Table of contents:

Why did Stalin actually introduce a decree on the protection of socialist property, and why was it later abandoned
Why did Stalin actually introduce a decree on the protection of socialist property, and why was it later abandoned

Video: Why did Stalin actually introduce a decree on the protection of socialist property, and why was it later abandoned

Video: Why did Stalin actually introduce a decree on the protection of socialist property, and why was it later abandoned
Video: Владимир Самойлов. Большой артист и глыба советского кино - YouTube 2024, November
Anonim
Image
Image

The decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union, known as "On the protection of property of state enterprises, collective farms and cooperation, and the strengthening of public (socialist) property" and adopted on 7/08 1932 (hence, in fact, the unspoken name - "Decree 7 -8 "), is most often interpreted as a vivid manifestation of the repressive Stalinist policy towards the countryside. However, until today, disputes have not abated as to whether this legislative act was a kind of punishing sword on peasant heads or whether there were objective rational grounds for its adoption.

When was the "Law on Three Spikelets" adopted, and what did this decree provide?

The “Law on Three Spikelets” was aimed at preventing massive theft of state and collective farm property
The “Law on Three Spikelets” was aimed at preventing massive theft of state and collective farm property

The impetus for the development of "Decree 7-8" was the statement of the head of state Joseph Stalin that a situation has developed in the country when the theft of social property by various antisocial elements has reached catastrophic proportions, and the legislation is extremely lenient in relation to criminals. If premeditated murder was punishable by no more than ten years in prison, then the punishment for theft was almost symbolic. From this it followed that citizens convicted of plundering collective farm and cooperative property on an especially large scale appeared before the court as ordinary thieves and received a couple of years in prison, of which they served only a few months.

The country needed an effective tool to combat this category of criminals, which became the notorious "Decree Seven-Eight", also known as "The Law on Three (in another version - five) ears of corn." The bill provided for the most severe measures in relation to malicious robbers. Those who encroached on collective farm and cooperative property, as well as on goods on public transport (both railway and water), were threatened with execution, plus a complete confiscation of property. The presence of mitigating circumstances made it possible to replace a capital measure for a period of over ten years. A feature of the law was the note that violators who fell under its action were deprived of the right to amnesty.

An unsuccessful tool for combating theft, or how "Decree 7-8" was used in practice

For the theft of collective farm and cooperative property, theft of goods on railroad and water transport, "execution was imposed with confiscation of all property and with the replacement, under extenuating circumstances, of imprisonment for a period of at least 10 years with confiscation of property."
For the theft of collective farm and cooperative property, theft of goods on railroad and water transport, "execution was imposed with confiscation of all property and with the replacement, under extenuating circumstances, of imprisonment for a period of at least 10 years with confiscation of property."

Unfortunately, not only ardent robbers fell under the punishing hand of the Decree of August 7th. This is due to "local excesses" that happened due to the excessive zeal of some servants of the law. Sentences with very serious social protection measures were often imposed for negligible violations. Here are some examples of flagrant judicial injustice. The whole family received a strict sentence for fishing in the river flowing through the territory of the collective farm. Deprivation of freedom - for a handful of grain, which was eaten by a collective farmer, starving and exhausted to such an extent that he could not work. A worker who left a part of agricultural equipment out in the open after repairs received 10 years in prison. At the same time, the lawyers did not even bother to establish whether the inventory was really damaged.

An elderly priest, putting things in order in the bell tower of his church, found 2 sacks of corn there. Being a law-abiding citizen, he immediately notified the village council of the find. The inspectors also found a bag of wheat, after which they did not bother with the investigation and sent the priest to jail for 10 years. There were also episodes that could be called anecdotal. So, a serious time was obtained by a guy who arranged funny fun with girls in the barn. The young man was charged with harassing a collective farm pig, that is, an attempt on collective farm property. According to statistics, the peak of the Law on Three Spikelets fell on the first half of 1933. During this period in the USSR, about 70 thousand people were convicted on it.

Did "draconian measures" help

By June 1933, the number of thefts in transport had decreased by almost four times; a sharp decline was also recorded in collective farms and cooperatives
By June 1933, the number of thefts in transport had decreased by almost four times; a sharp decline was also recorded in collective farms and cooperatives

It should be given its due - the Law of 1938-07-08 took due effect. The justice authorities noted that in less than a year the number of large-scale embezzlements on collective farms, cooperatives and in transport decreased by almost 4 times. A huge number of hardened robbers appeared before law enforcement officers. Among the high-profile cases disclosed by the OGPU employees are crimes in the Rostpromkhlebokombinat system. The Rostov malefactors played into the hands of the lack of clear accounting and control, as well as the deep-rooted nepotism at the enterprises. A wide criminal network (more than 60 people) was identified in the Taganrog branch of Soyuztrans. The prey of this criminal organization was the cargo transported from the port.

However, on the whole, the results of the introduction of the "Decree Seven-Eight" could not be called correct, as stated by the then Prosecutor of the USSR Andrei Vyshinsky. In his appeal to the state leadership, Andrei Yanuaryevich insisted on the need to review criminal cases against persons convicted under the aforementioned law. According to Vyshinsky, the practice of “one size fits all” of the peasants who appropriated several ears of grain and who were carrying out large-scale schemes of theft neutralized these categories of malefactors and, in the end, distracted them from the fight against criminals who were really dangerous for the country.

How was the mass rehabilitation of persons previously convicted under the Three Spikelets Law carried out, and when the ominous decree was canceled

In total, more than 115 thousand cases were checked, and in more than 91 thousand cases the application of the law of August 7, 1932 was recognized as incorrect
In total, more than 115 thousand cases were checked, and in more than 91 thousand cases the application of the law of August 7, 1932 was recognized as incorrect

Over time, it became apparent that the policy of the judiciary needed to be revised towards a more clearly targeted strike against the class enemy. Based on this, in January 1936, a decree was developed that instructed law enforcement and executive bodies to check the correctness of the use of the "Law on Three Spikelets". Six months later, Andrei Vyshinsky reported that the large-scale work on the revision of criminal cases had been completed. After checking more than 115 thousand trials, over 90 thousand prisoners were rehabilitated.

In addition, restrictions were imposed on the application of the Ordinance of 7.08: from now on, it only extended to large-scale theft. As a result, a decrease in the number of people held in forced labor camps and a decrease in the percentage of death sentences. With the help of such measures, the Soviet government had to establish the use of the law, the original purpose of which was to preserve socialist property, and in 1947 it was completely abolished.

But they were so original marriage ads in the 20th century.

Recommended: