COLLECTIVIZATION OF AGRICULTURE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00046R000300030002-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 30, 2013
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: November 13, 1953
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20 :CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3
wa .18b$
SUB7ECT Collectivization of Agriculture
NO.OF PAGES
6
50X1
PLACE
NO.OF ENCLS.
(LISTED BELOW)
DATE
SUPPLEMENT TO
ACGtUIRED
REPORT NO.
DATE QF INFORMATION May 1952 - July 1853
THIS IS UNEVALUATED INFORMATION
SOURCE
1. The Pirst Estonian collective farm I know of was established ih the
Talli ~
i
.
nn area
n 19 7, but the main eollectiv~.zatior~ drive c.an~e in 199
following a mass deportation of Est?nians. I believe that the first
collective farm in Ab~a Ra on was founded at a ehd of 198 c-r the
'be inning of 19+9, and was colleQtivized in
19~9m the year when. the o oz Hallis~te woos ~~tablished, 50X1
rrollectivization in Ab~'a Rayon,; as ire Other regions of? Estonia, was
all but completed by 1950. By thin Only a few private fans wE~re still
ire existence.. Most of .these farms were quite isolated,.being located
in forest clearings, because of which their Owhers were probably not
subjected to the usual pressure. I do not believe that any farms
remained in private hands in Estonia i~ 1953. At least I was unaware
Of the existence of any private fans at that tine .
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20 :CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20: CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3
SECRET
-~-
~.
I heard that the actual collectivization of farms in my village was
preceded by intensive and prolonged propaganda efforts on the part
of Estonian and Russian Communists. When-the time came to loin the
kolkhoz, a peasant was required to' sign a statement ( zayavleiniy~)
that he was taking this step "voluntarily". The statement also
included an inventory of all of his farm property which he was
"voluntarily" turning over to the kolkhe~z. I think that a peasant
was allowed tm retain only a cow for his private use.
The overwhelming majority of Estonian peasants were against collec-
tivizati?n but were forced into this move by direct and indirect
-pressuresq A large deportation action had been carried out through
Estonia shortly before the main collectivization drive. Many
farmers feared the same fate if they failed to sin. In response
to a leading question, t is deporta-
tion action occurred in March 1g 9? Then the taxes and a'bligatc-ry
delivery quotas imposed oga private farms were sharply increased
following the main collectivization drive, forcing the remaining
private farmers to give in. If they did nc,t, their property would
have been ccinfiscated .for taxes and the end results would have been
the same. This tax policy hard been anticipated by the peasants
during the main drive and was a factor in its success. The Eston-
ians had been. told by R~~ssian settlers about the collectivization
methods previously used in the USSR and realized. that it would be
futile to hcald out.
5. So, the great majority of peasants in my village;~oined the kolkhoz
because it was a lesser evil. To hold out meant that a peasant
would run the risk of deportation and would see his property confis-
cated for taxes.
6. It is my impression that a very small minority of the farmers in
my area - no mere than two or three per. cent - were in favor of
collectivization at the time it was carried outp It is passible
that a larger percentage of farmers were in favor of this move in
other areas of Estonia, but such variations, .if they existed, were
very slight. By 1853 the Estoniaxa peasantry was even more opposed
to the collective farm system than was initially the case. The
standard of living in rural areas had dropped sharply after 1849.
Collective farm life was far worse than they had expected.
The first peasants to loin the collective farm in my village,
Halliste, were people who had received land under the land reform
put through by the Soviet authorities. They previously had been
landless peasants. Most of them had received from four to six
hectares and a small amount of livestock as a result of this redis-
tribution, I think that these individuals were the first to loin
because they wished to demonstrate their loyalty and their gratitude
to the Soviet regime for the land parcels which they had received.
They were told by Communist propagandists that the Communist
Govern~-ent had so far done well by them, that it would look after
their welfare in the collective farm, and they believed the claims
of the propagandists that c?llectivization would improve their
economic life..
8~ However, this group was only a small minority of the peasants in
Ha111ste, Peasants who had owned land prier to the Soviet regime
did not believe the propagandists' claims that collectivization
would be to their advantage. But they 1~new that many of their
relatives and friends had been deported, and they had been told by
Russian Communists about Soviet collectivization methods in the
past. They recognized that it was futile and dangerous to resist.
.SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20: CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20: CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3
50X1
5ECRET
-~_
~. The peasants who resisted collectivisation to the last, those who
held out the, le~ngest, were not ccanfiraed to an~r one ecvnm~.c group.
