pARTisan_32

More documents

Recommendations

Info

characteristic to it, whereas what regards opinions about Stalin, apparently, even special agencies did not dare to do it. Once during oral history expeditions in 2001, I asked informants born in the 1910-1930s about their attitude to Stalin and Khrushchev. When responding about Stalin, as a rule, they spoke in cliches, «Stalin won the war. In Stalin’s time there was order. Stalin would have dealt with you», etc. In conclusion one woman summarized, «As for Khrushchev! He was also a tough guy!» — Was the problem of the generation gap felt in this regard, a sort of «Pavlik Morozov» cases when children were denouncing their parents to the authorities? — Certainly the conflicts did occur. Although it is hard for me to recall such a bright example as the myth about Pavlik Morozov. But the point was that it was really the children — the new Soviet citizens — to become those who were popularizing the party politics among the backward social strata, particularly their own parents. That is, the parents were being re-educated by their children who, in their turn, were brought up by the Soviet school. The politicization of childhood world was enormous: no games, toys, children's parties or, of course, books were left without the ideologues’ attention. For example, such poems by Korney Chukovsky [one of the most popular children writer of 1920s] as «Mukha-Zokatukha» and «Barmaley» were banned as «unacceptable from the pedagogical point of view». «Tale of the Priest and His Workman Balda» was recognized as mystical and «The Tale of Tsar Saltan» — as monarchist. At the same time «The Gigantic Turnip» was seen as politically ethical, since it not only demonstrated the power of the collective, but even clearly illustrated the laws of dialectics, namely the transition from quantity to quality, etc. Or, for example, in 1935 a Music teacher in one of Mozyr schools was fired for singing together with his pupils a song «How fresh and green my garden is…». The teacher was given the sack for individualism propaganda, that is he should have been singing not about «my garden», but about «a kolkhoz garden». In the archives I found an interesting document called «The Socialist agreement between a pupil of Class 6 Anna Larchenko and her father and mother». According to this document, the father took on the responsibility of becoming an «udarnik» (a superproductive worker) in the kolkhoz, of taking care of the kolkhoz property, of subscribing and read newspapers; the mother was also supposed to get an «udarnitsa» title and fight for cultural life. In response, the girl herself was promising to study hard, to cope with the social workload and also be friendly with her brothers and sisters. The children had to «teach» their parents 24 to clean the house not on the eve of religious holidays, but before those connected with the revolution, and to decorate it with the portraits of the political leaders instead of the icons, and so on. We also know many examples, as already in the period of Khrushchev, pressure was exercised on children from the school’s side, so that they would wean their parents off attending church. In the 1930s, the politicization of the world of childhood came to have curious twists. Uladzimir Ivanavich Sviatlou, a member of the Cinematographers’ Union, once told me that in 1937 they were forced to check young pioneers red scarfs to make sure that the Trotskyites and the Bukharinites had not released a shipment of scarfs with the Nazi signs visible against light on their surface. — How did the crisis and the shift from the New Economic Policy to collectivization occur in the 1920- 1930s? — As I have said, in the 1920s the village was living a rather traditional life. The October Revolution failed to solve the land issues in Belarus and there was not enough land. During the period of the New Economic Policy peasants were market-oriented and economic independence, albeit in a highly reduced form, was fruitful. The 1930s were a terrible time: collectivization, mass deportations and repressions, complete legal insecurity at all levels. The destruction of the old life, of the traditional worldview, a ban even on the hope for salvation after death. Mass hunger. — Did collectivization destroy economic independence? — During collectivization there was no place for peasants’ independence. And there was no place for it in the kolkhoz, either. Orders were received from the top in terms of what, where and when to plant. Attempts to explain their inappropriateness or impossibility (for example, you can not sow because there is sill water in the fields) could end tragically for those who «were going against the party». To crush the protesters, soldiers were sent. — And in general how did the peasants resist what was going on? — Attempts to introduce socialism, collectivism and atheism for good and all caused peasants’ active resistance. The figures for the USSR are impressive! In 1930, almost 14 000 protests in which about 3.5 million people participated were registered! In the BSSR in the course of the first three months of 1930 there were at least 500 protests. A striking phenomenon of that period were so-called women’s revolts – this was how the authorities themselves called mass demonstrations organized by women. The name allowed to depoliticize the protests associating them with females’ hysteria. However, to crush these uprisings the authorities also sent troops armed with machine guns. There were also other forms of struggle against collectivization. For example, in 1931 in Lelchitsy district peasants from a number of villages moved to live in the forest. Thus, their villages were left empty! Men were carrying out armed raids, attacking government officials. Their ultimate goal was to move to Poland. Mass protests against the successive wave of collectivization in the spring of 19<strong>32</strong> were even more desperate and cold-blooded.
