Where did hazing come from in the Soviet army? Hazing in the Soviet army.

Hazing in the USSR army flourished in the 1970s and 1980s, but its roots should be sought beyond the period of stagnation. Cases of hazing in the Armed Forces also occurred in early years Soviet power, and in Tsarist Russia.

Origins

Until the beginning of the 19th century, attempts at relationships not according to the regulations in Russian army successfully stopped. This was connected both with the authority of the officers and with the level of discipline of the personnel. However, closer to the middle of the century, as society liberalizes, orders become more free among military personnel.

The scientist and traveler Pyotr Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky in his memoirs recalled his stay at the School of Guards Ensigns and Cavalry Junkers, where he entered in 1842 as a 15-year-old youth.

“The newcomers were treated in a way that degraded their dignity: under all possible pretexts, they were not only beaten mercilessly, but sometimes outright tortured, although without brutal cruelty. Only one of the pupils in our class, who was distinguished by cruelty, walked with a belt in his hands, on which he was tied big key, and even beat newcomers on the head with this key,” wrote Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, cases of hazing began to occur much more often. The Nikolaev Cavalry School even developed its own vocabulary reflecting hazing. The juniors were called “beasts”, the seniors were called “cornets”, and the second-year students were called “majors”.

The methods of bullying the elders over the younger ones in the school were striking in their diversity and originality and, according to contemporaries, were developed by entire generations of predecessors. For example, harsh first-class “majors” could force newcomers to “eat flies” as punishment.

The first case of hazing in the Red Army was recorded in 1919. Three old-timers of the 1st Regiment of the 30th Infantry Division beat their colleague born in 1901 to death because the young soldier refused to do their work for the old-timers. According to martial law, all three were shot. After this incident, for almost half a century there were no official reports of recorded cases of hazing in the USSR army.

Return

When in the late 1960s Soviet army cases of hazing began to be noted again, many, especially veterans of the Great Patriotic War, did not want to believe in it, calling it fiction, nonsense. For the gray-haired front-line soldiers, for whom morale, honor and mutual assistance in war were above all else, this was not easy to accept.

According to one version, hazing returned to the army after conscription service was reduced in 1967 from three years to two in the ground forces and from four to three in the navy. For some time, a situation arose that in one unit there were conscripts who were serving their third year and those who were destined to spend a year less in the army. The latter circumstance infuriated the employees of the old conscription, and they took their anger out on the new recruits.

There is another reason. The change in service life coincided with a shortage of conscripts caused by the demographic consequences of the war. The five-million-strong Soviet army was to be reduced by a third. In order to somehow compensate for demographic losses, the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee was forced to decide to conscript men with a criminal record into the army, which had previously been completely excluded.

The functionaries explained this event as the correction of fellow citizens who had stumbled. However, in reality, former residents of prisons and zones began to introduce into military use the orders and rituals of their former places of residence.

Other observations place the blame for hazing on unit commanders who began to widely use soldier labor for personal material gain. Not provided for by the charter economic activity led to the fact that old-timers began to act as supervisors over soldiers in their first year of service.

However, sociologist Alexey Solnyshkov notes that already in 1964 a number of works appeared on the issues of hazing, which means that this problem existed earlier and has deeper roots. Moreover, some experts on hazing in the army argue that hazing has never gone away, but has always been there everywhere.

Society's disease

For many researchers, hazing in the Soviet army is a direct consequence of the changed social background in the country. Admiral and former commander of the Northern Fleet Vyacheslav Popov believes that hazing is a disease of society that was transferred to the army environment.

In the 1960s, a breakdown occurred in Soviet society, when the elite, having finally escaped from the total control of the Stalinist system, began to shake the system of subordination and subordination that had been developing for decades. Responsibility was replaced by irresponsibility, and pragmatism by voluntarism.

Scientist and publicist Sergei Kara-Murza connects hazing with the fall of the communal principle of building the Union and with the transition of the entire population to Eurocentric and individualistic lines. Kara-Murza calls this “virtually the first bell of a catastrophic destruction of public morality.”

This was a time when ships and planes were cut for scrap, and large reductions took place in the officer corps. Generals who tried to counter what they saw as a destructive process were immediately removed. In their place came a new, “parquet” generation of military leaders, who were no longer concerned with increasing combat readiness, but with personal well-being.

At the turn of the 1960s and 70s, few people believed in an external threat, and this greatly dampened the Armed Forces. However, an army cannot exist without hierarchy and order. All this has been preserved, but according to new trends it has been transformed into non-statutory methods of maintaining discipline. As Kara-Murza notes, the emasculation of Stalinism from the army led to the fact that an obvious and harsh form of suppression of the individual was replaced by a softer and hidden one.

The ideology of hazing is well illustrated by the words of one of the warrant officers: “Hazing is beneficial to me. What is most important to me? So that there is order and everything is done clearly and on time. I’ll ask the grandfathers, and let them demand it from the young people.”

The language of hazing

Hazing in the army is a long-established principle of everyday life and a way of communication between soldiers. Naturally, hazing also requires specific vocabulary, which emphasizes hierarchy among conscripts. Vocabulary varies according to the types of Armed Forces, the characteristics of the unit and the location of the military unit. However, any language of hazing is understandable to everyone. Here is the most commonly used dictionary:

A soldier who has not yet taken the oath and lives in a separate barracks: “salabon”, “mammoth”, “smell”, “quarantine”;

Serviceman of the first half of the year of service: “spirit”, “goldfinch”, “siskin”, “goose”;

Serviceman of the second half of the year of service: “elephant”, “walrus”, “senior goose”;

A soldier who has served more than a year: “cauldron”, “scoop”, “brush”, “pheasant”;

A soldier who has served from one and a half to two years: “grandfather” or “old man”;

A serviceman who is in a unit after the order to transfer to the reserve is issued: “demobilization” or “quarantine.”

