Khrushchev's "Corn Campaign" - the Greatest Failure in the History of the USSR

2 977 12

Corn, which has become a symbol of agriculture policy Nikita Khrushchev, turned out to be not only a key element of his ambitious reforms, but also one of the reasons that led to serious economic problems in the USSR.

The First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, inspired by the successes of American agriculture, decided to make corn the basis of Soviet food abundance. However, his experiment turned into a disaster that undermined faith in the effectiveness of the Soviet system and became one of the factors that contributed to the further decline of the USSR's powerful economy, and with it, the citizens' faith in communism.



Khrushchev, who came to power after Stalin's death, sought to "reform the country." He promised to rid the people of hunger, raise the economy, and certainly catch up with the United States in terms of development.

Inspired by a trip to America, where he saw the success of corn production, Nikita Sergeevich decided to adopt this experience. He began a large-scale campaign to grow corn throughout the country, including regions completely unsuitable for this crop, such as Siberia and the Urals.

Meanwhile, this crop was declared the “queen of the fields,” and its cultivation became mandatory for collective farms.

It wasn't long before Khrushchev's ambitions collided with reality. Corn, which required warmth and special conditions, did not thrive in cold regions. Harvests were low, and harvested grain often rotted due to a lack of proper storage and transport.

As a result, instead of the expected abundance, the country faced a severe food shortage. Wheat and rye, traditional crops for the USSR, were displaced by corn, which led to a shortage of flour and bread. In 1962, the Soviet Union bought grain abroad for the first time, which was a shock for a country that had previously exported bread.

Khrushchev's "corn campaign" was an example of how good intentions without taking into account real conditions can lead to disaster. His reforms, aimed at improving people's lives, turned into chaos.

At the same time, despite the obvious failure, the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee continued to insist on growing the “useless” crop, which only worsened the situation. His resignation in 1964 put an end to this epic, but its consequences were felt for a long time. USSR agriculture never recovered from the blow dealt by the “corn campaign.”

It is noteworthy that in the USA, which Khrushchev took as an example, corn also played its pernicious role, but in a different context. Derivatives of this agricultural crop, such as corn syrup, became the basis of cheap and high-calorie food, which led to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes in the States. In the Soviet Union, this trend, fortunately, did not take root, which saved our country from another problem in that difficult period.

12 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    6 March 2025 11: 52
    I wonder why the author of this creation didn't sign his name? People should know their heroes. laughing

    By the way, for the author's information, the USSR began to buy grain not only because of Khrushchev's corn, but also because of the constant growth of the population... the population of the USSR in 1951 was 182 million people, in 1959 already 208 million...

    and also due to the presence of a large number of cattle and other animals... if in 1957 the number of cattle in the USSR did not exceed 33 million heads, then by 1984 it became around 60 million... perhaps the author is not aware, but cows eat not only hay, but also compound feed, which is SUDDENLY made from grain...

    Well, when you milk a palm tree instead of cows, then of course you don’t need such a herd, you have extra grain and it can be exported...

    So the author did the right thing by not signing his name...apparently he understood that he was writing absolute nonsense...

    I hope that after the collapse of the USSR, the author, who was eternally hungry from the damned communists, finally got his fill... and at the same time fed the population with sh...t in the literal and figurative sense
    1. 0
      6 March 2025 12: 41
      That is, there is nothing to object to in the fact that corn was introduced without the slightest understanding of where it could be grown in principle and where it could not?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        6 March 2025 22: 39
        A more complete answer, because I didn’t have time to edit that entry to a certain limit:

        do you want it in fact? please:

        wheat harvests in the USSR by year:

        1940 - 95,6 million tons;
        1945 - 47,3 million tons;
        1950 - 81,2 million tons;
        1960 - 125,5 million tons;
        1965 - 121,1 million tons;
        1970 - 186,8 million tons;
        1986 - 210 million tons.

        Where in these figures did the author see corn displacing wheat???

        and did he even see these figures??? the harvest of "displaced" wheat increased by 20 million tons over 100 years...

