Under the leadership of Stalin, she chose a different path - the creation of a mobilization economy with the maximum concentration of resources in the hands of the state and political repressions against entire classes and social groups - and above all against the peasantry.
In his article “The Year of the Great Turning Point: On the Twelfth Anniversary of October,” I. V. Stalin called 1929 “the year of the great turning point on all fronts of socialist construction.” It was in this year that the final rejection of the NEP policy took place and a mobilization course of development was outlined, thanks to which the task of industrial modernization facing the country was solved.
According to Stalin, in 1929 the party and the country managed to achieve a decisive turning point:
- in the field of labor productivity, which was expressed in "the development of a creative initiative and a mighty labor upsurge of the millions of the masses of the working class on the front of socialist construction."
- in the field of solving mainly the problem of accumulation for the capital construction of heavy industry, the accelerated development of the production of means of production and the creation of prerequisites for "the transformation of our country into a metal country."
- in the transition of agriculture "from small and backward individual farming to large-scale and advanced collective farming, to joint cultivation of the land, to machine and tractor stations, to artels, collective farms, based on new equipment, and finally, to giant state farms, armed with hundreds of tractors and combines ".
The real situation in the country, however, was far from being so optimistic. As the Russian researcher O. V. Khlevnyuk points out, the course towards forced industrialization and forced collectivization "actually plunged the country into a state of civil war."
The rural population reacted especially sharply - violent grain procurements, accompanied by mass arrests and the ruin of farms, led to riots, the number of which by the end of 1929 was already in the hundreds. Not wanting to give property and livestock to the collective farms and fearing the repression that wealthy peasants were subjected to, people slaughtered livestock and reduced crops.
The state responded to the resistance of the countryside with force. Having proclaimed a course towards complete collectivization and the liquidation of the kulaks, relying on special work detachments sent to the countryside from the city with the support of the OGPU and the army, local authorities peasants were forcibly driven to collective farms, taking away their property. Collectivization was accompanied by the mass closure of churches, the use of these buildings for household needs, the destruction and plunder of objects of religious worship, and the arrests of church ministers who were considered to be the conductors of reactionary ideology.
This only aggravated the situation even more. According to data from various sources cited by O. V. Khlevnyuk, in January 1930, 346 mass demonstrations were registered, in which 125 thousand people took part, in February - 736 (220 thousand), in the first two weeks of March - 595 (about 230 thousand), not counting Ukraine, where 500 settlements. In March 1930, in general, in Belarus, the Central Black Earth region, in the Lower and Middle Volga regions, in the North Caucasus, in Siberia, in the Urals, in the Leningrad, Moscow, Western, Ivanovo-Voznesensk regions, in the Crimea and Central Asia, 1642 mass peasant uprisings, in which at least 750-800 thousand people took part. In Ukraine, at that time, more than a thousand settlements were already covered by unrest. The party and state leadership had to retreat somewhat, and on March 2, the Soviet press published Stalin's letter "Dizzy with Success", in which the blame for the "excesses" during collectivization was laid on local leaders. A month later, a government directive was sent to the places to soften the course in connection with the threat of a "wide wave of insurgent peasant uprisings" and the destruction of "half of the grassroots workers." The resistance of the peasantry, however, only led to some restraint in the pace of collectivization, which was completed in the next few years, after the OGPU managed to suppress anti-Soviet speeches, neutralize and eliminate their organizers and most active participants. The mass expulsion of kulaks and members of their families to camps and labor settlements in Siberia and the North also contributed to the pacification of the peasantry.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .
See what the "Great Break" is in other dictionaries:
From the article “The Year of the Great Break” by I. V. Stalin (1878 1953), published in the newspaper Pravda on November 7, 1929. Its first paragraph: “The past year was the year of a great turning point on all fronts of socialist construction. This fracture was going on and ... ... Dictionary winged words and expressions
THE GREAT TURN, USSR, Lenfilm, 1945, b/w, 108 min. Heroic drama. The film is dedicated to the heroic defenders of Stalingrad. Cast: Mikhail Derzhavin (see Mikhail Stepanovich DERZHAVIN), Pyotr Andreevsky, Yuri Tolubeev (see Yuri Vladimirovich TOLUBEEV) ... Cinema Encyclopedia
GREAT CRASH- 1945, 108 min., b/w. genre: drama. dir. Friedrich Ermler, sc. Boris Chirskov, opera. Arkady Koltsatiy, art. Nikolai Suvorov, comp. Gavriil Popov, sound. Alexander Ostrovsky, Nikolay Kosarev. The film was restored at the Mosfilm studio in 1967 ... Lenfilm. Annotated Film Catalog (1918-2003)
The Great Fracture Genre war film ... Wikipedia
The Great Fracture Genre Military Director Friedrich Ermler Scriptwriter Boris Chirskov Starring ... Wikipedia
Great exalting or distinguishing epithet, in the case of a person, an additional naming that was often received by the most prominent people: rulers, commanders and philosophers. People often received exalting epithets during their lifetime, and ... Wikipedia
great- great actor great artist great architect great wrestler great contribution great warrior great magician great delight great mischief great genius great hero great wrath great racer great citizen ... ... Dictionary of Russian Idioms
fracture- great fracture fundamental fracture sharp fracture ... Dictionary of Russian Idioms
fracture- , a, m. A sharp change, a sharp turn in the development of the national economy. == A sharp break. pathet. == Great fracture. pathet. ◘ The successes of the socialist industry provided a radical change in the direction of the socialist development of agriculture ... ... Dictionary the language of the Soviets
"Konstantin I" redirects here; see also other meanings. Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus ... Wikipedia
The country learned about the intention to drastically change the lives of 130 million peasants on November 7, 1929 from Stalin's article "The Year of the Great Turn" in Pravda. It was declared there that the country, as one person, was moving “from small and backward farming to large-scale and advanced collective farming”, that a “radical change had occurred in the depths of the peasantry itself” and that “the middle peasant went to the collective farm”, but how! - whole villages, counties, districts!
