COOPERATIVE FARMS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-00810A001700090008-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 14, 2005
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: July 17, 1953
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2005/07/28 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001700090008-6
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
INFORMATION REPORT
25X1
25X1 DATE OF INFO.
PLACE ACQUIRED
SECRET
Czechoslovakia
QoQperative Farms
This Document contains information affecting the Na-
tional Defense of the United States, within the mean-
ing of Title 18; Sections 793 and 794, of the U.S. Code, as
amended. Its transmission or revelation of its contents
to or receipt by an unauthorized person is prohibited
by law. The reproduction of this form is prohibited.
25X1
REPORT NO.
DATE DISTR.
NO. OF PAGES
REQUIREMENT NO.
REFERENCES
1.7 July 195325X1
5
25X1
1. The system of United Farm Cooperatives `Jednotne zemedelske druzetva ?JZD)
wast creatipd shortly after the Communists came to power in 1949. T,#e main
purpose was the eventual collectivization of all farmland irk the coxitry
g
establishing agriculture on a large` scale with farm machinery app; pFiate
for farming large plots of ground, The JZD was to be modeled after the
Soviet system of collectives.
2. Four types of farm cooperatives were instituted-
a. Under the 'tc iunal cultivation" (spolecny osev) cooperative, each
farmer owned and worked his owns. plot of .lands but helped the other
farmers on their farms, and the farmers decided together.what would be
planted and how much. At harvest time, the farmers in the cooperative
helped each other with'the )iarvest, but the yields on each man's
ground belonged to him. From the yield, each farmer was required
to turn in an amount fi;>. by the District National Committee. This
amount was usually lose ? ban that required from the completely independent
STATE '7C IARMY _I#X
SECRET
NAVY X AIR- X fBl AEC
(Note: Washington Distribution Indicated By "X"; Field Distribution By
Approved For Release 2005/07/28 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001700090008-6
 25X1
Approved For RelcT.1?7q - - 00090008-6
25X1.
farmer, who was to f:arm a poor plot of ground on the out-
skirts of the ; _,_ , ~r In 19?1 y goproxi.mately 70% of
the farmers near Ict of
Mnichovo Hradiste', 'belonged to this type E?r f c' _r -five.
b. Under the second type of cooperative, called "farm cooperative -
second type" (zeredeiske druzstvo - druheho typu), the land
belonged collectively to all the members of the cooperative and
no longer remainedd the property of individuals. However, the
plots of land were still divided by old fences and small roads
as before Work in the fields was done collectively. Production.
yields were turned in by the cooperative as a whole. The pro-
portion of the yields which had to be turned in were smaller
than those required from the first type of cooperative. Whatever
was left carver from crop yields after quotas were turned in was
divided among the cooperative members, the division being based
on previous average yields from each farm, so that a larger
landholder got more from this distribution that the others.
Horses and equipment were pooled, were placed in cooperative
stalls and barns, and were used by everyone In the cooperative.
No one received any reimbursement for his tools or horses.
c. Under the third type of cooperative, "farm cooperative - third
type", (zemedeiske druzstvo - tretiho typo), all the fields in
the cooperative were plowed to form one large field, leaving no
lines or fences of division. The land was owned by the coopera-
tive. Production yields were filled according to quotas assigned
by the District National Committee; what was left was divided
among all the cooperative members. Animals and equipment
became cooperative property.
d. The last type of cooperative, "farm cooperative - fourth type",
(zemedelske druzstvo ctvrteho typu) was the type most favored
by the Communist regime and most disliked by the farmers.
25X1 Members of this type of cooperative were paid by the hour
25X1 In practice, each.farme
was paid 6-flb.t rate o 1,000 crowns per month with the under-
standing that at harvest time there would be a balancing of the
books and he would receive the rest of his salary, based on the
total number of hours he had worked during the year. In most
cases the farmer received 3,000 to 4,000 crowns at the end of
the year, but in a few cases farmers had to repay some of the
money they had been advanced. This never occurred because an
inadequate number of hours had been worked, but because of poor
yields. Under this type of cooperative everything depended on
good yields, and in areas where the land was poor, farmers had
a very difficult time in producing sufficient to pay for costs.
This type of cooperative maintained laundries and nurseries so
that the women could work in the fields.
3. All these types of cooperatives were known as JZDs. Each JZD main-
tained an office in the village where its members lived. Each JZD
had its own committee, a committee chairman (predseda), and at
least one administrative officer (spravni urednik). The chairman
of the committee had no authority, simply presiding over meetings.
The administrative officer handled the JZD accounts. The committee
held regular meetings at which it decided how to carry out the farm
program in accordance with the plans of the agricultural referent
of the District National Committee and with decisions of the local
Party officials. The committee decided, for instance, what land
would be used for each crop in order to fulfill production quotas
at harvest time.
