CC BY
38
In conclusion, we would like to say that Nader Shah was decisively repulsed by the heroic Dagestan peoples. It made Nader Shah and his defeated, demoralized, and disorganized army retreat in disgrace. Starving and freezing they lost people and equipment at every step [16, p. 113]. Nader Shah, being in such insufferable conditions, had really nothing to do but withdraw his remained army from Dagestan, and, finally, did it in February 1743. The Goretz closely chased the Iranian army before the Samur River crossing. New campaigns of Nader Shah to Dagestan failed. The Dagestan peoples, including the Aguls, managed to resist and rout the army of “Terror of the Universe” despite of atrocities of outnumbered and perfectly armed enemy. Thus, the Dagestan peoples proved the Persian proverb: “If shah is a fool, let him go to war with the Lezgins” [17, p. 9].
1. См.: Магомедов P.M. Разгром войск персидского завоевателя Надир-шаха в горах Дагестана. Махачкала, 1940; Гаджиев В.Г. Разгром Надир-шаха в Дагестане. Махачкала, 1996; Сатавов П.А. Крах грозы вселенной. Махачкала, 2000; Тамай А.И. К вопросу о провале дагестанской кампании шаха Надира (1741-1743 гг.) // УЗ ИИЯЛ Дагфилиала АН СССР. Махачкала, 1958; Рамазанов Х.Х., Шихсаидов А.Р. Очерки истории Южного Дагестана. Махачкала, 1964; Алиев Б.Г., Умаха-нов М-С.К. Союзы сельских общин в борьбе за независимость Дагестана в XVII - пер. пол. XVIII в. // Освободительная борьба народов Дагестана в эпоху средневековья. Махачкала, 1986.
2. Акты, собранные Кавказской археографической комиссией (АКАК). Т. 1. Док. № 6, 7.
3. История Дагестана. Махачкала, 1996.
4. Бакиханов А-К. Гюлистан и Ирам. Баку: «Элам», 1991.
5. Гаджиев В.Г. Разгром Надир-шаха в Дагестане. Махачкала, 1996.
6.Рамазанов Х.Х., Шихсаидов А.Р. Очерки истории Южного Дагестана. Махачкала, 1964.
7. Апкадари Г.Э. Асари - Дагестан. Махачкала, 1994.
8. Агулы. Махачкала, 1975.
9. Центральный государственный архив Республики Дагестан (ЦГА РД). Ф. 214. Оп. 1. Д. 2. Л. 3.
10. Козлов А.Н. Наме-йи аламара-йи Надири: Мухаммад-Казима о первом этапе подхода Надир-шаха на Табасаран // Освободительная борьба народов Дагестана в эпоху средневековья. Махачкала, 1986.
11. Арунова М.Р, Ашрафян К.З. Государство Надир-шаха Афшара. М., 1958.
12. Тамай А.И. К вопросу о провале дагестанской кампании шаха Надира (1741-1743 гг.) // УЗ ИИЯЛ Дагфилиала АН СССР Махачкала, 1958.
13. Гасанов М.Р. Из истории Табасарана XVIII - нач. XIX вв. Махачкала, 1978.
14. Магомедов Р.М. Разгром войск персидского завоевателя Надир-шаха в горах Дагестана. Махачкала, 1940.
15. Бутков П.Г Материалы для новой истории Кавказа с 1722 по 1803 гг.: в 3 ч. Ч. 1. СПб., 1869.
16. Левиатов В.Н. Очерки из истории Азербайджана в первой половине XVIII в. Баку 1975.
17. Неверовский А.А. Краткий исторический взгляд на Северный и Средний Дагестан до уничтожения влияния лез-гинов на Закавказье. СПб., 1887.
удк 94(47) Yu. V. Ishchenko
PROBLEMS OF LABOR RESOURCES IN POST-WAR RURAL COMMUNITIES (based on the materials from the Saratov and Stalingrad regions)
The paper defines the state of labor resources in rural communities after the Great Patriotic War, examines demographic processes and results of the state policy aimed at developing human resources from rural population for the needs of the national economy. The analysis of labor resources structure in rural regions is given. The author identifies labor resources problems in the countryside which had become aggravated as a result of demographic, migratory and other processes in the second half of the 1940s - first half 1950s.
Key words: productive forces in rural areas, labor resources, demographic processes, migration, population, population size, birth rate, death rate, post-war years, gender and age structure, demobilization, natural increase, labor, organized set, collective farm, cultural and living conditions and safety arrangements, industry, educational institutions.