Actually this didn't happen. Collective farms, in which the poor were united, existed for a long time and eked out a miserable existence. They did not cover even 10% of peasant farms. In the autumn of 1929 no miracle happened. It just started mass violence against people. Peasants were literally driven to collective farms, forbidden to work on their land, and livestock and equipment were collected on collective farm yards. Local authorities began a genuine competition under the slogans "Who is more!", Giving the whole company a political character ("Who does not go to the collective farm, that is the enemy of Soviet power!"). After discussing the first results of collectivization, at the very beginning of 1930, Stalin decided to complete it “basically” by the summer of 1930. A new round of arbitrariness began under the unspoken slogan “Better to go too far than not to go too far.” Local leaders went out of their way to avoid being accused of "right deviation" and unwillingness to comply with party directives. One of the secretaries of the district committee was so zealous that he informed the center about the completion of collectivization by 100.6%. The consequence of the violence was the massive resistance of the peasants to collectivization. Cattle were slaughtered everywhere (its livestock was reduced by 2-3 times for collectivization), in some districts, especially in the south of Russia, the peasants offered armed resistance to the authorities. real guerrilla war unfolded in the North Caucasus (Dagestan, Chechnya, Karachay) and in Central Asia. In just 3 months of 1930, more than 2,700 mass demonstrations took place, involving about 1 million people. It was like the beginning of a new civil war, "Antonovism", which the party leadership was so afraid of.
On March 2, 1930, at the peak of popular indignation at the actions of the authorities, Pravda published a new Stalinist article entitled “Dizzy with Success,” in which all the blame for the “excesses” of intensive collectivization was thrown on the local authorities, who until then obediently carried out all the decisions of the Central Committee . Stalin wrote: “It is impossible to plant collective farms by force. It's stupid and reactionary." The people immediately responded to the article: the educated collective farms began to fall apart, the "percentage" of collectivization fell sharply.
But it soon became clear that the article in Pravda was a clever, hypocritical maneuver to bring down the wave of peasant indignation. Less than six months after its publication, the pressure of the authorities on the peasants intensified again. A new forcing of the pace of collectivization began, the graph of the “percentage of collectivization” again sharply crept vertically upwards. The so-called "solid collectivization" was ordered to be completed throughout the country by the spring of 1933.
The fate of the Russian peasantry in the era of collectivization
But still, the most terrible was not collectivization itself, its lawless methods, the extremely short time frame for “voluntary” unification into collective farms, but the fact that it was accompanied by the “liquidation of the kulaks as a class.” Orders for the creation of collective farms were issued along with "control figures" for the elimination of the "kulak", and in essence - wealthy, well-to-do peasants. Within a few months, hundreds of thousands of families of “kulaks” and “sub-kulakists” (always with their families, including very old people and infants) were evicted from their homes, deprived of land, housing, property, put into freight wagons and sent to the North, to Siberia , Kazakhstan and other remote areas of the country. There they were ruthlessly thrown out in the middle of a snow-covered field, dooming to death all those who had not yet died on a many-week journey. According to the secret instruction of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of February 4, 1930, 49-60 thousand people were to be imprisoned in concentration camps ("without stopping before the use of capital punishment"), and 178-214 thousand families were to be evicted to the northern and remote areas, i.e. e. approximately 1 million people.
Five thousand wives and children of the exiled "kulaks", settled in barracks near Vologda, wrote to the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, M. I. Kalinin, about the appalling living conditions: “Mikhail Ivanovich! If you looked at life in the barracks, you would be horrified. You can't live in these barracks for two years, and not one of us will be left alive. The barracks were built in the forest, in a damp place, they have a quarter of a meter of water. These barracks are built of board and covered with straw, so that the wind whistles around. There are 150 of us in each barrack. We get nothing from food, except three-quarters of a pound of bread, and no welding. We took food with us, but when we were taking it away, the local authorities took it away from us in Vologda, but we don’t take this into account, that they gave away lard, white flour, and now they don’t give us anything, except for one boiled water. Information from the NKVD confirms the high (6-7 times higher than that of the local population) mortality of children among the settlers, especially in the first two years of the “action”. Children died at least 350-400 thousand people.
But even those peasants who lived in the North and in Siberia were not better off. They were also evicted, but only to more remote and terrible places. In one of the reports of the Siberian authorities, handed over to Stalin, it is said: “The work of confiscating ... the kulaks has turned around and is going full steam ahead. Now we have unfolded it so that even the soul rejoices; we are cracking down on the kulak in accordance with all the rules of modern politics, taking from the kulaks not only cattle, meat, implements, but also seeds, food and other property. We leave them in what the mother gave birth.
According to the People's Commissar of the NKVD G. Yagoda, in 1930-1931. 1.2 million people, including 454,000 children, were deported to the North and to remote areas of the country. 650 thousand people fell under the "intra-district" resettlement (that is, within the regions). In total, almost 2 million people lost their farms, were uprooted from their jobs, and subjected to repression. The evictions of the "kulaks" continued in subsequent years.
In 1931, Professor A. V. Chayanov and his comrades ended up in prison on a fictitious charge of creating the “Labour Peasant Party”. The Soviet government had reason not to love this great connoisseur Agriculture. Stalin wrote: "The simple addition of peasant tools in the bowels of the collective farms gave an effect that our ancestors did not dream of." Chayanov, on the other hand, thought differently: “The very nature of an agricultural enterprise places limits on its enlargement, due to which the quantitative expression of the advantage of large-scale farming over small farming in agriculture can never be greater ... The coercive will of the collective is always less intense than the will of the sole proprietor working in pursuit of the greatest profit... Collective consciousness and will are always less mobile, slower... and almost do not allow intuition, which is so important in any entrepreneurship... In addition, every collective farmer has the right to say: "Why should I work more than my neighbor works, since his and my remuneration will be equal."
There is no exact data on the dead peasants. It is believed that at least 3.5 million people died. However, Stalin, according to Churchill, told him about the destruction of 10 million people during collectivization. Collectivization became a real genocide against the peasantry, and the repressions affected the best part of the village - they dealt with the wealthiest, enterprising, hard-working, multi-family peasants.
However, the leaders, and even the party masses, placed the peasants extremely low. Against the background of industrialization, peasant labor seemed miserable, primitive, backward, and the peasants - second-class people, a reactionary, "uncivilized" class of "proprietors", "kurkuli", alien to socialism, subject (as we move towards communism) to liquidation in one way or another. Be that as it may, collectivization brought monstrous suffering to innocent people. With their policy, the Bolsheviks caused irreparable damage to the gene pool, primarily of the Russian nation. The peasantry, as a special type of Russian rural dweller that had evolved over the centuries, was destroyed forever. He was replaced by a collective farmer, not interested in his work, tied to the collective farm, like a serf.
Collectivization was a huge defeat for the people and the country. Millions of people died, millions were robbed and ruined. Despite the mechanization of production due to tractors and combines, there was a sharp drop in productivity, gross agricultural production, and there was a decline in animal husbandry. Something else was important for the authorities. Collectivization was an important political and economic victory for the Bolsheviks and Stalin personally. Having destroyed the economically self-sufficient and independent peasant, Soviet authority actually eliminated the roots of any popular opposition, and even more so of the rebellions that had plagued the Bolsheviks since 1918.
Collectivization also solved the problem of grain deliveries, which was so painful for the Party. Collective farms have become a tool for a violent, non-economic "solution of the food problem", and in essence - a tool for the seizure of almost free food. Now there was no need for economic levers to encourage trade between town and country. Everything became simpler: the main task of the collective farms was the fulfillment of the grain procurement plan, as well as the supply of many types of products and raw materials, strictly on time (under the threat of prison and exile).
With a widespread decline in production, grain procurement, according to Stalin, in 1933 increased from 500-600 million poods to 1200-1400 poods, and the export of grain abroad (despite the terrible famine in Ukraine) grew unusually fast: 1928 - 1 million centners, 1929 - 13 million, 1930 - 48.3 million, 1931 - 51.8 million centners. So the funds for industrialization were “found”.
About how the Thaw works, why it works and delights
December 18, 2013 Igor MantsovThe outgoing year was a triumph for Valery Todorovsky. He is the producer of the film that won at Kinotavr, The Geographer Drank His Globe Away, and he also conceived, produced and directed The Thaw, a 12-episode TV movie that I absolutely loved.
How is the Thaw arranged, why does it work and delight?
The story takes place in 1961. The protagonist's name is Viktor Khrustalev. He is 36 years old, and he is a cameraman by profession. Divorced, teenage daughter. What is called, "unscrupulous", sleeping with all the pretty girls and women, free and married, at the first opportunity.
Refuses to marry. Doesn't let you into your soul, hides. It breaks up easily, inexorably and forever.
Got pregnant? - It's not my problem.
“There are, you know, such protective products of the Bakov factory ...”
He gets into a fight as soon as someone runs into him or he doesn’t like him.
Worse, due to age and health, he was supposed to fight during the Great Patriotic War, however, an influential father provided the boy with a reservation.
Even worse: Victor drank for several days with a close friend, “the best screenwriter in the country,” and then, in response to the latter’s pitiful confession, he directly advised him to put a chair to the window, and even step into the window opening. What a friend, by the way, did.
After Khrustalev lies to the investigator of the prosecutor's office and, to top it off, beats that face.
Absolute individualist in the center of the plot. Actor Yevgeny Tsyganov endows him with remarkable charm. What, we haven't seen inveterate egoists, charming individualists in our cinema?
We saw. They especially bred in the era of late stagnation. And, on the contrary, in the cinema of the 60s, to which the picture of Valery Petrovich refers, friendly young people who loved to cluster and huddle in flocks prevailed: a pronounced communal consciousness. These are the three inseparable positive friends from Ilyich's Outpost, but so are the petty hooligans from Three Days of Viktor Chernyshev, a picture invented by screenwriter Evgeny Grigoriev in a clear polemical fervor in relation to the life-affirming Outpost ...
So, Todorovsky deliberately reproduces the arrangement of characters from the popular cinema of the "thaw" era: three men doomed to each other. In this case, these are the Operator, Director and Screenwriter. They are destined to shoot a cinematic masterpiece called "Shards".
How they are friends, why they are friends - the authors of the "Thaw" script do not bother about this. But because here it is not quite "friendship" and not at all "community"! For the time being, the Director and the Operator did not know each other at all, however, without knowing it themselves, they were already tied with receipts that the Screenwriter handed them. He promised in writing to both one and the second that his script would be implemented by them and no one else.
Blatant convention? Undoubtedly. Thus, we are given to understand - and all the subsequent development of the "Thaw" confirms this - that the three men are not completely independent. Screenwriter/Director/Director - collective image. One in three persons. Main character- Viktor Khrustalev, however, this Operator will be both incomplete and incomprehensible without a Screenwriter and without a Director.
