TOP SOVIET AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIST UNDER FIRE (CB 61-10)

Created: 2/28/1961

OCR scan of the original document, errors are possible

CIA/RRNo

1

HISTORICAL REVIEW

ANITI^

CURRENT SUPPORT BRIEF

TOP SOVIET AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIST UNDER FIRE

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND REPORTS

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

This report represents the immediate views of the originating Intelligence components of the Office of Research and Comments aie solicited.

document contains the United States, within the rne^nipff-oT the USC,, In any manner to an unauthorized pen

national defense of espionage laws, Titler revelation of which prohibited by law.

TOP SOVIET AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIST UNDER FIRE

VJl TuluPn*kov. cae top Soviet agricultural economistigh-level advisor to ousted agricultural minister Matskevich,

h/cclT* t Dress recently andthe shake"uP in agricultural leadership nowt iffnikOV; currently director of the^nstitute of the USSR Ministry of Agriculture andof the Committee on Agricultural Problems of the UN 2n ur,?pe'Vmbol of tho more conservative*hlCh Khrushchov apparently distrusts

Time and again in recent years, Khrushchev has exhibited his"Practical" results in agriculture and his contempt ror onplrlcal evidence which does not support his policies. or example, Khrushchev cast aside the expert opinion of his economists when he launched his program to catch up with the US in per capita moat and milk production.. Khrushchev initiated his MTS reorganization without adequate preparation and Tulupnikov, who opposed the reorganization, ls now charged with having failed to solve problems which arose from it. Tulupnikov has In the past also voiced reservations about Khrushchev's favorite New LandsBly executed but hastily conceived pro-

Criticism of Tulupnikov and his Economics Institute began on the eve of the9 Central Committee Plenum on 09 Sovetskaya Rosslya article charged the Institution with opposing the BSharge whichasily have proved fatal. Apparently the Institute took ? no collective farms could not afford to purchase the MTS equipment. Tbe Institute was accused of having failed to solve

SS roDlens whlch arose from the MTS reorganization and of not publicizing the benefits to the collective farms of tho new organization. The authors of the article also charged the Institute with ignoring the politically popular intercollectlve farm movement. Tulupnikov, howover, managed to survive these charges and the case against him and his associates was not reopened until

The0 Issue of Literaturnaya Gazeta linked Tulupnikoy with the scapegoat dismissal of an employee "of theof Agriculture by Matskevich. This scandal centeredoviet agricultural brochure which Tulupnikov had co-authored for distribution at8 World's Fair in Brussels. The brochure, which contained "statements detrimental to theas hastily withdrawn from circulation. This brochure is not available but, because the oponing of the fair coincided with tho unexpectedof the MTS system, it ls possible that the "detrimentalappearing in tho brochure were statements upholding that system.

1

2

Tho following month, an article in the0 issue of Ekcnomicheskaya Gazeta criticized Tulupnikov's Agricultural Economics Journal for divorcing itself from current problems, such as tho pace cf socialization in the countryside and theof production in the New Lands, and for relinquishingin these matters to literary figures such as I. Vinnichenko aad V. Ovechkln. Again, Tulupnlkov was charged with failure to solve the problems of wages, prices, credit, farm supply, andwhich resulted from the MTS reorganization.

A particularly severo attack on Tulupnlkov and his Institute appeared in1 issue of the Soviet agricultural newspaper, Selskaya Zhizn, under the heading, "Smoke Withoututhor of this article, V. Mikheyev, reports the resultsong conversation withonversation which Mikheyev characterizes as, "much talk, little said." Mikheyev describes the voluminous work of the Institute as superficial, repetitious,and lacking in practical recommendations to kolkhoz and sovkhoz workers. Ke asks how long the Ministry of Agriculture, the Academy of Agricultural Science, and.the Institute itself willto suffer such ineffective direction. The seriousness of the charges makes it appear that the case against Tulupnlkov and his associates will be made to stick this time, especially since Matske-vlcU is no longerosition to protect him,

Coord:

February 1SS1

3

Original document.

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA