Industry and Collective Farm Production of Kyrgyzstan during the Great Patriotic War.
The fourth chapter of N. S. Esipov's monograph is dedicated to the study of industrial development during the war, based primarily on factual material extracted from the Central Statistical Administration of the Kyrgyz SSR.
Despite a certain one-sidedness in the source base, the author managed to recreate the picture of industrial development, illuminate the dynamics of gross product output, the size and composition of the working class, its sectoral links, and show the level of labor productivity. Overall, the chapter "Industry during the Great Patriotic War (1941—1945)" by N. S. Esipov contains interesting observations, descriptions, and conclusions.
Alongside this, it is important to mention the shortcomings. For instance, using unverified data, N. S. Esipov writes: "The equipment of the Sergo Ordzhonikidze plant was concentrated in Tokmak, in the premises of the bus depot and the auto repair plant, and was used as an additional reserve for the repair enterprise." An analysis of archival documents shows that indeed the premises of the Tokmak bus depot and auto repair plant were provided for the placement of the Moscow Order of the Red Banner of Labor machine-building plant named after Sergo Ordzhonikidze of the People's Commissariat of Machine Engineering of the USSR. However, the specified buildings turned out to be completely unsuitable for housing the equipment of this giant. The train stood at the Tokmak station for three days without being unloaded and, at the request of the republic's governing bodies, was taken out of Kyrgyzstan.
The issue of the construction and commissioning of the Lebedinovskaya hydroelectric station on the Big Chui Canal was also not thoroughly analyzed. Its construction by the method of people's building was completed not in December 1942, as claimed by N. S. Esipov, but in May 1943. The first unit was launched in June of the same year.
It is also necessary to emphasize the absence of references in the chapter to sources confirming the reliability of the provided data.
The study of the industry of Kyrgyzstan during the wartime period was continued by S. Attokurov. In his work, presented in a popular scientific form, he describes the reorganization of industry for military needs, the struggle to restore evacuated enterprises, and the efforts of industrial workers to increase production for the front, as well as to provide enterprises with personnel. However, it should be noted that in S. Attokurov's work, alongside certain positive aspects, there is a noticeable abundance of inaccuracies, and sometimes contradictions arise. For example, while describing the emergence of the "thousanders" movement among the workers of the republic's industry in the spring of 1942, the author claims that the task was to "prevent the initiative of the thousanders from turning into a storming movement, as indicated by the decision of the April Plenary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Kyrgyzstan."
However, archival data indicate that the VII Plenary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Kyrgyzstan, which discussed the results of the spring sowing and tasks for increasing livestock in collective farms and state farms, took place on May 18-20, not in April 1942, while the resolution "On the Development of the Stakhanov Movement during the War" was adopted by the Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Kyrgyzstan on April 7, 1942, and published in the newspapers "Kyzyl Kyrgyzstan" and "Soviet Kyrgyzstan" on April 11.
It is also difficult to agree with S. Attokurov's assertion that "in the harsh years of the war, the electrification of housing significantly expanded." On the contrary, despite the construction of new power plants, the needs of the republic's industry for electricity were not met, and throughout the war years, it was necessary to minimize its use for household and communal needs, and sometimes even disconnect certain insignificant industrial facilities from the power grid.
The author's claim about the creation of a Labor Resource Mobilization Department under the Council of People's Commissars of the Kyrgyz SSR in the second half of 1941 is also disputed. In reality, bureaus were formed under the Council of People's Commissars of the republic, the executive committees of regional and Frunze city councils of workers' deputies, while departments tasked with identifying, accounting, and redistributing labor resources were created at district executive committees.
Frunze,
The work also contains other inaccuracies and distortions. Interesting information about the general directions of the state budget expenditures of the Kyrgyz SSR during the Great Patriotic War is provided in the work of economist M. Litunovskaya.
The history of the peasantry of Kyrgyzstan during the Great Patriotic War is thoroughly covered in the monograph by V. D. Samsonov. The author used documentary material reflecting the state of collective farm production, the life and activities of peasants. The work notes the expansion of sown areas, the state of yield and livestock in collective farms; it highlights changes in the material and labor resources of the village, the dynamics of labor day production.
All this undoubtedly enriches researchers of this problem with factual material. Alongside this, there remain many "white spots" in the study of the history of the peasantry during the war. We will mention only some of the gaps that require close attention from researchers. Thus, in our opinion, V. D. Samsonov analyzes the development of collective farm production in the republic in isolation from the activities of state farms, which, together with collective farms, played an important role in solving the food problem. However, without studying the activities of collective farms, state farms, and machine-tractor stations, it is impossible to create a complete and objective picture of the development of agriculture in the republic during those years. And therefore, Professor Yu. V. Arutyunyan rightly notes that "the dynamics of collective farm production cannot be studied in isolation from state farms."
The sphere of activity of state farms is also overlooked by V. D. Samsonov in the collective monograph on the peasant question, published in 1972, which contains information about 1941—1945.
It should be noted that while the labor activities of the peasantry are being developed relatively intensively by historians of Kyrgyzstan, the experience of state farms and machine-tractor stations during the war is only touched upon in a few cases. In published articles and sections of works, they are mentioned only in passing.
Unfortunately, the assistance provided to the Kyrgyz SSR's agriculture by the regions liberated from German occupation has not found sufficient reflection in the published works. This selfless fraternal support was expressed not only in the allocation of material resources—grain, horses, cows, sheep—but also, above all, in people, especially qualified personnel of party, Soviet, economic workers, and agricultural specialists. According to incomplete data, from 1942 to 1945, more than 2400 people, mostly agricultural specialists, were sent from the republican and regional leadership to these areas.
Attention is also drawn to works dedicated to the history of individual collective farms. Each of them contains a brief overview of the labor activities of collective farmers during the war.
Many interesting data characterizing the main directions of the activities of research institutions and scientists, cultural workers in support of the front, the state of school education, and the life of peasants in individual collective farms are found in the works and articles of historians, ethnographers, and art historians, which are of exceptional importance for a deeper study of the history of Kyrgyzstan.
Broad and systematic study of the history of Kyrgyzstan from 1941 to 1945