Post-war collectivization and "dispossession" in the soviet historiography of the 1940s and 1950s.

Kananerova Elena Nikolaevna ORCID: 0000-0002-6218-2618 PhD in History Associate Professor; Department of History and Cultural Studies; Moscow Power Engineering University 119034, Russia, Moscow, Krasnokazarmennaya 17, office building 1G ekananerova@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

In previous articles, the development of the historiography of post-war collectivization was considered for each individual region that became part of the USSR on the eve of the Second World War or after it ^{[1, p. 47; 2, p. 258; 3, p. 5; 4, p. 69]}. In this study, we have attempted to summarize and analyze the development of Soviet historical thought on post-war collectivization in all Western regions and republics.

The chronological framework of the study was the 1940s and 1950s, when the Soviet historical paradigm was finally formed under the influence of the Short Course on the History of the CPSU (b), published in 1938.

In the period from 1939 to 1945, the western regions were annexed to the Ukrainian SSR, the MSSR and the BSSR, the Baltic republics became part of the USSR, as well as the Northern part of East Prussia (Konigsberg, and later Kaliningrad region). Soviet socialist republics, new regions and districts were formed in the annexed territories, and the Soviet economic restructuring began, including collective farm construction ^{[5, p. 28]}.

During the Great Patriotic War, the economy of the occupied western regions and republics suffered severely. Agrarian reforms, including collective farm construction, were temporarily suspended. In the mid-1940s, documentary collections were published, containing mainly information about the crimes of the Nazis ^{[6, p. 123; 7, p. 321; 8, p. 72]}, as well as generalizing works on the economy of the USSR during the Second World War. However, these collections and generalizing works also contain data on the economic damage caused by the war and the beginning of the post-war reconstruction and restructuring of agriculture within the framework of the Soviet economic model ^{[9, p. 143; 10, p. 16; 11, p. 128]}.

The development of Russian historiography of post-war collectivization in the Western regions and republics within the framework of the Soviet historical paradigm of the 1940s and 1950s.

In this article, we will consider the first stage of studying post-war collectivization and dispossession in Western regions and republics in Soviet historiography of the 1940s and 1950s. Studies of this problem in Soviet historical science in the 1960s and 1980s will be the subject of subsequent articles.

The main factors in the development of the Soviet historical paradigm were ideological (Marxist-Leninist concept and methodological principles) and political. The political factor in 1940-1950 was not homogeneous. From the 1930s to 1953, the main guideline in the development of Soviet historical science was the views of I. V. Stalin, and the scientific discussion stopped after the publication of the "Short Course" on the History of the CPSU(b) (1938), which determined the directions of development and evaluation of Soviet historians ^{[29, p. 34]}. Under the influence of J. V. Stalin's work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" (1952), collectivization was generally considered by Soviet historians as the only possible and progressive way to develop agriculture in the country. These estimates were automatically transferred by researchers in the 1940s and 1950s to post-war collectivization ^{[13, p. 12; 14, p. 131; 15, p. 41]}.

The first post-war decade (1940-1950) was the initial stage of studying collectivization in the regions and republics that became part of the USSR on the eve of the Second World War and following its results. It should be noted that the historians of the 1940s and 1950s who wrote about post-war collectivization and dekulakization were their contemporaries. Post-war collectivization ended only in the early 1950s, and therefore, in our research, we deliberately avoided works that were openly agitational and propagandistic in nature. The study of the early stage will allow tracing the evolution of the historiography of post-war collectivization throughout the Soviet period.

Studying the historiography of the 1940s and 1950s, we sought to find out how the development of the Soviet historical paradigm as a whole influenced the study of post-war collectivization.

Historians of the 1940s pay attention to certain aspects of post-war collectivization, in particular the agrarian reform of 1940-1941.

Most of the Soviet studies considered in the article date back to the 1950s. The death of I. V. Stalin in 1953, the XX Congress of 1954 and the beginning of "de-Stalinization" did not lead to the removal of party control over the development of Soviet historical science. Nevertheless, the new conditions stimulated the study of post-war collectivization on the ground, which was facilitated by the expansion of historians' access to archives and the publication of party and government documents.