We traditionally give psychology through conversations or, conversely, through pauses. The hero is silent - in the meantime, the mental process is carried out in his subcortex, but we cannot see it. The hero is usually solid. One soul - one body - one actor.
It is possible, however, in another way. In American cinema, they have long learned to first crush, and then spread a certain typical personality - by face. Therefore, we can do without thoughtful pauses, without meaningful languor. All the time - the dynamic development of the plot.
So, psychological features settled in different bodies, and these bodies act completely autonomously. The characters are extremely different from each other, but at the same time they are not “free radicals”, but parts of some flawless geometric construction.
For example. Operator Khrustalev is that part of the personality that exists "here and now." Khrustalev, as they say, in the stream. He never gains anything, does not "estimate". When he was afraid, he, without hesitation and without execution, accepted his father's gift, his father's armor, avoiding the front.
He was bored with another female, and he easily puts her out the door.
The whiner-screenwriter is sick of it, and now he is offering the whiner to take his own life. Khrustalev does not accept affectation, does not understand why other people allow themselves a gap between words and deeds: “Tired of living? - Die!
Apparently, this is an absolutely innovative narrative style for our cinematography. Todorovsky, as far as I know, confessed his interest in the popular American television series Mad Men. This series really shines through the dense artistic fabric of the Thaw. Meanwhile, in all the serious analyzes of Mad Men known to me, the first thing they say about the influence on its authors is the work of the not-so-popular American prose writer John Cheever.
Cheever is not fully translated and has not been properly republished in Russian for a long time, but meanwhile, he spoke extremely subtly about the mode of existence of a “successful” mass person, first in big city, and then also in a respectable suburb.
Starting around the 40s of the last century, he presents the outside world as a metaphor mental life Main character. Massive, like you and me, Cheever's man encounters in the framework of the plot not with other sovereign personalities, but with phantoms and ghosts, which are in fact projections of his own mental problems.
In one of the early novels, Cheever talks about a young woman who professes loneliness and independence. It comes to the fact that she harshly refuses financial assistance to her younger brother. And then one fine day, two teenagers appear at her door, who at first complain about hard life, and in the next parish they steal money.
“They could have asked, I would have given them myself!” - the virtuous girl is indignant. Well, in the magical world of Cheever, all wishes come true: the next time the returned, shameless boys demand money from her openly.
The action seems to take place in the outside world, but it only seems. In fact, the action develops in the space of the soul. Boys within the plot exist, but at the same time, of course, there are no boys! Insidious hooligans embody a repressed sense of guilt towards a brother. Cheever is in many ways a pioneering figure, a pivotal figure in American narrative art, including film and TV series.
The protagonist of "The Thaw" tears the fabric of life in order to be repaired later by others. He does it creatively, and creativity is collaborative. When the Operator pushes the Screenwriter to commit suicide, it only becomes possible because the Screenwriter himself is accustomed to intervening too much in reality and imposing his dangerous plots on it.
All are tied.
The world of cinema in Todorovsky is a grandiose metaphor. This series is not about filmmakers and not about "bohemianism", as the author for some reason announced in Andrei Malakhov's program, which crowned the TV show of "The Thaw", but about all of us, participants in a mass consumer society. This is good, so I hooked.
Mass man everywhere is arranged in approximately the same way. In any hero of Cheever, in any hero of American cinema, I can easily recognize myself. Here are the characters of the "Thaw" - not filmmakers of the 60s, but projections of my immortal soul.
So, the Operator is an imperturbable observer of life. Accepts what comes into his hands. Letting go of what slips out. No death grip. I saw a beauty wet in the rain from the car window - I picked it up. And this is not "debauchery", but a specific psychological strategy.
Completely different behaves with the same girl another hypostasis of the basic personality - the Director.
The director, performed by Alexander Yatsenko, is the embodiment of will. That part of the personality that depends entirely on the requirements of society, which wants to please everyone and everyone, desires public victories, dreams of fame and brilliance.
The director tries to subordinate life to his desires. At the same time, his desires are tracing paper from public prescriptions. For example, he makes a marriage proposal to the first girl he meets, having barely met her! Why? Yes, because, I repeat, it depends entirely on social norms, and "legal marriage with your beloved" is the norm number one.
Grotesque in the spirit of Cheever, absolutely not "realistic" cinema!
The director rapes life, trying to control it. He, like the Operator, consistently embodies certain mental qualities. Each of them is an abstraction, an abstract idea in the flesh. Director and Operator - react to society, but in the opposite way.
The third component of the personality of a mass person is the Screenwriter. Its main property is a violent fantasy that replaces reality. The screenwriter lives in a world of dreams, forever trying on other people's invented destinies. At a drunken party that preceded his death, he tells his plan: a Komsomol member comes to the construction site of the five-year plan, but instead of working, he drinks in disappointment, and as a result is thrown out the window.
The screenwriter is that part of the personality that the society completely ignores. Poems, fantasies, a script about partisans, which he most likely knows nothing about; a quick switch to a script about a suicide Komsomol member…
All other characters of the Thaw are variations on the themes of basic psychological attitudes, embodied by the glorious cinematic trinity. The operator goes with the flow and sleeps with everyone, the director seeks formalization of relations, the screenwriter completely ignored the available girls after the memorable party - these three behaviors are scrolled in the "Thaw" many times, in different ways.
The sympathy of the authors and, of course, mine is on the side of the Operator. Why? This man, this unbearable Khrustalev, despite his seeming immorality, believes in the so-called "life". In a post-religious society, in a society of mass consumption, which both in the West and in our country finally takes shape precisely in the 60s, religious instinct doesn't go anywhere. The famous Protestant theologian Paul Tillich spoke well about this:
“It seems almost ridiculous to talk about the loss of faith in the Western secular world. This world has a secular faith that has put other forms of religion on the defensive. But, nevertheless, this is faith, not “unbelief”. It is a state of ultimate interest and selfless devotion to this interest.
That which was the source of Meaning and the cause of enthusiasm for the man of previous epochs has not disappeared. In a mass society, the ultimate questions are still relevant, just the wording has changed: the frivolous word "interest" should not be misleading. The fanaticism of the filmmakers from The Thaw is very indicative in this sense.
Todorovsky makes, I think, a brilliant move. He places the action in 1961, the year of our greatest technological triumph, the year of Gagarin's flight. Collective memory presents us with this time: wandering crowds, mass delight, sticking together in a community. In the multi-part film, virtually nothing remains of the sensational flight to heaven. This is a change of priorities: God is not in the sky, not in outer space, but inside. Khrustalev - carrier "marginal interest" and embodiment "selfless devotion to this interest". The Scriptwriter who committed suicide and the Director who married an indifferent woman is doubtful.
The impeccably crafted visual fabric of The Thaw, all those graceful camera rides, all those infinitely comfortable slides, signify inner space, but not Soviet Union 60s.
Beautiful, infinitely beautiful people - all without exception.
Time after time situations of solidarity, forgiveness and love arise.
Soothing music.
From series to series, the action takes place in the inner world of a certain typical little man. Looks like a cynic. But it generates psychological phenomena embodied in the beautiful, beneficially interacting characters of The Thaw.
The "investigation" technique is borrowed from Mad Men. What can be mysterious in the cynic Khrustalev? The investigator of the prosecutor's office boasts: "We know everything about you!" But even the investigator will not know that Khrustalev was really in the room of the deceased Screenwriter 10 minutes before the death of the latter and is really guilty (“You killed it!”). Although, I repeat, at the same time I am not to blame, because there was no Screenwriter separate from Khrustalev himself in the space of this thoroughly conditional construction.
Okay, one secret has been revealed. Then the authors start a new investigation: what black cat ran between Khrustalev and his influential Father?! Gradually it turns out that in exchange for safety, Khrustalev got a feeling of heavy guilt. Everyone must be responsible for himself. In 1944, Khrustalev Jr. chose a family, the accompanying comfort, and only in the year of a great mental break, after a long 17 years, he was cured, confessing to his daughter his long-standing cowardice.
By the way, he does this in a shelter that his daughter has equipped in the forest in case she soon has to leave the family, which, by definition, claims control, suppresses independence. The most witty dramatic move - the daughter, thus, has long been older than her father.
So, the "ordinary" layman is the focus of psychological secrets, only a small part of which is known to the all-powerful Committee of State Security.
I recalled the outstanding, in my opinion, Soviet television series “And it's all about him” based on the novel by Vilya Lipatov, where the production theme served as a screen for a fascinating journey into the rich inner world of the same at first glance simpletons.
There is continuity. Even if Valery Todorovsky did not strive for this.
“Karl passes through a terrible shantytown on his way to the station,” she said. “He always has thousands of dollars with him, I’m so afraid that he will be attacked…”
Then Karl appeared, told the whole company an indecent anecdote, and we went to the dining room.
The painting by Valery Todorovsky is made according to this recipe, according to the method of John Cheever. As usual, active strong-willed people always planning some kind of violence, and indefatigable dreamers are afraid of everything. Only those who did not submit to either mass psychosis or typical desires return light, alive, healthy and rich, unobtrusively relieves general stress, gives strength to live in the most unbearable circumstances.
We can say that this person loves and protects God. With such an attitude, you get a great classic movie like Andrey Rublev.
But it can be said in some other way, without pompousness: a mass person in typical interiors, "Khrustalev, you bastard!".
Valery Todorovsky is not eager to compete with great artists in their almost sacred territory, choosing simpler people as heroes. The essence of the matter does not change from this, but the soul does not become smaller.
GREAT TURN (Radical change) - a period of radical change in the forces of the opposing sides during the years of the Great Patriotic War, characterized by the transition of the initiative on the Soviet-German front into the hands of the command of the Red Army, as well as a sharp increase in the military and economic power of the USSR. In Russian historiography, it is traditionally believed that the Great Break began during Battle of Stalingrad and ended with the end of the Battle of Kursk.
The great turning point was also characterized: at the front - by large losses of the fascist German troops in manpower and equipment, which made their strategic offensive operations impossible; in the strategic rear - the completion of the transfer of the Soviet economy to a war footing, the completion of the evacuation and deployment of evacuated enterprises in the rear, which, together with the labor heroism of workers in industry and agriculture, led to a significant increase in the production indicators of the USSR national economy over the economy of Nazi Germany; in international relations - the growth of the authority of the Soviet Union among the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition and beyond (as evidenced by the turn in public opinion in Great Britain and the United States and the change in the status of the USSR in negotiations with its allies), as well as the crisis and collapse of the aggressor bloc.
In the winter of 1942, the Soviet command made several attempts to seize the initiative and launch a counteroffensive, however, both the winter and spring offensives were unsuccessful (Demyanskaya, Rzhev-Vyazemskaya, Kharkov and other offensive operations in the winter-spring of 1942). The main tasks of the German command in the 1942 campaign of the year were: in the north - the capture of Leningrad and the establishment of communications between Army Group North and the Finnish troops, in the south - a breakthrough to the Volga and the Caucasus, crossing Caucasian Range and access to the richest oil-bearing regions of Grozny and Baku. Stalin believed that the Germans in 1942 would be able, in addition to major strategic operations, to simultaneously fight in the Moscow direction, trying to capture the city. He proposed launching offensive operations on the main fronts in the early summer, exhausting the enemy, stretching his strike groups in all directions and making them incapable of delivering powerful strikes in the Moscow area. In this regard, on May 12, 1942, the troops Southwestern Front went on the offensive on Kharkov, but a week later, hitting plight, the command began to take measures to withdraw troops from the encirclement and save them. But it was already too late, the difficult retreat of the Red Army began with heavy losses, and the German troops rushed to the south.