Ю.В. Ищенко
ПРОБЛЕМЫ ТРУДОВЫХ РЕСУРСОВ ПОСЛЕВОЕННОЙ ДЕРЕВНИ (на материалах Саратовской и Сталинградской областей)
В статье характеризуется состояние трудовых ресурсов села после Великой Отечественной войны, исследуются демографические процессы, результаты государственной политики, направленной на формирование рабочих кадров для народного хозяйства за счет сельского населения. Дается анализ структуры трудовых ресурсов села. Автор выявляет ряд проблем трудовых ресурсов сепа, обострившихся в результате демографических, миграционных и других процессов во второй половине 1940 - первой половине 1950-х гг.
Ключевые слова: производительные силы села, трудовые ресурсы, демографические процессы, миграция, население, численность, рождаемость, смертность, послевоенные годы, половозрастная структура, демобилизация, естественный прирост, рабочая сила, организованный набор, колхоз, культурно-бытовые условия и меры по охране труда, промышленность, учебные заведения.
From the second half of the 1940s up to the first half of es in rural areas on the basis of industrial and technical
the 1950s there was recovery and growth of productive forc- modernization which had been started in the prewar years.
On the eve of the war rural population share was 68.4%. Those people were the main source of recruitment as villages had no systems of keeping people in reserve. All collective farm workers meeting age and health requirements had to go to war. During the war most rural habitants were engaged with work in industry and construction, especially in eastern parts of the country, where evacuated enterprises were located and new plants were built. Having earned new qualifications, yesterday farm workers never returned home to rural communities. Due to that reason, rural labor recourses sharply fell down. By the end of 1945 all rural people including demobilized reduced by 15% while the number of able-bodied by 32.5% compared to 1940. About 4/5 of rural population disappeared on the occupied territory [3, p. 20; 5, p. 28].
The consequences of lean year in 1946 lasted till 1948 and negatively told on rural population size. And only in 1949 the mortality rate reduced to 1945 level. At the same time, mortality rate in the Saratov region rose by 24% in 1947 compared to 1946 while the figures in the Stalingrad region skyrocketed by 46% in the same comparison period [7, p. 335 - 337]. Comparatively not-bad situation in the Saratov region could be explained by the food aid received in proper time and by smallholdings mostly located on fertile soil. The mortality rate of rural population in both regions was ten times lower than in cities. The reason of such difference was in dependence of urban people on federal food supply which decreased sharply due to crop setback in 1946. In addition, mass out flow of rural population happened to be the second reason of rural population size reduction [2. On. 24. fl. 311. fl. 18; 7, p. 335 - 337].
On the other hand, demobilized soldiers return had a positive impact in terms of demographic situation. Mass demobilization of military aged personnel started in summer of 1945, and finished by spring of 1948. Most of demobilized were placed in jobs, some abandoned their regions. Demobilized personnel and their families were assisted with cash, food, forage, apartment (house) repair, fuel supply and other types of welfare. In addition, during the first postwar years soviet people captured by fascists started coming back home to occupied territories. It was almost a half who returned to rural communities. A number of farm workers moved to released territories in frames of organized migration [1. On. 1. fl. 4737. f. 114 06., 115; fl. 4736. f. 220; fl. 4533. f. 53; 2. On. 24. fl. 375. f. 1, 9; 3, p. 216; 8, p. 129].
By the end of 1947 and early 1948 collective farm population in both Saratov and Stalingrad regions increased compared to 1945, and it beat the record of the post war period. A number of able-bodied workers also rose for that period. In addition, death rate fell down due to better healthcare and improved living conditions. It all resulted in increased natality compared to the figures of 1940. In the 1950s population growth reached 17 per thousand as against 13 per thousand in 1940. Age structure of population under standard conditions of reproduction consists of two halves. The first is children (under 12) and adolescents (from 12 to 16). The size of rising generation defines potential labor force of national economy for upcoming years. The number of children and adolescents increased during the above-mentioned period [1. On. 1. fl. 4479. f. 18; On. 2. fl. 944. f. 36; 2. On. 30. fl. 192. f. 11; 7, p. 248; 5, p. 156 - 157, 278].