Approved For Release 2005/07/28 : CIA-RDP80-00810A001700090008-6
 25X1
Approved For Rele - - 090008-6
25X1 6.
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
the JZDs were to produce and reporting regularly co the w~?about the conditions of crops in his cooperatives. He maintained
contact between the JZDs, the local Communist organization,and the
district Communist committee. (All members of the local Party
organization governing committee were members of the local farm
cooperative.) The county secretary also arranged for obtaining
fertilizer, arranged for work brigades to help with harvesting, and
submitted complaints to the police in cases of suspected agricultural
sabotage. During the harvest season, it was his job to see~to it
that all available farm machinery was fully utilized.
25X1
4. There was a county t, __ Mary (i jezdni to jemn.ik) for each few JZDs;
he was the most t man J, the JZD orp:an ze tion . He main-
tained contact between the JZDc the s c z3..7_tural
referent, receiving orders from the refer?ei ,. v r how much
5. In theory, the JZDs were not told exactly how much of each crop they
were to plant, but in reality the amount planted was directly depend-
ent or! the amount of seed allotted to each JZD, and this was
decided by the district agricultural referent. On the basis of the
seed issued, the agricultural referent decided how much of the
harvest must be turned in to the State,. The actual operation of
the cooperatives depended vez*y largely on the district agricultural
referent and on the JZD county secretary.
there were from 15 to 20 farm cooperatives in the
Mnichovo Hradiste District,, the majority of which were of the third
type described above. Since the Mnichovo Hradiste District is
predominantly agricultural, and there are about 200 villages in the
?entire district, this meant that only about 10% of all the farmers
in the district belonged to farm cooperatives. The idea of farm
cooperatives was generally unpopular, and the program met with con-
siderable resistance. In a Village in Slovakia called Mokrat, near
Dolny Kubin,9912N-191$EA there
were many meetings of to farmers at which they were urged to join
a farm cooperative. Each time, the farmers walked out of the
meeting en masse. Near the town of Zazriva, 917N-19108, 20 km.
north of Dolny Kubin, in early 1951, the agricultural referent of
the District National Committee was killed by farmers when he
started a vigorous campaign to set up farm cooperatives in the area.
Slovak farmers offered the strongest resistance to the formation of
farm cooperatives, and there was a much smaller number of coopera-
tives in Slovakia than in Moravia and Bohemia.
eo ' ec v za of all lands in Czechoslovakia was to
be completed b the end of 1952-1
'25X1
7. A farmer who refused to join one of the four types of farm coopera-
tives was given land on the outskirts of the town or village, where,
in many cases, the land was much poorer and less accessible to. the
farmer's house. Such farmers were allowed to remain "independent",
but all their farm equipment was confiscated, except for scythes,
and they were forced to wait their turn in using equipment from one
of the state-operated machinery and tractor stations. They were
serviced only after the needs of all the cooperatives were satis-
fied. (First priority was given the fourth-type cooperative, then
the third, second., and first.) Cooperatives of the second, third,
and fourth types were allowed to keep their farm equipment and
machinery, provided they had formed their cooperative prior to 1949;
those formed after a certain date in 1949 had their machinery
confiscated and were required to request the necessary machinery
from the appropriate district State Tractor Station. The independent
farmer was required to pay the sane exorbitant prices for the use of.
machinery as the cooperatives. The main concern of the independent
farmer was to get his grain into bundles, because it could then wait
Approved For Release 2005/07/28 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001700090008-6
 25X1
Approved For Rele~5 - -
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Some time for the ti,o, Sher from t"--- State Tractor Station. During
the period of wait ..ng3 '.tB members harassed the independent farmer
for not threshing his grain, a= u:.ng him of + etting his land lie
fallow and of agricultural sabotage. The $tjo =.:see well
aware that the farmer was waiting his turn for the use t.,1'eaher,
but this sort of pressure was intended to convince the farmers they must
join cooperatives. Independent farmers also had difficulty in
getting seed for planting and proper amounts of fertili=zer, since
they were last on the lists for the distribution of these items.
Production yield quotas to be handed in by the independent farmer
were much higher than those of the cooperatives. In sons cases, it
was judged that the farmer was not able "properly to take care of
his land", and his land was automatically handed over to the coopera-
tive. None the less, independent farmers always had larger yields
per hectare than the cooperatives. There were many reasons for this.
Because the private farmer knew the land was still his, he tilled his
land more conscientiously and carefully. He went to. the fields at
perhaps five o'clock in the morning. The farmer in the cooperative
felt that he was working on someone else's land and was not enthusi-
astic about it. The farmers on cooperatives often sauntered out to
the fields late in the morning and went about the work carelessly.