In August, superior enemy forces captured the cities of Maykop, Krasnodar, and Mineralnye Vody. Having occupied the Mozdok station, the Germans reached the river. Terek, mastered almost all mountain passes.
Simultaneously with the offensive in the south, German troops rushed to the Volga in order to capture Stalingrad and thereby deprive the Soviet Union of the southern routes of communication with the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition and the oil regions of the Caucasus. Forcing the Volga was considered as a condition for the entry of Japan and Turkey into the war against the USSR.
By mid-July, having driven the Red Army back from Voronezh beyond the Don, the enemy troops got stuck in the big bend of the Don. Under these critical conditions, on July 28, 1942, Stalin issued Order No. 227 (“Not a Step Back!”), aimed at improving military discipline.
July 17 - November 18, 1942, the defensive phase of the Battle of Stalingrad unfolded. On the morning of August 24, the enemy was able to break into the city with fighting and went on the offensive against the Stalingrad Tractor Plant. A months-long defense of the city and battles for its liberation began. After heavy battles in the south and in the region of Stalingrad, which cost the defenders of the city on the Volga and the enemy heavy casualties, the Nazi leadership believed that the Soviet troops were not in a position to carry out major offensives in these areas. However, the Soviet Supreme High Command conducted an offensive codenamed "Uranus" (November 19, 1942 - February 2, 1943), encircling and forcing the capitulation of the Stalingrad group of Nazi troops. This made it possible to begin the liberation of the southern regions. Soviet troops, developing the offensive, liberated Rostov-on-Don, Novocherkassk, Kursk and a number of other important areas. The general operational-strategic situation deteriorated sharply for the invaders on the entire Soviet-German front. According to the chief of the Soviet General Staff A. M. Vasilevsky, during the offensive in the winter of 1942-1943, 100 enemy divisions were defeated (about 40% of all their formations). Only by ground forces from July 1942 to June 1944, according to the General Staff of the German Ground Forces, the losses amounted to 1 million 135 thousand people. In addition, events on the Soviet-German front contributed to the fact that the Anglo-American troops led active operations in Tunisia.
Great value for success Soviet troops near Stalingrad had the First Rzhev-Sychevsk strategic offensive operation July 30 - August 23, 1942 and the Second Rzhev-Sychevsk operation (Operation Mars, November 25 - December 20, 1942). The Soviet command failed to achieve the goals stated in the plans for these operations. The fighting here was of the most difficult nature, accompanied by heavy casualties on the part of the Soviet troops. The Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army (RKKA) moved forward several tens of kilometers. However, despite this, the Soviet command thwarted the plan of the Wehrmacht to launch an unexpected strike in the direction of Moscow in order to divert forces from Stalingrad (Operation Smerch).
As a result of the First Rzhev-Sychevsk operation, Soviet fighters near Moscow pinned down the large forces of Army Group Center and forced the enemy to transfer 12 of their divisions, including from the southern flank, at the height of the German offensive on Stalingrad. As a result of the Second Rzhev-Sychevsk operation, the Soviet troops also made little progress, but at the same time they knocked out all the reserves of the Army Group Center, which was unable to reinforce the German troops during Operation Winter Thunderstorm.
Despite the loss of more than 330 thousand people in the Stalingrad cauldron, the Nazi command decided in the summer of 1943 to launch a strategic offensive. The immediate goal of Operation Citadel was to cut off the so-called Kursk (or Belgorod-Orlovsky) ledge, formed after the fighting in the winter of 1942-1943, with converging blows from the north and south in the direction of Kursk. On the other hand, an attempt at revenge on the Soviet-German front was necessary to strengthen the morale of the Germans and the position of Germany's allies. Total mobilization was introduced in it, the troops were replenished with new equipment (in particular, T-V tanks"Panther" and T-VI "Tiger"), significantly superior to Soviet models. Operation Citadel involved 50 of the most combat-ready divisions, including 14 tank divisions (70% tank divisions Wehrmacht) and two motorized.
Knowing about the upcoming offensive (in particular, from the reports of intelligence officer N. I. Kuznetsov and British Prime Minister W. Churchill), the Soviet command prepared a defense in depth. As a result of heavy defensive battles on the Belgorod-Oryol ledge, the Soviet command managed to bleed the enemy. Almost immediately after the completion of the defensive battles, the Soviet command went on the offensive. From July 12 - August 18, 1943, Zapadny (commander - Colonel General V. D. Sokolovsky) and Bryansk (commander - Colonel General M. M. Popov) conducted the Oryol strategic offensive operation (under the code name "Kutuzov"). On August 3-23, 1943, the Voronezh (under the command of General of the Army N.F. Vatutin) and Stepnoy (under the command of Colonel-General I.S. Konev) fronts conducted the Belgorod-Kharkov strategic offensive operation (under the code name "Commander Rumyantsev"). Their result was the exit of Soviet troops to the Dnieper and the beginning of the liberation of the Ukrainian SSR.
The Soviet command received the initiative not only in the central sector of the Soviet-German front, but also in its northwestern direction. There, as a result of Operation Iskra (January 12-30, 1943), the blockade of Leningrad was broken.