There was also a wide range of conventional forms of resistance, such as poor performance in kolkhozes or even refusals to work, thefts, escapes to the city and other regions of the country. The logical conclusion of the war with the peasantry was the famine in 1933-1934. M. Kochergin. May 1, 1920. Through debris of capitalism to World-wide Brotherhood! 1920. The private archives — You researched a particular case of specific resistance — «Lepel silentiaries». What kind of episode was it? — It was a very interesting multidimensional story about robbed peasants deprived of all the rights who dared to resist the Soviet regime. The episode is also curious from the point of view of the choice of the resistance form– it was a boycott! The conflict started while foreign passports issuing and lasted during the All-Union population census in 1937. The first version of the explanation for the individual peasants’ behavior was their sectarianism. However, the authorities suddenly paid attention to their plight, to the fact that local leaders were not just making fun of them, but were actually using totally medieval tortures. Events in the Belarusian border area were taken under the personal control of Joseph Stalin himself. A show trial over the district’s leadership was held, covered in press by such central newspapers «Pravda» and «Izvestia». Following this model, several dozens of similar trials all around the Soviet Union were carried out. So, it was quite obvious that the local leadership similarly behaved everywhere. And it was also rather clear that Stalin again (as in the case of the article entitled «Dizzy with Success» on March 2, 1930) tried to put all the blame on the local staff, to find scapegoats. In addition, the Lepel affair «fit» mass repressions of 1937 perfectly well, it became the ideological basis of large-scale arrests of local and national-level staff. For example, in some regions all the leadership representatives were arrested and there was noone to be given a key to the building of the local executive committee or district committee! That is one can conclude that the Soviet regime was abolished in some areas! However, it did not lead to individual peasants’ life’s changing for the better. — We know about the Holodomor in Ukraine, now it is a kind of a national symbol for the Ukrainians. You researched this topic in Belarus. To what extent did the situation in Ukraine differ from that of Belarus? — Of course, in scale they are not comparable. However, the famine did happen in Belarus. Polesie (the districts of Yelsk, Naroulya, Khoiniki, Mazyr, Turau, Petrykau and Zhytkavichi), Mogilev (Krichau and Klichau areas) suffered more than other regions. There mortality from starvation was quite high. Such tragic events also occurred in other areas. And from the documents we learn that certain villages were starving even in relatively prosperous regions. Thus, the connection between famine and local governments policy in conducting grain procurements is quite obvious. A brutal system of «black lists» was invented: they were filled with the names of those kolkhozes which did not manage to keep up with the grain procurements plans. Iryna Ramanava, PhD (the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus), the author of numerous publications on the Soviet history of Belarus. With I.Makhouskaya as a co-author she wrote a book «Міr: the Town As Presented by its Locals» (Vilnius, 2009). Interview by Aliaksei Bratachkin, Novaya Europa (02.10.2013) В. Караблёв. Ідзі, таварыш, да нас у калгас! 1930. Прыватны архіў V. Koroblev. Join, Comrade, our kolkhoz!! 1930. The private archives 25
Page 1 and 2: Менск «Галіяфы» 2016
Page 3 and 4: Артур Клінаў Вялік
Page 5 and 6: In April 2016 a group of students f
Page 7 and 8: Артур Клінаў Узыхо
Page 9 and 10: быў патрэбны моцны,
Page 11 and 12: Ты дапамагаеш лікв
Page 13 and 14: arthur klinau The Great Kolkhoznits
Page 15 and 16: easily recognized. Only instead of
Page 17 and 18: 17
Page 19 and 20: — У савецкі пэрыяд
Page 21 and 22: — Вы дасьледавалі
Page 23: — As you know, it was «depeasant
Page 27 and 28: 27
Page 29 and 30: «В деревне Подречь
Page 31 and 32: The Jolly Kalhasnitsa: Reinventing
Page 33 and 34: Кожная камсамолка
Page 35 and 36: 35
Page 37 and 38: родны калгас, рэдка
Page 39 and 40: ARGO — THE ALTERNATIVE BIOGRAPHY
Page 41 and 42: agrotown. If I had decided to live
Page 43 and 44: 43
Page 45 and 46: Менавіта ад такіх в
Page 47 and 48: Аляксей Хацкевіч. З
Page 49 and 50: So it was these images that we used
Page 51 and 52: Аляксей Хацкевіч. «
Page 53 and 54: 53
Page 55 and 56: Калгасьніца й кашт
Page 57 and 58: Калгасьніца й агра
Page 59 and 60: 59
Page 61 and 62: Kolkhoznitsa and Values Kolkhoznits
Page 63 and 64: Kolkhoznitsa and Agro-glamour The a
Page 65 and 66: 65
Page 67 and 68: Варбург быў прыхіл
Page 69 and 70: пры распрацоўцы ўл
Page 71 and 72: афіцыйнасьці моман
Page 73 and 74: 73
Page 75 and 76:
Пры гэтым вытокі зб
Page 77 and 78:
Вакол небывалага ў
Page 79 and 80:
79
Page 81 and 82:
Баба Ядзя й цукерка
Page 83 and 84:
KOLCHOSE LAKTOSE OSMOSE / / KOLKHOZ
show all

pARTisan_32

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?