KHRUSHCHEV’S CORN CRUSADE: THE INDUSTRIAL IDEAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE IN THE ERA OF POST-STALIN REFORM, 1953–1964 Aaron Todd Hale-Dorrell A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2014 Approved by: Donald J. Raleigh Louise McReynolds Christopher R. Browning Chad Bryant Anna Krylova © 2014 Aaron Todd Hale-Dorrell ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Aaron Todd Hale-Dorrell: Khrushchev’s Corn Crusade: The Industrial Ideal and Agricultural Practice in the Era of Post-Stalin Reform, 1953–1964 (Under the direction of Donald J. Raleigh) A study of N. S. Khrushchev’s crusade to make the USSR into a powerhouse corn producer, this dissertation sheds light on policy, governance, and life on Soviet collective farms in the post-Stalin decade, 1953–64. Neither “contradictory” nor “irrational,” as scholars have maintained, this agricultural program derived its rationale from the American model of corn- based industrial agriculture that, after World War II, spread to industrial countries and to the Third World, where it became known as “the Green Revolution.” Inspired by the results that modern technologies—chemicals, machines, hybrids—were achieving, Khrushchev developed policies that linked the USSR to transnational currents in agriculture, which took its place among the many spheres in which Soviet practices paralleled global trends. Expecting these initiatives to boost Soviet farms’ productivity and to make the abundance heralding the communist utopia a reality, Khrushchev never lost faith that corn would rectify a chronic shortage of the livestock feed required to produce the meat and milk the USSR needed “to catch up with and overtake America.” By enriching citizens’ diets and providing them a better life, Khrushchev hoped to seize a victory in the Cold War competition with capitalism and to win over Third World “hearts and minds” for the socialist cause. Drawing on documents from central and local archives, I investigate how officials and peasants implemented Khrushchev’s policies, revealing the remarkable capacity of collective farmers and of officialdom to sidestep orders at every turn. As a result, the agrarian reforms proved imperfect and the returns, although substantial, did not match Khrushchev’s pledges, thereby sapping his legitimacy. Industrial farming thrived in social, economic, and climatic conditions around the world, but in iii the Soviet Union these methods were thwarted by policy failures, ingrained bureaucratic norms, the climate, Khrushchev’s own mistakes, widespread deceit by subordinates, and a labor crisis on the collective farms. These challenges remained to confront future reformers, but Khrushchev’s efforts left a legacy that made industrial principles—and corn—a part of Soviet farming practice throughout subsequent decades. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS So many people and institutions have helped me along the way that the effort to thank them all seems destined to come up short. Nonetheless, I must try. First, I would be negligent if I failed to mention Nina Petrovna Grigor'eva, whose stories nurtured my interest in Soviet history, and whose frequent use of the word “ kukuruznik ” to describe Khrushchev nudged me toward selecting this topic. As the research got underway, I benefitted from the generous aid from the University of Illinois Center for Russian, East European, and Eurasian Center’s Summer Research Lab, and from the expertise of the reference librarians of the Slavic Reference Service. During my graduate studies, I received FLAS funding from Duke University’s Center for Slavic, Eurasian, and East European Studies, and aid from the Summer Institute for Conducting Archival Research at George Washington University. My predissertation research received support from the Department of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 2011 and 2012, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the Institute for International Education funded archival research in the former Soviet Union. A generous Dissertation Completion Fellowship from the UNC Graduate School assisted in the second and final year of writing. In Moscow, Kyiv, Vilnius, and Stavropol, the many archivists at RGANI, RGASPI, GARF, RGAE, and the other archives offered professional advice and aid. Two deserve my special thanks for creating a welcoming and friendly atmosphere, which made trudging to the archive through a Moscow winter an inviting prospect: Galina Mikhailovna Tokareva of RGASPI and Liudmila Ivanovna Stepanich of RGANI. In Moscow, many scholars offered timely and helpful advice, including Don Filtzer and Elena Zubkova. Without Saulius Grybkauskas, my research trip to Vilnius could not have