5nch ix~dividra~als included both poor p?asants and the s?-yelled Middle
peac~ants. The one thing which they had in comanon was their charac-
tex~. They were the stubborn people who were riot afraid to risk the
50X1
cansequence~. t was painted out at this point that,
according to ~-t er sources of inforar~ation, the richer peasants had
been the first to~ ,~oira collective farms in Lithuania and ,the poor
peasants had held out to the last. The former were ~ncast afraid of
being deported while the latter were in a relatively strong position
50X1
in this respect. that this was x~vt the case in
his village
ld. barge landowners axed sv-called kulaks did not come tender considera-
tion because their fate had been decided by deportation prior to,
collectivizatioxa. I am not aware of any standard which identified '
a fernier as a kulak - for example, the nuanber of hectares of land
awned. The term "kulak" was. applied not only tv relatively pros-
'perous peasants (fanners why owned more than 50 hectares or -who
- employed faun h~.nds) but also to pvc~rer peasants who had black marks
on their political records9 that is, people who had demonstrated
anti-Soviet sympathies in Brach ways as emplo~*ing Russian prisoners
of war during the Ger~aan accupativn ar collaborating with the Germans..
In short, a pers~an was called a kulak accc+rding to the whim of the
local Ct~mmunist.s.
11. Deportation lists were drawn tap by the local NKCTD (sic) in Ab~a
Rayon primarily an the basis of information ft.~rnished by a single
man. This man, a local ComlYtunist reamed Elmer KURG, had formerly
been a laborer on a large farm in the Ab;~a region. Fie was tall and
thin (ab?ut l.p8c~ to I.gC m. tall.), with thin blond hair, blue eyes,
axld sharp features. He was barn about 191$ in Ab~a and cozr~pleted
8 ar ltd years of edracation at the local school. As of surnnaer 1953,
he was working with the Ab~a Rayon administration in some capacity.
I exit nbt sure whether he worked for the Rayon Executive Committee
or the 'arty Committee, but I am inclined to think he was an official
of the latter cargan.
12. KURD was the maim sa~urce of irafortnation used by the secret p?lice
in drawing tap depsartatioaa Bats for the Halliste papt~latio.n, although
he trx~acloubtedly had sorn~e secret helpers in-the village. KURD was
.also in charge caf arganizing the "volunteer" assistance to collet-
.~-five farms which was required of workers it the town of Ab~a. .
Apart from KURGta collabaraticrn in the deportations, I cannot recall
any specific set ?f in~tastiee or cruelty mn hie part. KURD was,
of cau,rse, intexasely disliked, but rio one dared to show this to hie
face because of his responsible position.
4eneral Features of the Taht Collective Farm
13. My mother was a member of the Taht (star) Collective Farm ,and lived
in the village cif Halliste. I am not at all certain but I think
that the population of Halliste consisted of about 8D households.
This was a considerable drop from the pre-World War II situation
and was a result oaf deportations, war casualties, and a steady drift
to urban areas. These had been ruanors of establishing a central
village in Halliste. The farm houses there, as throughout Estonia,
were not found in a central village but were isolated, being located
an the individual landholdings. It was planned to relocate all
these f'arnt houses in a central spot. The authorities had even
chmsen a site ~?or the village near the railroad st?p. However, no
concrete steps had been taken ire this direction prior to my depar-
ture? Rtamors?~and plans had not been realized.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20: CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20: CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3
50X1
? SECRET
-1}-
14. Two collective farms had initially been established in the grillage
of Halliste. The two fa.rrns were amalgamated in abau.t 1951 a~ part
of the general ~t~rve to consplidate collective farms in Estonia.
After c?nsolidatian the Taht Ffolkhoz occupied are area abo>~t seven
kilo~teters long and four kilometers wide, or approximately 2,$Oa
hectareso Tt was good land with relatively little timbered area,
and I believe that about 70~ of the land was arable.
15, Relatively few ~aeople in Halliste actually worked on the collective
farm.. I-would estimate that the Taht Kolkhoz had only 40 active
workers who occupied themselves the year round with collective farm
work. I would further estimate that about 70~ of the kolkYioz
members were over CFO years of age and in this group 60~ were women.
The ether inhabitants were either too young or too old to work on a
full-time basis, found some reason to excuse themselves from fu11-
time work in the kolkhoz fields, or worked elsewhere and lived on
the collective farm with their families. The latter ease was par-
ticularly true of the younger people who were not registered members
of the collective. None of the young people wanted to stay on the
kolkhoz and they were free to leave although I have heard that the
regime was about to take measures to prevent their leaving. It is
true that many children and older people worked on the farm but not
on a full--time basis. They merely helped in the summer, In addi-
tion and to alleviate the manpower shortage resulting from the
above situation, city workers were brought to the farms to help
with the work in the su~amer. These workers were paid half their
usual salaries by the plant for which they worked; the other half
was supposed to be paid by the kolkhoz but this actually amounted
only to an obligation to feed them during the summer months.
16. Merit of the kolkhoz rnembere were Estonians but frequently Russians
were installed as chairmen of the kolkhoz or as brigadie>~s. The
chairman was an Estonian who was arrested because of
the number of cows that died during the winter of 1853. After his
arrest the Party selected a new chairman who was supposed to be
paid a salary of I,2OO rubles a month by the kolkhoz whereas
`formerly the chairman had been paid on the basis of workdays.