Future period turned out to become the main source for personnel recruitment of national economy. In postwar time
demand for labor force sharply rose in order to restore demolished cities, industry, and transportation. And that demand failed to be met by returning demobilized soldiers and population growth increase. According to the Five-Year Plan, the system of recruitment of workers was completely recovered. Annual national economy plans were supposed to recruit rural population for the needs of industry and construction. In terms of organizational recruitment, workers from collective farms were sent to logging area, peat bog development, and other labor-intensive branches of economy. In 1950 concerning to the Saratov region, 65.8% of 5466 workers attracted in the frames of the organizational recruitment program were from rural population [3, p. 218; 1. On. 2. fl. 1765. f. 286].
Technical equipment progress naturally releases a certain part of labor forces in collective farms. But in postwar years outflow of rural population in many regions outpaced technological level of mechanization in farms. It couldn't but cause alarm. The minister of Agriculture Bene-dictov I. noticed in memorandum, “.... taking into consideration a tough situation with labor force in the Saratov region, we need to carry out workers recruitment among urban and rural non-farm workers” [1. On. 2. fl. 1765. f. 287]. In the 1950s the share of rural population in labor force organized recruitment significantly decreased. In 1951 totally across the country about 60.8% rural people were attracted to industry. In 1954, the figures fell down to 35.6%, and in 1956, the share dropped to 5% [5, p. 280].
A lot of young people set out to cities for learning in universities and vocational schools. In addition, many of them entered educational institutions through the system of workers' reserves and factory learning. Those rural students, who were in need, were supported with clothes, shoes, and cash. In 1951 across the country the share of rural students got accepted into vocational schools through the system of workers' reserves reached 75% [4, p. 91 - 92; 5, p. 281].
Beyond the above-mentioned reasons, rural people left their villages due to other causes. According to the data total amount of collective farm workers who abandoned the Stalingrad region in 1950, 52% left through the organized system, 9% recruited in army and never returned, 8% got job in collective farms of other regions, and 22% moved away independently [7, p. 249].
Concerns about future collective farms consolidations made workers leave their native places. The note of instructor Kovalev from agricultural department of the Stalingrad region committee of the Communist Party dated December 10th, 1950 said that the whole families left their places due to consolidation of collective farms in Nizh-nechirsk district and Volga-Don Canal construction. Pensioners gave reasons for living together with their children in the regional center. The youth, especially girls, left rural communities impressed by letters from their friends who had already moved to Stalingrad and other cities [7, p. 219].
As a result of migration in 1948-1952, a number of able-bodied people left collective farms. The share of migrants reached 25.1% in the Saratov region and 26.2% in the Stalingrad region [5, p. 247]. It resulted in decreasing labor force and the number of collective farm courts. For example, the number of able-bodied workers in the Saratov region decreased by 15.4% for the 7 post war years, while the number of collective farm courts fell by 11.4% [10, p. 292]. The same downtrend of labor force (18%) hap-
pened in the Stalingrad region by 1952 [7, p. 248]. Despite of partial compensation, the lack of able-bodied farm workers by means of other categories of people who met the age requirement, as well as the number of people working in farm production continued to reduce due to general rural population decrease. In 1945, some 350 thousand people took part in farm production in the Saratov region, while in 1947 that figure was 402 thousand workers, in 1948 - 392.7 thousand, in 1952 - 329 thousand people [1. On. 1. Д. 4479. Л. 18; On. 2. Д. 944. Л. 36; Д. 2936. Л. 266 - 272; 7, p. 247]. The same tendency was observed in the Stalingrad region where 311,002 persons worked in farm production in 1947; 318,574 people were employed in 1948; and in 1949 the figure was 298,800 able-bodied farm workers and their family members [2. On. 30. Д. 192. Л. 11].
Mobilization of urban people enabled to fill in the gap in rural labor force. But farm organizations often failed to provide urban people with everyday life and cultural conditions properly That was the reason why mobilization plans didn't usually accomplish. Urban people unwillingly agreed to work in collective farms. For example, in the Saratov region 19,140 workers were supposed to be engaged in harvesting and gathering of crops in 1950, but in fact only 12,333 people (64.4%) got down to work [1. On. 1. Д. 4507. Л. 148; On. 2. Д. 2570. Л. 131, 135; Д. 1628. Л. 176].
Due to demographic and migration processes women turned out to be the main productive force in the early 1950s especially in the Stalingrad region where the number of female exceeded male population 2 times: 116.1 thousand as against 58.2 thousand. The same share of able-bodied women we find out in collective farms of the Saratov region: 149,955 (64.7%) as against 81,598 (35,2%) [1. On.
2. Д. 2936. Л. 266 - 272; 10, p. 291; 7, p. 248]. Minding the fact that in 1946 the share of men and women in collective farms made up 66% and 34% respectively [4, p. 119], we may suppose that there was a shape of uptrend in the gender structure of population.
Aged people and partially able-bodied demobilized men took active part in farm production. The latter group was referred to in farms as handicapped people and adult disable individuals. That very group of workers met a lack of labor force in collective farms. In 1945, the share of all aged farm workers, handicapped and other disable people was 11.4%, while in 1952 the number was 18.8% [1. On. 1. Д. 4479. Л. 18; On. 2. Д. 2936. Л. 266 - 272]. Aged collective farm workers reserved the right to have households, use collective farm grasslands and other benefits. Households of aged collective farm workers were exempted from taxes and deliveries to the state [5, p. 156 - 157, 281].
During the searched period a great number of adolescents worked in collective farms. In peace time child labor in farm production gradually decreased. For example, in the Saratov region 20% of all farm workers were children during 1945 while in 1952 the figures were 14.6%. [1. On.
УДК 94(47)
ACCESSION OF THE
1. fl. 4479. f. 18; On. 2. fl. 2936. f. 266 - 272]. That trend could be referred to the whole Soviet Union [5, p. 156]. Although in the early 1950s most adolescents still lived in villages and were employed in farms, a significant number of teenagers intended to get job in industry and transport. In 1953, about 68.2% of all youth in the Saratov region had work in collective farms [1. On. 2. fl. 2936. f. 266 - 272]. The numbers in the Stalingrad region happened to be even lower - 57% [6, p.110]. The major reason of children labor reduction was dismissal of the Soviet Union to take urgent measures concerning agricultural management, as the economy of the country was becoming a peaceful economy. In 1947 according to the current resolution dated April 13th, 1942, adolescents and family-members of collective farm workers were to work out at least 50% of workdays, and starting from 1947 mandatory number of workdays remained only for adult able-bodied members of farm artels [9, p.106].
In conclusion we should notice that history analysis of postwar years proves that rural labor resources turned out to be the main source for industry. Despite of positive trends which included birth rate increase, decrease of population outflow from rural areas, age and gender structure changes of society, population size engaged in farm production still shrank.
1. Государственный архив новейшей истории Саратовской области (rAHMCO). Ф. 594.
2. Центр документации новейшей истории Волгоградской области ^HMBO). Ф. 113.
3. Волков И.М. Трудовой подвиг советского крестьянства в послевоенные годы. М., 1972.
4. Добродеева Т.А. Комсомол Нижнего Поволжья - активный помощник партии в выполнении четвертого пятилетнего плана (1946 - 1950 гг.): диp. ... канд. ист. наук. Саратов, 1970.
5. История советского крестьянства: в 5 т. Т. 4. Крестьянство в годы упрочнения и развития социалистического общества, 1945 - конец 1950-х годов / отв. ред. И.М. Волков. М.: Наука, 1988.
6. Иваницкий В.В. Исторический опыт и проблемы развития аграрного производства Нижневолжской деревни в первое послевоенное десятилетие (1945 - 1955): диp. ... канд. ист. наук. Саратов, 1999.
7. Кузнецова Н.В. Нижнее Поволжье в 1945 - 1953 гг.: экономические и социальные проблемы послевоенного восстановления и развития: диp. ... д-ра ист. наук. Саратов, 2003.
8. Павлов В.И. КПСС в борьбе за восстановление и развитие народного хозяйства в послевоенный период (1946 -1952 гг.): диp. ... канд. ист наук. Саратов, 1966.
9. Томилин В.Н. Трудовой подвиг крестьянства черноземного центра России в годы Великой Oтечественной войны // Актуальные проблемы современного гуманитарного знания: материалы межвузовского российского семинара. Вып. 4. / под ред. д-ра ист. наук, проф. В.Я. Романченко. Саратов: Изд-во «Саратовский источник», 2010.
10. Энциклопедия саратовского края. Саратов: Приволжское книжное издательство, 2002.
R.M. Sultanbekov DARGINS TO RUSSIA
The paper considers mutual relations of Dargins with Russia since VII century. The author describes complex process of inclusion of the Caucasian people (in particular, the Dargins) in the Russian Empire.
Key words: the Dargins, accession, mutual relations, Dagestan, unions of rural communities.
