The law on the three spikelets (decree "7-8"). Artificial famine in the USSR, victims of the Holodomor

Proving the cruelty and bloodiness of the Soviet regime, the publicists used as an argument the law "on the three spikelets." In the opinion of several authors, this normative act was directly aimed at destroying the peasantry. However, the researchers have a different view of the situation.

Features of punishments

During the years of Stalinist repression , the Criminal Code of the RSFSR operated. It set various penalties for different crimes. The responsibility for the theft, meanwhile, was rather small, one might even say that it was symbolic. For example, for theft of property without the use of technical means and without collusion with other persons, for the first time forced labor or a prison for up to 3 months was foreseen. If the act is committed repeatedly, or the material objects that are necessary for the victim act as an object of encroachment, a sentence of imprisonment for a period of up to six months was applied. For repeated theft or carried out with the use of technical means, as well as by prior agreement, imprisonment up to a year was deemed necessary. The same punishment threatened the subject who committed the theft without the indicated conditions on piers, railway stations, hotels, steamships and in wagons. For theft from a public or state warehouse, another storage facility using technical means or in collusion with other persons, or forced labor for up to one year or imprisonment up to 2 liters was repeatedly imposed. A similar punishment was envisaged for subjects who committed an act without these conditions if they had special access to facilities or guarded them, as well as during a flood, fire or other natural disaster. For particularly large theft from public / state warehouses and storage facilities, as well as in the presence of special admission to them, with the use of technical means or in collusion with other criminals, up to 5 years of prison were required. Apparently, the punishment was quite mild even in the presence of serious circumstances. Of course, such sanctions did not stop the attackers. The problem was aggravated also by the fact that as a result of collectivization a new type of property appeared - the public one. In fact, it remained without any legal protection.

Decree 7-8

The problem of thefts arose in the country. JV Stalin in a letter to Kaganovich justified the need to approve a new normative act. In particular, he wrote that in recent times, the theft of goods on railway transport has become too frequent. The damage was estimated at tens of millions of rubles. The cases of theft of collective-farm and cooperative property became more frequent. The thefts, as indicated in the letter, were organized mainly by kulaks and other elements that sought to weaken the state system. According to the Criminal Code, these subjects were regarded as ordinary thieves, they received 2-3 years of a "formal" prison. In practice, after 6-8 months. They were safely amnestied. Stalin pointed out the need for stricter responsibilities. He said that further connivance could lead to the most serious consequences. As a result, the decision of the Central Election Commission and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR was adopted on August 7, 1932. The penalties for theft were significantly tightened. According to the normative act, for the theft of collective and cooperative property, up to 10 years of prison was provided for in the presence of mitigating circumstances. If the latter were absent, the highest measure was appointed. For such theft, a shooting was planned with confiscation. The need to issue a normative act was determined by instability in the state. Many people, who were fond of money, tried to take advantage of the situation in every way and get as much benefit as possible.

Arbitrage practice

It is worth noting that the law "on the three spikelets" (as it was called in the people) began to be used fanatically enough by the authorities. From the moment of its approval to January 1, 1933, it was sentenced:

1. To the highest measure - 3.5%.
2. By 10 years - 60.3%.
3. Less severe punishment received 36.2%.

It must, however, be said that not all of the verdicts to the highest measure were performed in the USSR. 1932 was to some extent a trial period of the use of the new normative act. A total of 2,686 verdicts were pronounced to the highest degree. A large number of decisions were made by the linear transport courts (812) and military tribunals (208). Nevertheless, the Armed Forces of the RSFSR was revised almost half of the sentences. The Presidium of the CEC issued even more justificatory decisions. As the records of Krylenko, the People's Commissar of Justice, show, the total number of executed people did not exceed 1000.

Examination of cases

There is quite a logical question: why did the Supreme Court begin reviewing the decisions of lower levels? This happened because the latter, applying the law "on the three spikelets," sometimes reached absurdity. For example, a serious punishment was imposed on three peasants, characterized by accusation as kulaks, and the certificates they submitted themselves as middle peasants. They were convicted of taking a boat belonging to the collective farm, and went fishing. A serious sentence was also imposed on the whole family. People were convicted for fishing in a river running near the collective farm. Another absurd decision was made against the young man. He "dabbled with the girls in the barn, thus causing concern to the pig, which belonged to the collective farm." Since the collective property was inviolable and sacred, the judge sentenced the young man to 10 years in prison "for anxiety." As Vyshinsky, the famous prosecutor of that time, points out in his pamphlet, all these cases were regarded by judges as an encroachment on public material values, although they were not in fact such. Along with this, the author adds that such decisions are permanently canceled, and the judges themselves are removed from their posts. Nevertheless, as Vyshinsky noted, this whole reality is characterized by an insufficient level of understanding, a limited horizon of people capable of making such sentences.

