imminent eviction and liquidation of all the former Cossacks, about the upcoming forced collective collectivization. In Kazakhstan, CCM,
At the same time, there is a revival of the activities of kulak and antiSoviet groups. The uncovered and liquidated lately kulak groups in the SVK, Siberia, the Central Black Earth District, in the Ukraine and in the NVK show that the kulaks and the remnants of the counterrevolutionary White Guard bandit cadres were actively preparing for insurrectionary actions, timing them to the moment of the expected aggravation of discontent among the broad masses of the peasantry ... Preparing for themselves the basis for the development of open counter‐revolutionary activity, the kulaks, as in the first months of this year, devote exclusive attention to the treatment of women and antiSoviet middle peasants, to increasing their cadres of podkulaks from among the relatives of dispossessed and exiled kulaks.
In the SVK, NVK, TsChO and in a number of other districts, the kulaks, organizing women, are trying to put together a special female antiSoviet activist ʺleadersʺ from the kulaks and relatives of the dispossessed. Women, members of parish councils, former nuns, etc., take a very active role in anti‐Soviet activities.
The anti‐collective farm activity of the kulaks, which intensified during this period, is accompanied by a desire to undermine the economic base of the collective and state farms. In the kulak terror, which has been showing an upward trend since the second half of August, the sabotage line, the predominance of property terror over physical terror (arson of collective farm grain, granaries, outbuildings, warehouses and machines) is becoming more and more apparent. This is evidenced by the following comparative data:
Total terrorist attacks excluding national republics)
Note: data for September‐October are incomplete.
In July‐October, over 1200 arson attacks were registered in the Union, mainly of collective farm grain, when it was still in the fields. The burning of bread became especially widespread in the Ukraine, in the Central Black Earth Region and in the North Caucasus. In Ukraine alone, over 100,000 poods of bread burned down from arson.
Murders and injuries in the total mass of terrorist acts are: in August ‐ 20% (194 cases), in September ‐ 14% (114 cases), in October ‐ 115 (50 cases). For the eastern national republics and regions: in August ‐ 34% (70 cases), in September ‐ 22% (28 cases) and in October ‐ 31% (13 cases).
In Ukraine, in the Central Black Earth District and in Siberia, there has recently been an increase in terror against workers of the Soviet apparatus and local activists on the basis of grain procurements.
A whole series of terrorist attacks have been registered, committed by kulaks who fled from exile and from settlements in the interior. Recently, cases of terrorist acts committed by bribed and drunken criminals, poor and middle peasants, and in some cases even collective farmers (LVO, Ukraine, Ural, Central Black Earth Region, etc.) have become more frequent.
The level of mass demonstrations during this period continues to decline, mainly due to a decrease in mass demonstrations based on the seizure and infringement of the kulaks and anti‐Soviet elements, due to collectivization and the almost complete cessation of mass demonstrations based on food difficulties. Only in Ukraine in October there is a significant increase in mass demonstrations on the basis of grain procurements (from 15 demonstrations in August to 82, according to incomplete data, in October). The dynamics of mass demonstrations in the Union and individual groups of regions during this period in comparison with the corresponding periods of the last year is shown in the following table:
mass demonstration s in 1930
mass demonstration s in 1929
Number of mass demonstrations in
1930 in areas
In the eastnat. rep. an d reg.
The female part of the population continues to play a very active role in mass protests. In a number of regions of the total mass of performances, up to 30‐50% are exclusively female (in terms of the composition of participants) performances (Ukraine, NVK, Western Oblast and other regions).
In Ukraine, over 10 performances were recorded in October, which were persistent and long‐lasting. The participants in the performances were armed with pitchforks, knives and hunting rifles.
Some speeches were accompanied by beating of representatives of local authorities, grain procurement workers, destruction of village councils and the unauthorized release of those arrested.
In recent months (September‐October), one of the main reasons causing mass demonstrations is the excesses and distortions of the class line in the practice of grain procurement (re‐taxation of low‐capacity farms, bringing firm assignments to middle and poor farms, fines, etc.).
In Ukraine, in the NEC and in Kazakhstan, individual mass actions of collective farmers against the delivery of grain were recorded, due in most cases to the obvious bungling of grain procurement workers.
In Ukraine, only in October, according to far from complete data, out of 82 speeches in 21 cases, they were caused by excesses in taxation and the application of measures of influence on non‐donors of grain (arrests, searches and inventory of property of the poor and middle peasants).
The number of cases of distribution of anti‐Soviet leaflets and locally made anonymous letters has sharply decreased in recent months.
In May, 293 cases of leaflet distribution were recorded, in June ‐ 210 cases, in July ‐ 230 cases, in August ‐ 116; in September ‐ 77 cases, in October ‐ 16 (data for September and October are incomplete).
By their content, most leaflets are directed against collectivization and grain procurement. Anonymous leaflets with the threat of reprisals to Soviet activists constitute a significant group. The share of insurgent leaflets decreased noticeably in September and October. The leaflets clearly formulate the main topical kulak slogans. Here are some of them:
1. ʺDown with cooperation, long live free trade!ʺ
2. ʺWhoever hands over his bread first, he will be terrorized until the baby.ʺ
3. ʺGet ready for grain procurements, to repulse the communists, down with them from Ukraine!ʺ
4. ʺDonʹt give cattle, the Soviet ruble is worth one kopeck.ʺ
5. ʺDestroy collective farms, state farms and then you will be able to engage in free labor.ʺ
6. “Down with Soviet power, we will wipe the communists off the face of the earth! You need to achieve your power so that Russia is ruled by a peasant, and not by some thief‐robber. Stock up on weapons, get organized. ʺ
A distinctive feature of the recently reactivated kulak and anti‐Soviet groups is their deep conspiracy, class cohesion and an orientation toward armed uprising.
In Moscow oblast, in the NVK, SVK, TsChO, the Ukrainian SSR, and in a number of other areas, a number of groups and kulak‐White Guard organizations were discovered, which were actively preparing for an armed anti‐Soviet uprising.
The activists of these groups and organizations, disguising themselves in every possible way and in most cases not personally actively speaking out, carry out their subversive work against all Soviet measures in the countryside through their cadres of under‐the‐kulaks from the poor and the correspondingly treated anti‐Soviet middle peasants, relatives of dispossessed and exiled kulaks.
Head of the Information Department of the OGPU Zaporozhets