        Only the population of the USSR in JUST eight years from 51 to 59 increased by TWENTY SIX million... and in total from 170 million in 1946 to 294 million in 1991...

        Just as the number of cattle has increased almost twofold compared to post-war levels.

        Rye has indeed been and is being forced out of our fields...only the reason for this is not someone's tyranny, as the author wants to show, but an objective process...

        In 1990, the area of ​​rye crops in the USSR was 8 million hectares and the harvest was 16 million tons, in 2024 the area was 0,6 million hectares and the harvest was 1,2 million tons...

        source: https://www.kp.ru/daily/27664.5/5052599/ a very good article, which, by the way, compares the benefits of corn and rye in terms of livestock nutrition. and also gives an example of changing the diet of Russian residents ... I think you yourself see the number of different kinds of McDonald's and pizzerias in our cities. The products in which are mostly made from non-rye flour ...

        Next, about not knowing how to store grain and it rotting... you won't believe it, but word for word in Wikipedia it is written... about the post-war famine under Stalin... that is, not the consequences of the war, not the weather, but the foolish Bolsheviks who did not know how to store grain... and generally wanted to starve the population... to the question of why Stalin wanted to starve the population, which was needed to rebuild the country - liberal figures cannot give a sane answer... just a tyrant... and Khrushchev is just a tyrant who saw how it was in America and wanted... and not a word that the population grew, the number of cattle grew and feeding it with the rye so beloved by the author was no longer possible and it was necessary to look for other approaches... only post-Soviet history showed that corn really does displace rye... even with "effective" farmers who came to replace the "poor" collective farms.

        well then the question is, why in 1940 they knew how to store a harvest TWICE as big, but in 45 they forgot how... and isn't it connected with the war and the destruction of the economy in Ukraine and Belarus??? no, they just didn't store the grain properly... tyrants, what can you expect from them...

        It is quite possible that there was some bungling...only the second aspect, demography and growth of cattle, is not considered in the article in the word ABSOLUTELY...but several tales and conclusions were copied...

        Corn, when properly managed, is an extremely important crop, as shown by the recent history of Russia:

        the corn harvest in the USSR in 1990 was 2,4 million tons, the corn harvest in the Russian Federation in 2016 was 15,3 million tons... it seems like Khrushchev has been gone for a long time... I personally saw that corn is grown, including near Serpukhov, in the fields of Dashkovka for feeding cows.

        So here too the author's conclusion about the harm of corn and some syrup is extremely dubious... in the country of McDonald's, Starbucks and other KFCs, corn syrup is to blame for obesity? Seriously??? and all these pies dripping with oil, French fries, burgers and other wheat products are definitely not to blame???

        By the way, Russia has very bad trends related to obesity...very...apparently, the damned corn is to blame here too...well, and Lenin's bombs with the Polovtsians. Just not the McDonald's built on every corner...

        https://www.mk.ru/social/2024/02/09/rossiya-prevrashhaetsya-v-stranu-tolstyakov-80-millionov-grazhdan-stradayut-ozhireniem.html
        1. +2
          6 March 2025 23: 01
          Quote: Nikolai Volkov
          Where in these figures did the author see corn displacing wheat???

          Again

          Quote: Dart2027
          there is nothing to object to in the fact that corn was introduced without the slightest understanding of where it could be grown in principle and where it could not?

          The article does not deny that other crops in general and wheat in particular were grown in the USSR. Another thing is that this was not always done wisely.

          Quote: Nikolai Volkov
          And finally, the fact that corn, when properly managed, is an extremely important crop is shown by the recent history of Russia.

          And? Once again, the article says that everything should be done wisely and crops should be grown where there is a suitable climate, and not everywhere where there is arable land.

          Quote: Nikolai Volkov
          source: https://www.kp.ru/daily/27664.5/5052599/ a very good article, which, by the way, compares the benefits of corn and rye in terms of livestock nutrition. and also gives an example of changes in the diet of Russian residents

          Have you read it yourself? It talks about the superiority of WHEAT, and corn is mentioned in one place and in passing.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. 0
            6 March 2025 23: 58
            Have you read it yourself?

            no, of course not, I just copied it out of boredom...