The allies of the USSR in the anti-Hitler coalition also had great successes in the course of hostilities in the summer-autumn of 1942, which predetermined the completion of a radical change also during the Second World War. In the summer of 1942, the Battle of Midway (June 4-6, 1942) took place on the Pacific front, as a result of which the Japanese aircraft carrier fleet suffered irreparable losses. During the defensive phase of the Battle of Stalingrad, the allies of the USSR in the anti-Hitler coalition held the Second Battle of El Alamein in North Africa (October 23 - November 5, 1942), which ended in the defeat of the German-Italian troops and their retreat to Tunisia. As a result of the defeats of the Italian troops in the Soviet Union and North. Africa in Italy July 25, 1943 there was a coup d'état, Rome withdrew from the military-political alliance with Nazi Germany, and six months later fighting were transferred to the territory of the Apennine Peninsula. The leadership of Horthy Hungary began behind-the-scenes negotiations with Anglo-American representatives. The situation on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War and World War II finally changed in favor of the anti-Hitler coalition, which seized the strategic initiative. However, the USSR and its allies still had to face a difficult struggle against the German and Japanese troops that had gone over to the strategic defense.
D. V. Surzhik.
Russian historical encyclopedia. T. 3. M., 2015.
Literature:
The Great Patriotic War: In 12 vols. T. 3. Battles and battles that changed the course of the war. M., 2012; Zamulin V.N. Kursk fracture. The decisive battle of the Patriotic War. M., 2007; Isaev A. V. Stalingrad. There is no land for us beyond the Volga. M., 2008; Krivosheev G. F. et al. The Great Patriotic War without the stamp of secrecy: The Book of Losses. The latest reference edition. M., 2010.
“The Year of the Great Turning Point” was the title of Stalin’s article written by him on the 12th anniversary of October, in November 1929. With this article, he outlined the period of struggle and preparation for industrialization. Doubts and disputes were over, and now it only remained firmer to maintain the planned course of the industrialization of the country.
This was preceded by several major events that had a very great influence on the further course of the implementation of the five-year plan and on the entire policy of the Party in the field of economy. First, Stalin finally dissociated himself from Bukharin, classifying him and his supporters as part of the right deviation in the party. After that, the policy of restructuring industry and agriculture was carried out only according to the Stalinist plan and under Stalin's leadership. There were no longer large and authoritative leaders in the party who could challenge and turn party policy in a different direction. From that moment on, alternative options became impossible. The country more and more lost its NEP features and became more and more specifically Stalinist.
Secondly, the five-year plan has undergone a very significant refinement. The task for smelting iron and steel was increased, which turned the entire work on the implementation of the plan into an entirely new direction. The construction of new factories accelerated significantly, and production began at unfinished facilities. For some time, such giants as Magnitka and Kuznetsk were being built at the same time and simultaneously began to smelt iron. Around the already operating domains, rooms were completed above the mechanisms and units, other workshops and engineering structures were completed.
The acceleration of the construction of factories required a completely new attitude towards the cadres of industry. The issues of training a huge number, literally millions of people, of specialists: metallurgists, machine operators, engineers, technicians, came up sharply. Only very "raw" and unusable human "material" was available - the masses of illiterate peasants, from whom it was required to make educated and disciplined industrial workers in the shortest possible time.
Due to a sharp increase in the planned target for the production of iron and steel, new machines and tractors, the capacities of factories have sharply increased, which demanded for themselves the most powerful, most modern technology that has only been in the world. Soviet business executives are developing feverish activity in studying and adopting foreign experience.
Thirdly, politics in the countryside is changing. Stalin, convinced of the effectiveness of the method tested in 1928-1929 of organizing large specialized farms, collective farms and state farms, turns the whole policy in the countryside in this direction and announces the policy of collectivization in the shortest possible time.
“There can hardly be any doubt that one of the most important facts of our construction for Last year is the fact that we have achieved a decisive breakthrough in the field of labor productivity. This turning point was expressed in the development of creative initiative and a mighty labor upsurge of the vast masses of the working class on the front of socialist construction. This is our first and main achievement for the past year.
This is how Stalin characterized the first of the successes achieved by 1929 in building an industrial power. This Stalin-marked labor enthusiasm and the initiative of the masses are worth a lot. In any production there are always nooks and crannies, bottlenecks that hinder work and do not allow the machines to be used to their full potential. All the major industrializers have struggled with these bottlenecks, starting with the father of the industrial production method, Henry Ford. In his book "My Life, My Achievements"1, in which he described his path to mass production of automobiles, he devoted a lot of space to the struggle for the improvement of production. By the way, the flow method of production itself was also born out of the struggle to improve production.
All available methods were used: measuring the time for work operations, studying the rationality of arranging machines and equipment, studying the preparation of the workplace and the effect of order on productivity, doing a lot of work to optimize the movement of workpieces and semi-finished products from one workplace to another. But the main source of improvement in production remained the ingenuity of the workers. “Ideas fly to us from all directions. Of the foreign workers, the Poles seem to me the most resourceful,” he wrote2. Ford scrupulously collected working inventions, carefully studied them and introduced many things into production, providing himself with multimillion-dollar profits only on this: “Saving one cent on one unit of a product can sometimes be extremely profitable. At our present scale of production, this would amount to 12,000 dollars a year.
Soviet business executives carefully studied Ford's experience in production. As soon as his book "My Life, My Achievements" appeared, it was immediately translated into Russian, in 1924 it was published in the USSR and until 1932 it went through eight editions. They talked about Fordism, wrote articles and books. ON THE. Witke, who wrote a large book on the organization of production, published not just anywhere, but in the publishing house of the People's Commissariat of Workers' and Peasants' Inspection, paid much attention to Ford's achievements. Witke echoed Ford's aspirations in a much more categorical manner: “Machinery must be used to the fullest. This is the first and basic requirement of large-scale production.