To study the post-war collectivization and "dekulakization", Soviet historians studied documents from the archival funds of the Ministries of animal husbandry, fruit and vegetable farming, procurement, etc., as well as republican, state and party archives. Historians also refer in their works to the materials of the central archives (CPA IMEL, CGIAM, CGANH, archive of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR (since 1946, the Ministry of Agriculture). Historians of this period introduced into scientific circulation a significant number of official documents on post-war collectivization, publishing collections of archival documents.

In the 1950s, the study of post-war collectivization was influenced by intensive work on the study of pre-war collectivization. A significant number of works are devoted to cooperation in agriculture in the western regions and republics, as the basis for the transition to collectivization; the development of the material and technical base of collective farms; the creation of qualified personnel. In Soviet studies of the 1940s and early 1950s, Stalin's thesis about the intensification of the class struggle under socialism in the context of collective farm construction was declared. In the second half of the 1950s, republican historians identified various forms of resistance to collective farm construction, which is an important achievement.

In the late 1950s, hotel articles and dissertations were replaced by thematic collections of scientific papers and conference materials. There are few monographs, including collective ones, devoted to the post-war restoration of the national economy of the western regions and republics. It should be noted that the problem of post-war collectivization in the Kaliningrad region of the RSFSR is considered by Soviet researchers of the 1940s and 1950s only in generalizing works.

The purpose and stages of agrarian transformations in the historiography of the 1940s and 1950s.

The authors of pre-war works for the first time characterize the main provisions of the land reform of 1940-1941, preceding collectivization ^{[12, p. 65; 17, p. 48; 18, p. 54]}. In the post-war works, the stages of collectivization were defined: preparatory (agrarian reforms of 1940-1941), post-war reconstruction (1944-1948), continuous collectivization (1949-1950) ^{[20, p. 79; 21, p. 12; 22, p. 34]}.

The agrarian reforms of 1940-1941 in the Western republics, according to the authors of the period under review, were carried out to "eliminate bourgeois land ownership and radically transform land relations" ^{[15, p. 29; 21, p. 54]} and "bring small-scale agriculture in line with large-scale industrial production" ^{[28, p. 102]}. In addition, Soviet historians have noted the complexity of the economy in the western regions and republics, which hindered collectivization. Many authors note that agrarian reforms were a tool for eliminating complexity, which was transitional and did not correspond to the socialist economy of the USSR ^{[16, p. 19; 24, p. 100; 25, p. 284]}. V. Y. Nyunka notes the transitional nature of the economy of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, which combined elements of socialism and capitalism ^{[19, p. 536]}.

In the 1950s, the first generalizing works on the history of western regions and republics were published, in which historians focus on the consequences of the Second World War. Information about post-war collectivization is fragmentary and illustrative in nature and is considered as part of the natural and natural "process of post-war restoration of the national economy" ^{[5, p. 276]} and the entry of the economy of the annexed territories into the socialist economy formed in the USSR before the Second World War, which implied the elimination of a variety of forms of land relations ^{[5, p. 276; 8, p. 45; 9, p. 43; 10, p. 281; 16, p. 34; 18, p. 17; 23, p. 286]}.

Before the Great Patriotic War, only small peasant farms existed on the territory of the Kaliningrad Region, which, according to Soviet researchers, complicated collectivization ^{[9, p. 75; 20, p. 62]}.

The prerequisites for post-war collectivization and the role of the State in the historiography of the 1940s and 1950s.

Soviet researchers write that in the context of the multifaceted economy of the western regions and republics, the state and the assistance of the union center played a central role in collectivization. ^{[20, p. 81; 24, p. 96; 26, p. 458]}. In the works of the end of 1940-1950, methods of preparing conditions for post-war collectivization were mentioned. One of them was the agitation carried out by those who were evacuated to the rear during the war, where collective farms had existed since the late 1920s, as well as specialists sent to the liberated regions ^{[25, p. 361]}. Y. Harutyunyan and M. Vyltsan note that "from 1944 to 1951, here (to the Western regions of Ukraine), 19 thousand agricultural specialists and almost 44 thousand teachers were sent to permanent employment" ^{[22, p. 165]}. In generalizing works devoted to the development of agriculture during the first post-war five-year plan, Soviet researchers note that in the Kaliningrad region, the construction of collective farms was preceded by the creation of subsidiary farms attached to military units and the subsequent mass resettlement of collective farmers from the territory of the RSFSR and the BSSR ^{[20, p. 42]}. Historians of the 1950s do not provide an exact number of migrants, but emphasize that they carried agricultural implements, poultry and livestock, as well as fodder. Soviet authors write that displaced families who did not have cows, according to the instructions of the union authorities, could get cows before moving or get a loan to purchase animals on the spot ^{[10, p. 81]}.