            Once again for those who don't understand: corn is used to feed livestock, and no rye (which the author laments in the article) can replace it.

            here's this "in passing": ...as animal feed, rye is significantly inferior to wheat and corn in several other respects, which is why the weight gain and productivity of animals is much lower.

            Do you remember how the number of livestock increased??? The growth of the wheat harvest was aimed at satisfying the needs of the growing population of the country...

            Where in the article is there ANY attempt to explain the reason? There is none... Khrushchev simply saw America and was stunned...

            Next, there is a very funny argument in the article:

            and the harvested grain often rotted due to the lack of proper storage and transport.

            Seriously??? There was transport to grow wheat and rye, but as soon as rye was "replaced" by corn, transport disappeared somewhere??? Is this serious?

            OF COURSE, you need to approach everything wisely...including writing articles...

            Wheat also does not grow everywhere, to put it mildly... and even now, with the changed climate and modern technologies, the main regions for growing wheat are Rostov, Krasnodar regions, Stavropol and Altai regions, Volgograd, Orenburg, Saratov... where are those very norths where corn displaced efficient wheat, as a result of which the USSR was left without grain???

            but rye is actually grown in the Non-Black Earth Region... and here again the problem arises that cows don't want to eat rye, but they don't mind the green mass that corn produces... That's why I gave a link to the article, but you saw what you wanted to see there...

            Of course, it was not worth planting corn in the Vologda region...just as the wheat planted there would not have produced any results...and rye did not meet the growing demands of both the population and animals.

            Where is this in the article? No... but there is about the fool Khrushchev, who planted corn in Murmansk, but he should have planted wheat...

            Well, and the transport that wanted to transport wheat, but was forced to transport corn and it immediately disappeared somewhere...

            The article describes the process of that time in an EXTREMELY primitive way, ABSOLUTELY does not explain the true reasons for which there was an OBJECTIVE need to replace rye and accordingly makes lopsided conclusions...

            Yes, Khrushchev's epic with corn was unsuccessful. But as the course of history has shown, the thoughts were correct. Now the Russian Federation, even in conditions of a large-scale reduction in livestock, grows corn many times more than the USSR. Including in the Non-Black Earth Region.

            The import of grain into the USSR was not due to Khrushchev's great intelligence in planting corn in the Vologda region (wheat would not have produced anything there either), but to the growth of the population and cattle... Wheat was grown in the Union and continued to be grown, regularly increasing production volumes (which I indicated in the figures).

            Even with new technologies, varieties and equipment, the Russian Federation has recently overtaken the RSFSR in wheat production... but for some reason it was all allegedly displaced from you...

            I showed you with figures that the wheat harvest grew and at a fairly high rate, so the term about "displacing" wheat is untenable...with rye, yes, there was displacement, but there is an explanation for this, which I gave...

            By the way, if we look at the figures for grain imports to the USSR, they only grew, despite the increasing volumes of wheat production and the end of the corn saga and the removal of Khrushchev... in 1972, imports amounted to 23 million tons, then grew to 27 million, 31 million, by 1985 they reached 45 million... Did corn really poison the fields so much that nothing wanted to grow after it?

            These figures also prove that it was not just the corn epic... It was just an unsuccessful attempt to solve the growing problem of the growing population.

            The wheat harvest ALSO grew from 121 million tons in 1965 to 210 million tons in 1986...

            If we are going to blame Khrushchev, then it is for the thoughtlessness of his approach and the waste of resources, which NO ONE disputes... but to say that if instead of corn we had planted wheat in the north, then we would have said the SAME THING... and NO RYE could have replaced the NECESSARY volume of grain, because it would have simply rotted due to lack of demand.

            Perhaps these funds should have been allocated to science, to increase wheat yields, fertilizers, etc.