While party theoreticians were breaking spears in disputes about ways to further build socialism, Soviet business executives were already taking and studying the latest inventions of the capitalists.
Stalin also went the way of Ford and applied his methods on the scale of the whole state and huge state industry. Just approached them from the other side. If at the Ford factories the initiative of the workers and the introduction of rationalization proposals by them was a matter of chance, then in the USSR it was possible to organize and stimulate this process, give it scope and involve hundreds of thousands of workers. This could be done through party and Komsomol cells. In addition to the purely political need to attract young people to socialist construction, the task of improving the skills of young workers was also pursued.
The stake in the campaign for the rise of the workers' initiative was placed on the working youth. This was the most dynamic part of the working class, easily trained, with great initiative, easily involved in mass actions. new, previously unknown forms of industrial education: wall newspapers, competitions for the best rationalization proposal, competitions for the best job, conversations with business workers, production meetings, advanced training circles, etc. In 1927, the Komsomol Central Committee did a lot of work to study the methods of industrial education in factories and prepared an information review on this issue, sent to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.
So, first things first. The wall newspaper was the most accessible means of educational and propaganda work. Many still remember this wonderful invention of Soviet propaganda. True, I myself no longer captured those times when wall newspapers covered political issues, but nevertheless I participated in the preparation of a variety of wall newspapers. This is a very simple handwritten information organ, made from improvised materials, on a piece of whatman paper or even on a wide panel of plain paper. Slogans, headlines, texts of articles are written on it with paint or ink, drawings and cartoons are placed.
At the end of the 1920s, when factories did not yet have their own newspapers or large-circulation newspapers, wall newspapers were the most important means of creating public opinion. Party and Komsomol organizations through wall newspapers fought against absenteeism and marriage, violations of labor discipline and slovenliness. All such cases were reflected in the pages of wall newspapers. Of course, in their team, the authors of the wall newspaper were not shy in their expressions. The further the work on the industrialization of the country went, the sharper the criticism of truants and swindlers became.
Times were less sensitive back then. At that time, the director of the plant could expel a bad worker without fear of a shout from the party committee and study. At the end of the 1920s in major cities one could see long queues of the unemployed to the labor exchanges. Later, however, they disappeared, but the means of influencing a bad worker expanded. Marriage could easily be interpreted as wrecking with the ensuing consequences, theft at work was punishable by long terms of imprisonment, imprisonment in labor camps. There were comradely and people's courts that could sentence the offender to forced labor or to a short term in correctional camps. In the late 1930s, these measures were so tightened that scammers and slobs in production were almost completely eliminated.
This is what concerns criticism and disciplinary action. Much more incentives have been invented. Among the most effective means of encouraging labor initiative were production competitions. That is, several dozen workers entered into competition with each other. The areas of competition could be very different, for example, rationalization proposals. Whoever gave the proposal that gave the greatest effect, he became the winner. There were performance competitions. The winner was the worker who managed to achieve the highest productivity in his workplace, who was able to work out more for the same working time. There were competitions in industrial discipline. The winner was the one who had the fewest absenteeism during the competitive period. The awards at the competitions were significant for those times, the prizes were 500, 800 rubles each. There were also more attractive prizes, for example, the plant management of the Elektrosila plant in Leningrad announced a competition, the award in which was a business trip to study in Germany. It is easy to imagine how much interest this competition aroused1.
In the information review of the Central Committee of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, it was noted that production competitions were widely approved as the best means for educating young people.
Plant management often held conversations with business workers. The workshop cells of the Komsomol organized meetings of the members of the cell with the heads of workshops, with accountants, with suppliers, with the director of the plant. The business executives talked about the work of the entire production as a whole, about how value is created, about the intricacies of production processes. All this, of course, raised both the qualifications and the horizons of the working youth. After such meetings, they were no longer just dumb executors of other people's orders. Often such meetings moved from the mode of a monologue of a guest to a mode of dispute, discussion of questions and proposals. Here already sometimes the bosses had to defend themselves against questions and criticism from the workers.
Production meetings were also devoted to production issues, but were held in the circle of young workers. Sometimes craftsmen and heads of workshops were invited to them. The youth has already spoken here. Reports were read, there were debates and discussions of acute issues, proposals were made. The famous Italian airship designer Umberto Nobile, who worked in the USSR at the Dirigiblestroy in 1931-1936, described these working methods:
“Once I was asked to master the Russian methods of work. One of the most characteristic of these methods was the method of self-criticism. What happened in our case at Dirigiblestroy happened in any other organization, at enterprises and institutes of all kinds, in scientific laboratories, shops, theaters, restaurants, hospitals, chemical shops. Everywhere meetings were held under the chairmanship of directors. At these meetings, official matters were discussed freely and openly. Each employee of the department could ask a question. Thus, even a courier or a student who swept the floor had the right to point out mistakes, discuss programs, suggest ideas or new methods of work. These rallies were called meetings or meetings, and I personally paid attention to them in very many cases ...
But perhaps this does not fit the situation in Russia. At that time, the basis of industry there was still in the process of formation. Thus, this system of non-methodical criticism (which, in essence, was self-criticism) was, nevertheless, under the conditions prevailing in Russia, best remedy for development in this period of time. Criticism in this case, even excessive and disorganized, gave more competent people a chance to move forward. He helped the central government authorities to control the activity of communist leaders appointed to manage various organizations. This control, which was necessary, made it possible at that time to select a sufficient number of experienced and reliable leaders.