The revival of collective farms established in 1939-1940 began in the liberated territories even before the end of the Second World War. Soviet historians note that only a small number of collective farms were created before the war, without naming their exact number ^{[19, p. 19; 26, p. 22]}.

In addition to agitation and propaganda, Yu. Harutyunyan and M. Vyltsan, F. Y. Deglav, M. A. Gregorauskas, the authors of the collectives "History of the Latvian SSR", "Essays on the Development of the National Economy of the Ukrainian SSR" and "History of the Moldavian SSR" cite the nationalization of land and agrarian reform as prerequisites for post-war collectivization. In addition, the introduction of a differentiated tax for various categories of peasants played a significant role. In addition to tax breaks, the poor and middle peasants of the western regions and republics could count on a preferential loan. At the same time, Kulak farms had to pay an increased tax. On the eve of the continuous post-war collectivization in 1948, the amount of tax for kulaks was increased by 50-100% of the tax of poor and middle-class farms ^{[22, p. 95; 24, p. 22; 18, p. 75; 23, p. 76; 27, p. 215; 25, p. 141]}. In the Kaliningrad Region, migrants, regardless of their level of well-being, were exempt from paying taxes ^{[33, p. 103]}.

In the western regions and republics, party organs decided to stimulate peasant cooperation so that peasants could see for themselves the advantages of collective farming ^{[13, p. 412; 23, p. 95; 29, p. 46; 28, p. 126]}. In particular, by 1947-1948, up to 70% of peasant farms were covered by cooperatives ^{[29, p. 281]}.

Collectivization in the late 1920s and early 1930s could not have taken place without industrialization, that is, the supply of agricultural machinery to the countryside. Post-war collectivization went hand in hand with the post-war reconstruction of industry. But often the creation and development of MTS in the Baltic States, the Moldavian SSR, the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR were carried out by transferring tractors and agricultural machinery there from the territory of the older Soviet republics ^{[24, p. 274; 31, p. 13]}. Historians note that due to such measures, the tractor capacity of MTS has increased fourfold in Latvia. In the USSR for 1946-1950, and in the Ukrainian SSR for 1948-1950 ^{[29, p. 343]}. In the Kaliningrad region from 1946 to 1950, the state transferred 1,278 tractors to MTS, and therefore the level of mechanization in the region was higher than in other regions of the USSR ^{[22, p. 251]}.

Continuous collectivization and its pace in the Western regions and republics in the historiography of 1940-1950.

Historians of the 1940s and 1950s agree that continuous collectivization in the western regions and republics began in 1949 in accordance with a government decree on the transition to a forced stage of building a collective farm system ^{[31, p. 342; 32, p. 76]}.

In articles and monographs of the late 1940s and 1950s, 1949 is indicated as the beginning of continuous collectivization in the Baltic republics, the right-bank regions of the MSSR, the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR, as well as the Kaliningrad region of the RSFSR. According to the data provided by the same authors, the measures for continuous collectivization were completed in these regions in January 1951.

Soviet researchers noted that by the end of 1949, the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic experienced high rates of collectivization, as a result of which 93% of peasant farms became part of collective farms. By the beginning of July 1950, a similar trend was observed in the Estonian SSR and the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR, where the level of collectivization exceeded 95%. As of the beginning of 1951, in the right-bank regions of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, the level of collectivization of peasant farms was 92.7% ^{[23, p. 20; 25, p. 536; 30, p. 401]}. Generalizing works on the history of Union agriculture provide the following data on the pace of collectivization in the Kaliningrad region of the RSFSR. In 1946, there were 30 collective farms in the Kaliningrad region, by the middle of 1947 - 312, by the middle of 1950 – 472 ^{[9, p. 175]}.

