Селянські громадські об’єднання етноменшин України в умовах репресивної політики комуністичного режиму (кінець 20-х – 30-ті рр. ХХ ст.)

Abstract

Розглядаються історичні обставини, методи та наслідки використання громадських об’єднань національних меншин України в таких акціях більшовицького режиму як колективізація, хлібозаготівлі та ліквідація рентабельних селянських господарств наприкінці 20-х – на початку 30-х pp. ХХ ст. Доводиться існування політичного курсу більшовицького керівництва, спрямованого на придушення селянського протесту проти аграрно-соціальної політики партії, закамуфльованої гаслами класової пролетарської солідарності.

Development of the forced communication of peasant economies was accompanied the frank robberies of peasantry of nacminorities during state “khlibozagotivlya” campaigns. For the leadthrough of “khlibo-zagotivlya” the special commissions which controlled motion of campaigns were created in national districts. The mechanism of taking to the economies of “khlibozagotivlya” plans foresaw participating in him of rural public. Before taking away on the discussion of peasant economy, plans preliminary came into question on mitting of committee of poor peasants and village asset of the representatives of other public organizations. Only then these plans appeared on the general tails of peasants, which had legalistically confirm the lists of khlibozdatchik’s (bread givers) names and amount of grain, determined in the plans of state organs. At the end of 20th the XX century doctrine, companionable communes formed the system of public associations in Ukraine, among which the so-called class unions exuded (committees of poor peasants, peasant beneficiary associations, trade union of agrarian workers), chief and voluntarily societies like Tsoviakhim, Red Cross, MODR, created for ideological rural populousness in the spirit of communist doctrine and in-use as a mean of implementation of current economic–political tasks. Although the state declared participating in khlibozagotivlya of all varieties of rural public widely, except for the so-called class unions, other peasant public unities did not have the real powers and served only as the protection of antipeasant policy of khlibozagotivlya. CPLD circular bail and often limited by almost party discipline, funkcioners of class peasant unions were forced to take part in requisitions, repressive antipeasant actions, that later grew them up into their victims. It is impossible not to take into account that from support of agroactions of soviet power a poor peasantry and hirelings had a certain economic value. They got a fourth from the cost of bread, if they specified on economies, where this bread hid. The notorious policy of limitation of exploiter tendencies of the kulak (in Ukraine – “kurkul”), carried out by imperious structures in eve of total collectivization, was resulted in almost complete expulsing of proprietors of well-to-do economies in industry of agrarian production. Part from them «samorozkurkulilasya»: dividing or selling out propriety, part was forced to emigrate. Clearly, that at such terms rozkurkulennya was directed against the bulk of peasantry and came forward as an anti-national policy. To camouflage its essence had the bringing in to the antikurkul'skikh actions the representatives of soviet public from the environment of national minorities. Unlike the policy of «limitation of exploiter tendencies of the kulak», which brought the powerless layers of national village certain economic benefits, “rozkurkulennya” of time of total collectivization touched their interests the same way as the other layers of peasantry. As a result of the forced communication peasants lost earth, agrarian tools, draught animals, possibility of independent menage.