            By the way, I immediately wrote that the reasons are not only, but also... and you started talking about the essence of the article and picking out places that are convenient for you... although I didn't say that the article is wrong. I only pointed out that it is incomplete and the reasons are much larger than those indicated in it.

            P.S. I apologize, I didn't manage to fit into the editing limit both times. I'm not a journalist and I can't speak clearly and concisely. Often you write something, and then you want to add something and...

            Moderators are requested to delete two incomplete messages so as not to clutter the comments.
            1. +1
              7 March 2025 07: 57
              Quote: Nikolai Volkov
              no, of course not, I just copied it out of boredom...

              Once again for those who don't understand: corn is used to feed livestock, and no rye (which the author laments in the article) can replace it.

              In fact, the article talks about both rye and wheat, which, according to the article you cited, replaces rye.

              Quote: Nikolai Volkov
              Where in the article is there ANY attempt to explain the reason?

              The reason that corn was grown in absolutely unsuitable climatic conditions? Did you even read the article or, like a true communist, rushed to shout "everything is wrong" without even understanding what we are talking about?

              Quote: Nikolai Volkov
              Seriously??? There was transport to grow wheat and rye, but as soon as rye was "replaced" by corn, transport disappeared somewhere??? Is this serious?

              Are you sure it was? Corn planting was introduced everywhere possible, including where rye was not planted much before because the soil and climate were not very good. And so it happened.

              Quote: Nikolai Volkov
              where are those very norths where corn displaced efficient wheat as a result of which the USSR was left without grain???

              Corn planting began to be introduced everywhere possible, including where rye had not been sown before because the soil and climate were not very good. And so it worked out.

              Quote: Nikolai Volkov
              that cows don't want to eat rye, but they don't mind the green mass that corn produces... That's why I gave a link to the article, but you saw what you wanted to see there...

              Moreover, there is a lot of wheat in the country, it is cheap, there are standard and proven technologies, rations have been approved for many years to come - why change anything when it works well anyway?

              Quote: Nikolai Volkov
              If we are going to blame Khrushchev, it is for his thoughtless approach and waste of resources, which NO ONE disputes... but to say that if instead of corn we had planted wheat in the north

              He launched a massive campaign to grow corn throughout the country, including regions completely unsuitable for the crop, such as Siberia and the Urals.
              Meanwhile, this crop was declared the “queen of the fields,” and its cultivation became mandatory for collective farms.

              Quote: Nikolai Volkov
              Moderators are requested to delete two incomplete messages so as not to clutter the comments.

              Don't you have two icons at the bottom of your comment - delete and edit?
  2. +2
    6 March 2025 12: 07
    Well, when there is only one leader for life, and as he said, so it will be, and everyone else nodded at the TV...
    Such mistakes happen often.
    After all, Khrushchev screwed up a lot of things, and everyone just nodded and nodded... until he was removed.
    Although the low level of competence was immediately visible.

    Some modern analogies are visible...
  3. +3
    6 March 2025 12: 38
    It's not the corn's fault that there's cotton wool in your head instead of brain.
  4. +2
    6 March 2025 13: 38
    An article for the sake of an article...
  5. -2
    6 March 2025 14: 44
    Kukuruznik Nikita did even more: he liquidated the "unpromising" villages, laying the foundations of the demographic in which we are sitting and disappointed the planet in socialism and sowed corn to the north, however, the party said, and we will fulfill and exceed the answer... and without the neg fools with an excess of zeal
  6. +2
    6 March 2025 19: 44
    Khrushchev is a thaw that turned out to be a mess, and the catastrophe is the end of this mess, when Russians began to kill Russians, and now on the battlefield in the expanded Donbass.
  7. -2
    9 March 2025 14: 46
    Master Red turned out to be bad and therefore the serfs doubted his "communal religion"... laughing
  8. +1
    10 March 2025 08: 24
    I was born in the Kirghiz SSR. Corn grew there beautifully! You didn't even need to take food with you when you went fishing. Baked corn is much tastier than boiled corn. And it's good for bait!