In our opinion, the high rates of post-war collectivization in the western regions and republics are explained not by the voluntary entry of peasants into collective farms, but by the experience of pre-war collectivization, significant financial and technological assistance from the union center, as well as the experience of pre-war collectivization in some of them. First of all, we mean the Ukrainian SSR and the MSSR, and agrarian reform was carried out in the Baltic republics before the Great Patriotic War.

Features of post-war collectivization in the historiography of the 1940s and 1950s

Despite the significant similarities between post-war and pre-war collectivization, historians of the 1940s and 1950s highlight the specifics of post-war collectivization.

According to Soviet researchers of the 1940s and 1950s, the opportunity to receive technical assistance from the senior Soviet republics was common to all Western regions and republics during the post-war collectivization. In addition, technical specialists were sent to these regions, those who were evacuated during the war returned and got acquainted with the collective farm system, promoting its advantages ^{[21, p. 60; 23, p. 98; 25, p. 295; 26, p. 26; 28, p. 287]}. Thus, in the eastern regions of the Ukrainian SSR, the BSSR and the MSSR, collective farms were established during the collectivization of the 1920s and 1930s, and party cadres had considerable experience in conducting continuous collectivization. All this became the basis for post-war collectivization in the annexed regions ^{[24, p. 276; 33, p. 81; 37, p. 324]}. Soviet researchers note that in the Kaliningrad region of the RSFSR, agricultural machinery was transferred to collective farms by units of the Soviet army before the start of continuous collectivization, or it was assembled on abandoned German farms and estates ^{[22, p. 51]}.

The authors of works on collectivization in the Baltic Republics attribute the difficulties in carrying out collectivization in the Baltic Republics after the Second World War to the fact that, due to the low soil fertility, arable agriculture did not develop here, which means that communal land use did not develop. The land was privately owned on the terms of household land ownership. The farms were built at a considerable distance from each other without common farm buildings for livestock. Y. Paleckis, M. A. Gregorauskas, V. G. Matin, F. Y. Deglav emphasize that the farm organization of agriculture, the lack of buildings for livestock, which was to become a collective farm herd, were an obstacle to collectivization ^{[16, p. 82; 18, p. 73; 21, p. 97; 24, p. 23]}.

Soviet researchers point out specific problems with collectivization in the Kaliningrad region. During the Great Patriotic War, the land reclamation system was practically destroyed in the region, most of the breeding cattle and local crops were destroyed during the fighting in the autumn of 1944-spring of 1945, which made it difficult to restore agriculture and organize collective farms after the war ^{[33, p. 127]}.

The principle of voluntary collectivization and "dispossession" in the historiography of the 1940s and 1950s.

Historians of the 1940s and 1950s emphasize, in accordance with the Soviet historical paradigm, the voluntary nature of post-war collectivization with high peasant activity ^{[19, p. 128; 24, p. 315; 30, p. 312; 31, p. 4]}. However, statistical data in the works of historians of the 1940s and 1950s contradict this thesis. In the study of G. A. Baradach and the published Resolution of the Republican Congress of Consumer Cooperation of the BSSR, the following information is provided. At the beginning of 1948, before the beginning of continuous collectivization, 9.6% of peasant farms in the western regions of the BSSR consisted of collective farms. These farms, of course, joined the collective farms voluntarily. However, even with the beginning of continuous collectivization, it was not possible to quickly achieve high rates. By January 1, 1949, 49% of the peasants had joined collective farms. Complete collectivization was completed in the western regions of the BSSR by July 1, 1950, when 92.7% of peasants joined collective farms ^{[26, p. 5]}.

The following thesis is common to all the works studied: the aim of the policy of "dispossession" was to limit the economic influence of the kulaks. This assessment bears the imprint of the official ideology, which claimed that in the course of socialist transformations, the class struggle is intensifying, in our case, the Kulak resistance to collectivization ^{[15, p. 43; 28, p. 235]}.