Examples of solutions

A ten-prisoner was assigned to one of the kolkhozes for negligent treatment of agricultural implements, which was expressed in partial abandonment under the open sky. At the same time, the court did not establish whether the instruments were partially or completely unusable. The lord of one of the collective farms released bulls into the street during harvesting. One animal slipped and broke its leg. By order of the government, the ox was stabbed. Narcud sentenced the crook to 10 years in prison. One of the ministers also fell under the law of the "three spikelets". Rising to the bell tower to clear the snow from it, he found there the corn in 2 bags. The minister immediately reported this to the village council. To check were sent to people who found the third bag of corn. The minister was sentenced to 10 years. The head of the barns was sentenced to ten years for allegedly hanging people. The audit revealed 375 kg of extra grain in one of the stores. When considering the case, the people's court did not take into account the manager's statement about the inspection of the remaining barns. The accused argued that because of the incorrect description of the statements in another store, there must be a grain shortage in the same quantity. After the verdict was passed, the statement of the head found confirmation. One of the collective farmers was sentenced to 2 years in prison for taking a handful of grain in his hand and eating it, because he wanted to eat and exhausted, not having the strength to work. All these facts can serve as evidence of the cruelty of the then existing regime. However, unlawful and meaningless sentences were virtually abolished almost immediately after the adoption.

State Instructions

The verdicts for "spikelets" were a manifestation of arbitrariness and lawlessness. The state required the employees of justice not to allow the use of the normative act when this led to its discrediting. In particular, the law "on the three spikelets" could not be used for thefts in extremely small amounts or with the extremely difficult material situation of the perpetrator. Local judges were extremely unskilled. Together with excessive zeal this led to massive "excesses". However, at the state level, there was an active struggle against them. In particular, the authorized persons were required to apply to minor offenses Art. 162 Criminal Code of the RSFSR, which provided for milder penalties. The higher authorities indicated to the lower authorities the need to properly qualify the deeds. In addition, it was said about the illegal use of the provision on mitigation of sanctions in a difficult life situation.

Hunger in the USSR in 1932-1933

The situation in the country was extremely difficult. The plight was noted in the RSFSR, the BSSR, the North Caucasus, the Volga region, the Southern Urals, Western Siberia, and northern Kazakhstan. In the Ukrainian SSR in official sources the name "Holodomor" is indicated. In Ukraine in 2006, the Verkhovna Rada, he was recognized as an act of genocide of the people. The leadership of the former republic accused the Soviet government of deliberately destroying the population. The sources indicate that this "artificial famine" led to huge multi-million victims. Later, after the collapse of the Union, this situation was widely covered in the media and various official documents. The Holodomor in Ukraine was regarded by many leaders as one of the manifestations of the aggressive policy of the Soviet government. However, as was said above, the plight took place in other republics, including the RSFSR.

Bread procurements

According to the results of research conducted by the doctor of historical sciences Kondrashin, the famine in the USSR in 1932-1933 was the result of not universal collectivization. In some regions, for example, in the Volga region, the situation was due to compulsory grain procurements. This opinion is confirmed by a number of eyewitnesses of those events. The famine arose from the fact that all the collected grain had to be taken from the peasants. The countryside suffered greatly from collectivization and dekulakization. In the Volga region, the Commission for the procurement of grain under the leadership of the Secretary of the Party's Central Committee, Postyshev, issued a decree on the seizure of stocks from individual farmers, grain growers, and grain earned by collective farmers. Under fear of criminal punishment, the chairmen, heads of administrations were forced to hand over to the state almost the whole harvest. All this deprived the region of the food supply, which provoked a massive famine. The same measures were taken by Kaganovich and Molotov. Their decisions concerned the territories of the North Caucasus and Ukraine. As a result, the mass death of the population began in the country. At the same time, it must be said that the plan for grain procurements for 1932 and the volume of grain actually harvested were significantly lower than in the past and subsequent years. The total number of alienated grain from villages across all channels (markets, purchases, procurements) decreased by 20%. The volume of exports decreased from 5.2 million tons in 1931 to 1.73 in 1932. The following year it further decreased to 1.68 million tons. For the main grain-producing regions (the North Caucasus and Ukraine), the quotas for the number of blanks were repeatedly reduced. So, for example, in the Ukrainian SSR accounted for a quarter of the grain delivered, while in 1930 the volume was 35%. According to Zhuravlev, the famine was provoked by a sharp drop in yields as a result of collectivization.

The results of the application of the normative act

In a note by the deputy chairman of the OGPU, Prokofiev and the head of the economic department of the OGPU Mironov, Stalin's name indicates that of the cases of the thefts uncovered in two weeks, special attention was paid to major crimes that occurred in Rostov-on-Don. Theft spread throughout the system of the local bakery. The thefts were in the mills, at the factory, in two bakeries, 33 stores where the products were sold to the public. As a result of the inspections, more than 6,000 poods of grain were plundered, 1,000 sugars, 500 bran, etc. Such lawlessness took place due to the lack of clear accountability and control, as well as the criminal collusion of employees. Work supervision, which was attached to the trading network, did not justify its purpose. In all cases, the controllers acted as accomplices in crimes, putting their signatures on deliberately fictitious acts on the disproportion of bread, writing off the shrinkage, etc. As a result of the investigation, 54 people were arrested, five of whom were members of the CPSU (b). In the department of the Union of Transport of Taganrog, an organization of 62 people was liquidated. Among them were porters, loaders, drivers, most of whom were former kulaks, traders, criminal elements. As part of the organization, they abducted cargo transported from the port. Volumes of the stolen directly indicate that the participants in the crimes were clearly not peasants.

Conclusion

As a result of the application of the regulatory act of embezzlement on railway transport and the theft of state-owned property, material values from artels and cooperatives began to decline. In January 1936, mass rehabilitation of convicts began. Decision was adopted on January 16, on which the relevant cases were inspected. As a result, some of the convicts, whose actions did not contain corpus delicti, were released from prisons.