The prevailing opinion was, "Why should I slave for a State that is
represented by someone who does nothing but ride around the fields
on a motorcycle giving orders?" When Sunday work brigades were
organized, most of the farmers gave excuses about sick wives, ailing
children, etc. Cooperative members often argued bitterly among
themselves. The Czech farmer could'not accept the idea of working
for someone else or of someone else tillin the soil that had been
handed down to him from many generations.
beets,
or example, were always armer.
Cooperative farms were almost always grown up in weeds, making
harvesting with machinery. very difficult. The private farmer always
kept his fields ;clean. The cooperative in the village of Jestrebi
36N-14367 was an example of a very inefficient, poorly-managed,
unproductive cooperative., The farmers were very bitter, machinery
seemed to be in very poor condition, and yields were below
This was:the cooperative with which I was most familiar.
here. were cooperatives which were in even worse s app,
especially those cultivating poor soil. On the other hand, there
were some that were better off. The cooperative at Bohatice, for
example, was held up as an example of efficiency, where the farmers
made a substantial profit each year. The reasons given were that 25X1
the .soil was rich in that locality, the farmers planted a lot of
fruit, and the men managing the cooperative were well-schooled'in
their tasks. Such cooperatives were rare, however, and
the average cooperative in Bohemia and Moravia was only
25X1
25X1
25X1
better off than the one in Jestrebi. Generally speaking,
slightly
morale of farmers throughout the republic was very low.
8. The farm cooperatives had various difficulties. In September 1951,
the cooperative in the village of Jestrebi in the Ceska Lipa District.
borrowed one Soviet-type Stalinec-6 grain combine ft m each of the
State Tractor Stations at Mimon 039N-14447, Doksy Z5034N-14407,
and Mnichovo Hradiste. The whea to be harvested had grown very
tall, resulting in an unusual amount of straw and caused frequent
stoppage of the combines. There was little grain in the head, but
the stalk was tall. Upon becoming ripe, much of the grain had fallen
to the ground. The sickleron the combines could not be lowered
enough to nick up the fallen grain, resulting in great losses to the
farmers?
slit during the night, and ese had to be replaced. Other stoppages
had been caused by the breaking of weak bolts and screws in places
of high tension and where stronger material was needed. During
Approved For Release 2005/07/28 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001700090008-6
 25X1 '.. 25X1
Approved For ReIe /07/28: CIA-RDP80-00810A0017 0090008-6
operation, bolts, nuts, pulleys, springs, axles, and other parts
would break and fly off into the field, Other working parts became
loose and damaged the insides of ~h combine. rower-drive chains
snapped at the slightest strain because of poor metal, n r-.1 we spent
much time looking for the missing links because spare parts were hard
to get. To get a new part, the old part always had to be turned in.
Critical points of heavy wear and friction were made of cast iron or
other weak metals instead of hard steel. Extra long bolts protruded
all over the combine, frequently causing minor body injury and tearing
clothing and made working around the combine very unsafe. The exhaust
mechanism, which was to separate the chaff from the grain, frequently
clogged up the whole combine. When the farmers saw how unsatisfactory
our work was, they became angered and insisted that we stop immediate-
ly. We stopped and the agricultural referent from the District
National Committee was summoned. He was followed by members of the
StB and local Communist Party leaders, who tried to charge us with
sabotage. No one dared say that the Soviet combine had any faults.
Finally, the agricultural referent and all those present decided that
the task could not be finished with the Soviet combine. We were then
instructed to cut the grain with a broadcast binder and throw the
bundles into the Soviet combine, which followed closely behind. Older
women, presumably the farmers' wives, were assigned to tossing the
bundles of wheat into the combine. This brought about the danger of
running over th eAnecially at ht because the machinery
had no lights.
the w:ea a to e
ing the dry grain caused great losses; the combine continued to
choke up and break down. During all these operations, the StB members
kept riding about the field on their motorcycles urging ~to keep
of
The farmers themselves wanted to quit for the n g ,
but were tea to continue working. When work did stop for the night,
one of the farmers was assigned to guard the c pmbinA and wag hald
res onsible for anything that happened to it.
Shortly afters a
thresher was brought n, an the o was ,comp e e at even greater
losses in grain than before, because of the handling procedure neces-
sary for threshing.
the long stalks of grain were caused by to-o-r-a-p-ld a
growth caused by too much fertilizer. This resulted in long stems,
much straw, and less grain. ecause,of
.this and the poor job the combine was doing, they would a lucky-if
they harvested 1,500 kg. of grain per hectare.
The State Tractor
demanded full payment or tne use or e machinery. In protest, after
assembling armed with pitchforks, hammers, and other tools, the cooper-
ative members demanded redistribution of the farm lands in the coope 59X1
tine. They made their demands to the agricultural referent, who
promised that their demands would be given full consideration after the
harvest.
one
farmer was arrested during these demonstrations and other farmers wepSX1
arrested later.
9.
Approved For Release 2005/07/28 : CIA-RDP80-0081OA001700090008-6