As in the case of pre-war collectivization, Soviet historians do not specify the exact number of kulaks, but we can correlate the statistics given in articles and monographs with the classical Leninist criteria of kulak economy.

V. I. Lenin referred to kulak farms with 4 or more horses, owning at least 25 dessiatines (27.3 hectares) and employing hired workers (except seasonal ones). Let us emphasize an important point: the allotment of 16-18 desyatinas (17.5–19.6 hectares) was, according to V. I. Lenin, the minimum necessary to meet the needs of one peasant family ^{[31, p. 39]}.

The articles, monographs, and generalizing works of the 1940s and 1950s do not contain clear criteria on which the authorities relied when determining the status of farms as Kulaks.

According to historians of the period under review, Kulak farms included farms that had at their disposal from 13.8 acres in Lithuania to 20 hectares (18.3 acres) ^{[20, p. 77; 28, p. 79; 30, p. 387]}. As for the traction force owned by such farms, the number of horses ranged from 1.1 to 3 heads. ^{[15, p. 49; 20, p. 76; 33, p. 365]}.

The problem of "dispossession" is considered in their works only by individual historians. The main topic of Soviet researchers in this context was the methods of resistance to unification into collective farms, naming among them the damage to agricultural machinery and equipment, disruptions of agricultural procurement and the concealment of grain. According to Soviet historians, the sabotage of collective farm work was particularly malicious during the period under review. Many actions were considered by the authorities as sabotage. In addition, the authors mention murders and violence against collective farm managers ^{[18, p. 75; 28, p. 265]}.

However, there is no information about the categories and numbers of the "dispossessed", about the measures taken against them (execution, expulsion, resettlement within the republic).

It should be noted that Soviet historians of the period under review do not separate the Kulak and peasant resistance in general and the collaborationist movement in the former occupied territories, considering them as a single process ^{[33, p. 265]}.

In addition, Soviet historians of the 1940s and 1950s identify the struggle of the kulaks, collaborators and nationalists, which, in our opinion, should be divided for objective research ^{[25, p. 417; 33, p. 197]}.

The results of collectivization in the historiography of the 1940s and 1950s.

Soviet historians of the 1940s and 1950s consider the post-war socialist transformation of agriculture in the western regions and republics to be the natural and only possible process of eliminating multicultural and bourgeois relations in agriculture in the newly annexed regions and creating collective farms under the leadership of the state and the party. Most of the authors of articles on collectivization in individual republics and regions, as well as generalizing works on the development of agriculture after the Second World War, focus on the successes of accelerated collective farm construction. The most important achievement, according to V. G. Matin, V. Yu. Nyunka, Ya. Krastyn, the teams of authors "National Economy of the BSSR" and "History of the Moldavian SSR" and others, call the accelerated post-war restoration of agriculture ^{[21, p. 98; 17, p. 129; 15, p. 48; 11, p. 203; 25, p. 321]}.

At the same time, the theme of the 1946 famine appears in some works of Soviet historians of the 1940s and 1950s. However, famine is not associated with collectivization, citing crop failure as the main cause of famine. The authors of generalizing works on the history of the Latvian and Ukrainian SSR focus in much more detail on the topic of assistance provided by the USSR leadership to residents of western regions and republics affected by the 1946 famine ^{[23, p. 371; 27, p. 328]}. Soviet researchers note that in the Kaliningrad region of the RSFSR, famine factors also included the destruction of breeding cattle and local seed stock during the Second World War, as well as the destruction of the German land reclamation system, as a result of which a significant part of agricultural land was flooded ^{[9, p. 254]}.

Unexplored and little-studied topics in the historiography of the 1940s and 1950s.

In the research of the 1940s and 1950s, there are a significant number of unexplored aspects of collectivization.

Soviet historians emphasize the voluntary nature of collectivization, and violations during continuous collectivization are considered isolated ^{[10, p. 264; 37, p. 104]}. The main factors in the formation of such estimates are ideological constraints, as well as a limited range of statistical data available for study during the period under review. In the 1960s and 1980s, the problems of Soviet research expanded due to the introduction into scientific circulation of a wide range of documents from the party and the government.