Orders and instructions were given to the chairman by the Rayon
Executive Oornmittee which controlled his work, The chairman was~a:
Communist and. from time to time agitators and Communists visited
the. kolkhoz. On the ether hand there were n4 Communists at all
among kolkh:bz members, and although they hated the Communists I
know of no violent action taken against them. (I have heard of
Communists ~vho committed suicide. One Communist official in Ab~a
Rayon shot himself in the spring of 1953 because he was about to
be arrested.} And I know, despite the fact that I have never
attended a kolkhoz meeting, that no one would dare criticize the
chairman, The kolkhoz had one agronomist and three brigades of
about 20 persons each. The only plan fulfilled in 1952 was-that
for delivery of hides; the hides were from animals that. died of
starvation.
17. A family could be deprived of its 60-are homestead plot if no mem-
ber of the family contributed labor to the collective farm. On the
other hand, one was not disqualified for receiving payment if he
failed to accumulate the minimum number of workdays set for a
year, A person was always paid for his labor even if he accumu-
lated only 10 workdays. I do not know what the minimum number of
workdays was for kolkhoz members but I think it was between 120
and 150 a year. There were many who did not fulfill this minimum.
This could be attributed to various reasons: many of the people
were old and unable to work hard; there were a number of fobs for
which only a fraction of a workday was recorded. I know of no
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20: CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20: CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3
50X1
-5-
punishment,,~iven for not fulfilling workday Harms. On the other
hand; a kolkhoznik could be penalized for failing to show up for
work. ~Ie might be subjected to the usual criticism in wall ~-ews-
papers or he might be denied the right to borrow a kolkhoz-owned
horse far use on his homestead plot. Punishment was also inflicted
.for stealing kolkhoz property, for example, far taking produce to
feed individually-owned cattle. I know of one man 6D years of age
who was sentenced to 18 years for taking some oil cake from the
railroad staiion. Tn 195? the kolkhoz members received two kilo-
grams of grain and ~0 kopeks per workday, In 1951 they received
one-half kilogram of grain and 20 kopeks per workday; in 1952 they
received no. money at all. (Despite the fact no money was received,
the kolkhoz members were required to subscribe from 25 to 100
rubles to the state loan,) This decrease stemmed from the fact
that kolkhoz members were "fed up "with the system and worked less
and less each year. Last year my mother received 74 kg. of grain
from the kolkhoz in payment for her workdays. Very few old people
received help from the state; I know of only one old woman who was
paid ~0 rubles a month as a pension because her son had served ir5oxl
the Army during the war and had been killed,
18.
19. I wish to emphasize that the consolidation of the two collective
farms coincided with a decrease in living standards in Halliste.
This was partially the result of two factors. First, many youths
continued to look for work in the towns and cities, thus aggravat-
ing the existing labor shortage on the Ta'ht collective farm. And
secondly, many kolkhozniks had learned in the two years of collec-
tivization that harder work did not necessarily mean higher pay
for them, and were unwilling to exert themselves for the benefit
of the kolkhoz. Even more important was the fact that the state
had raised the: delivery quotas imposed on the colleetive~-farm at
the same time 'consolidation was effected. The production plan
for the consolidated kolkhoz was more demanding than previous pro-
duction plans of its two component parts combined. Conditions
deteriorated to such an extent in the two years following consoli-
dation that about 25~ of the kolkhoz's arable land was riot put .
into production because of labor shortage. This shortage. was so
serious that a 1952 potato crop could not be harvested until 1953.
As a result half the cows and half the pigs died of starvation
since potatoes were used to feed the livestock, The stock that
died was mostly kolkhoz stock; members usually managed to care for
their privately-owned stock. Fc~r example, when the kolkhoz failed
to gather the hay, individuals took it for themselves, and in the
spring of 1953, potatoes which had remained in the ground all
winter were dug up to feed to the pigs. Tt was a common saying
among the Taht kolkhozniks that "this year the cattle are dying
and next year it may be us"a
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20: CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20: CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3
50X1
SECRET
-6-
2CJ. I am not certain whether machine-tractor stations were set up in
this part of Eetvnia in the same way they were ire the older part
o~f.the Soviet Univr~. There was an MTS in Halliste bit it served
only the ?ne kolkhoz. It had assigned tv it about 1C tractors,
14?cor~bir~ea, drill plows, and certain ether machinery. Moat-of
the plowing was dyne by tractor bu,t it was not as well dome as it
formerly had been with horses. The tractor drivers were paid by
the MTS-and received three kilograms of grain and one rub~.e-per
workday. In 1852 the kolkhvz failed tv realize its requirements
by 120 tn? of gain and the debt had tv be canceled by the govern-
ment. This failure was die tv the fact that the kv]:khoz had been
unable to harvest the grain so individual farmers had gathered
much of it for themselves.
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/20: CIA-RDP82-000468000300030002-3