happened. Markian Dobczansky made my stay in Kyiv possible. In Moscow, fellow graduate students made the archives fun, offered intellectual stimulation, and v helped me remember to take a break and have a good time. I was lucky to work, have lunch, and drink tea alongside many fantastic colleagues, including Lindsey Martin, Adrianne Jacobs, Sylvain Dufraisse, Maya Holzman, Ben Sawyer, and Lucy Dunlop. Others made Moscow, despite being the most overwhelming of cities, a home: spasibo , danke , merci , and thanks, respectively, to Polina Demchuk, Martina Metzler, Jules Birchler, and Robin Brooks. I must thank the many faculty, fellow graduate students, and staff who make the History Department at Carolina a stimulating and inviting place for graduate study. Violet Anderson and Joy Jones made everything work, from teaching assignments to paperwork. In seminars, in the Department Research Colloquium, or over a beer at happy hour, my fellow graduate students made the department a real community. Adam Domby deserves special mention here for his expertise in GIS software, which made the maps possible. Members of the Russianist kollektiv , especially Jen Parks, Marko Dumančić, Mike Paulauskas, Emily Baran, Edward Geist, Adrianne Jacobs, Andrew Ringlee, Dan Giblin, Gary Guadagnolo, and Stephen Reigg, helped make Carolina a great place to be a Russian historian. Their advice and support through each step of the process made surviving comps and plowing through grant applications if not exactly a pleasure, then at least a survivable battle. Our Carolina Seminar, “Russia and Its Empires, East and West,” also offered a stimulating environment for discussion and, when the time came, feedback on my own work. Many of the same people contributed to that forum, but I must also thank Jeff Jones for his enthusiasm for Soviet history and for his willingness to talk Carolina basketball; occasionally, he even let me get in a word about the Hoosiers. The faculty members with whom I worked as a student and teaching assistant made it a Joy to be a part of the department at Carolina. In particular, Chad Bryant, Christopher Browning, Donald Reid, and Louise McReynolds have aided my education and this dissertation in many ways large and small. At several key points, Anna Krylova offered thought-provoking feedback sure to strengthen this proJect as it advances to the next stage. Most of all, I cannot express the depth of my gratitude to Donald J. Raleigh, whose guidance helped me navigate the many steps along the vi path through graduate school. His personal warmth and dedication to mentoring have made the past seven years, although always a challenge, truly a pleasure. The department also introduced me to my closest friends in Chapel Hill. David Williard, Jonathan Hancock, and Julie Ault at various times helped make 109 Todd Street a home. Kimberly Kutz, Friederike Brühöfner, Nora Doyle, and the other women of 303 A Laurel Ave— a.k.a. Pemberley—offered up innumerable dinners, endless support, countless games of Settlers of Catan, not a few rounds of pool, and all the other little things that made it possible to persevere. Derek Holmgren and Sarah Lowry offered great food and better company. For many years, Mark Slagle made Wednesday night the best night of the week and, even when there were no nachos to win by dominating the pub quiz, always kept things in perspective. I must also thank Kathleen Conti, whose care in reading the early chapters of this dissertation was exceeded only by the friendship she offered. For putting up with me during the harried final days of writing this dissertation, Mary also deserves a large measure of gratitude. Over the years in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, friends too numerous to name have supported me in ways they may not have even known: I must simply thank them as a group. Last, and most important, I would never have made it this far without my family. Mom and Dad always offered their support and love; Jessa Davis and Doug Davis did too. The years when I researched and wrote this dissertation saw many changes in the family: we bid farewell to Aunt Karen and welcomed my niece, Madilyn. As this dissertation neared completion, we said goodbye to my grandfather, Homer R. Dorrell, whose lifelong passion for growing and sharing food planted a seed that grew, however unexpectedly, into my interest in farming in the Soviet Union. It is to him, and to my family as a whole, that I dedicate this dissertation. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................................ ix INTRODUCTION: KHRUSHCHEV’S CORN CRUSADE, SOVIET INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE IN GLOBAL CONTEXT, AND POST-STALIN REFORM ..............................