In addition, in the 1940s and 1950s, the objective causes of the difficulties of post-war collectivization and the goal of enlarging collective farms remained unexplored. The authors of this time either limit themselves to stating the fact of these processes, or to a template transfer of assessments of collectivization to the USSR in 1920-1930 ^{[30, p. 276; 31, p. 239; 37, p. 310]}.

The historiography of the problems of the goals and prerequisites of post-war collectivization is considered in the 1940s and 1950s within the framework of the Soviet historical paradigm in the context of a limited source base. It is necessary to trace the evolution of the little-studied and unexplored issues in the historiography of the 1940s and 1950s.

Conclusions

Having studied the development of Soviet historiography of post-war collectivization in the 1940s and 1950s, we came to the following conclusions.

The beginning of the first period of Soviet historiography of post-war collectivization and "dispossession" occurred at a time when the processes under study had not yet been completed. However, the study of the very first works contributes to the study of the development of the Soviet historical paradigm as a whole, the evolution of the subject matter and assessments of Soviet historians.

Ideological (Marxist-Leninist methodology) and political factors should be mentioned among the main factors in the development of Russian historiography in the 1940s and 1950s of post-war collectivization. However, the period we have studied is not uniform in terms of the political factor. Until 1953, the historiography of post-war collectivization was influenced by the views of I. V. Stalin and considered only certain aspects of post-war collectivization. The 20th Congress and the beginning of "de-Stalinization" opened up access to a wider range of documents for Soviet historians and stimulated the development of regional research in the field of post-war collectivization.

All the authors of 1940-1950, according to ideological guidelines, consider collectivization as the only possible and progressive way to develop agriculture in the country. The largest number of works by historians from the 1940s and 1950s are devoted to the goals, prerequisites, and methods of collectivization. "De-Stalinization" made it possible for Soviet historians to begin studying the problem of "dekulakization," in particular, methods of resistance to collective farm construction.

Soviet historiography, with its objective achievements but ideologized conclusions, requires critical reflection. In addition, historians of the 1940s and 1950s analyzed and introduced into scientific circulation a significant array of official documents of the state and the party leadership.

Based on the example of the study of collectivization and "dekulakization" in the late 1920s and early 1930s, it is obvious that the main documents were deposited in the archives of the extraordinary bodies directly involved in the "dekulakization". It should also be noted that there are not enough references to statistical data in articles and monographs from the 1940s to the 1950s. Among the published works, we practically do not find collections of statistical data. However, the statistics provided by some authors differ from ideological assessments. In particular, Soviet historians write in all their works that collectivization was voluntary. But data on the pace of collectivization in the western regions and republics show that before the start of continuous collectivization, that is, no more than 10% of peasant farms voluntarily joined collective farms.

Nevertheless, the achievements of Soviet historiography include a detailed study of topics that are not tabooed by ideology: the prerequisites, chronological framework and stages of agrarian transformations and collectivization, the pace of collectivization, the special role of the state in carrying out agrarian reforms, collectivization and the subsequent famine of 1946.

Let us note the small number of works by Soviet historians of the 1940s and 1950s devoted to certain aspects of collectivization in the Kaliningrad region, considered in the context of the problem of agricultural development in the RSFSR during the first post-war five-year plan. Nevertheless, Soviet researchers of the period under review point out the peculiarities of collectivization in the region (the role of the military in the development of agriculture, the resettlement of collective farmers, the use of captured equipment, the destruction of breeding cattle and local seed stock).

The problems of violations during collectivization, the number and categories of "dispossessed", the measures applied to them (execution, expulsion, resettlement) due to political and ideological factors, as well as the limited range of documents to which historians of the 1940s and 1950s had access, are insufficiently studied.

In the Soviet historical science of the 1940s and 1950s, the issue of resistance to the creation of collective farms was considered in conjunction with the theme of the collaborationist movement. Research conducted in 1990-2000, analyzing documents from declassified archives of emergency authorities, showed that peasant resistance to joining collective farms was not related to a political or ideological conflict with the Soviet government. It was based on the economic motives of the peasants. However, in the 1940s and 1950s, historians did not have access to the documents of this department.