Some terms require decoding. “You are not even “perfume” yet, you are “smells,” - this is what the “grandfathers” told the recruits who had just arrived at the unit. Why "smells"? Because the conscripts still smelled of their grandmother’s pies, which they were fed with before service.

The next level of the recruit is “spirit” (also “salabon” or “stomach”). He is a nobody in the army. He has no rights. Nobody owes him, but he owes everything.

“Elephants” were called conscripts who had already become involved in everyday life in the army: they were not yet accustomed to fighting and were ready to withstand any load.

When a soldier entered a critical period of service, he was considered a “scoop.” To gain the status of being “initiated” into the “scoops,” he had to withstand twelve blows on the buttocks with a ladle. The task of the “scoop” is to ensure that the “spirits” and “elephants” do not interfere with each other. He doesn't seriously strain himself, but still doesn't have many rights.

Rituals

The transition of military personnel to the next hierarchical level was accompanied by a special ritual - transfer. Its forms were different, but the essence was the same. For example, a soldier was beaten with a belt as many times as he had months left to serve, and he had to endure all this in silence. However, when moving to the “grandfather” category, the blows were inflicted with a thread, and the soldier had to scream at the top of his voice, as if suffering from severe pain.

The navy had its own rituals. So, when transferring from the category of “crucian carp” to “one and a half”, the ritual of “washing off the scales” took place. Depending on the weather conditions and the location of the action, the “crucian carp” was thrown overboard, dipped into an ice hole, or doused with a fire hose, trying to carry out the transfer ceremony unexpectedly for the “initiate.”

The Soviet army also practiced more severe rituals, such as “punching the elk.” The old-time soldier forced the new conscription soldier to cross his arms at some distance from his forehead, after which he struck him in the crosshairs of his hands. The force of the blow depended on the mood of the “grandfather” or the guilt of the recruit.

Often the ritual side of hazing faded into the background, and the old-timers began to openly mock the newcomers. Sometimes it ended in tragedy. Not only for “spirits”. During the period of perestroika, the “case of Sakalauskas”, a young soldier from Lithuania who shot a guard of seven senior colleagues at the entrance to Leningrad in February 1987, became widely known.

Among the dead were Sakalauskas’ offenders: cook Gataullin, who regularly added half a glass of salt or sand to the “spirit” portion, depriving him of breakfast or lunch; senior sergeant Semyonov, who more than once dunked a private’s face into the toilet, putting him on duty for 10 hours. After the incident, Sakalauskas was diagnosed with chronic mental illness with a continuously progressive course” was sent for compulsory treatment.

And there were many such tragic consequences of hazing. How did the military leadership react to this? Back in the summer of 1982, secret order No. 0100 was issued to combat hazing. However, by this time hazing had become so widespread that it was almost impossible to fight it.

Moreover, senior party and military officials were in no particular hurry to eradicate hazing. Firstly, their children were protected from this scourge by right of birth, and secondly, in order to declare war on hazing, it was necessary to publicly acknowledge its existence. Well, how could there be hazing in a country of developed socialism?..

Hazing in the USSR army flourished in the 1970s and 1980s, but its roots should be sought beyond the period of stagnation. Cases of hazing in the Armed Forces occurred both in the early years of Soviet power and in tsarist Russia.

Origins

Until the beginning of the 19th century, attempts at relations not according to regulations in the Russian army were successfully suppressed. This was connected both with the authority of the officers and with the level of discipline of the personnel. However, closer to the middle of the century, as society liberalizes, orders become more free among military personnel.

The scientist and traveler Pyotr Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky in his memoirs recalled his stay at the School of Guards Ensigns and Cavalry Junkers, where he entered in 1842 as a 15-year-old youth.

“The newcomers were treated in a way that degraded their dignity: under all possible pretexts, they were not only beaten mercilessly, but sometimes outright tortured, although without brutal cruelty. Only one of the students in our class, who was distinguished by cruelty, walked with a belt in his hands, on which a large key was tied, and even beat the newcomers on the head with this key,” wrote Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky.

Return

When cases of hazing began to be noted again in the Soviet army in the late 1960s, many, especially veterans of the Great Patriotic War, did not want to believe it, calling it fiction, nonsense. For the gray-haired front-line soldiers, for whom morale, honor and mutual assistance in war were above all else, this was not easy to accept.

Other observations place the blame for hazing on unit commanders who began to widely use soldier labor for personal material gain. Economic activities not provided for by the charter led to the fact that old-timers began to act as supervisors over soldiers in their first year of service.

Society's disease

The language of hazing

A soldier who has not yet taken the oath and lives in a separate barracks: “salabon”, “mammoth”, “smell”, “quarantine”;

Serviceman of the first half of the year of service: “spirit”, “goldfinch”, “siskin”, “goose”;

Serviceman of the second half of the year of service: “elephant”, “walrus”, “senior goose”;

A soldier who has served for more than a year: “cauldron”, “scoop”, “brush”, “pheasant”;

A soldier who has served from one and a half to two years: “grandfather” or “old man”;

A serviceman who is in a unit after the order to transfer to the reserve is issued: “demobilization” or “quarantine.”

The next level of the recruit is “spirit” (also “salabon” or “stomach”). He is a nobody in the army. He has no rights. Nobody owes him, but he owes everything.

“Elephants” were called conscripts who had already become involved in everyday life in the army: they were not yet accustomed to fighting and were ready to withstand any load.

Rituals

Among the dead were Sakalauskas’ offenders: cook Gataullin, who regularly added half a glass of salt or sand to the “spirit” portion, depriving him of breakfast or lunch; senior sergeant Semyonov, who more than once dunked a private’s face into the toilet, putting him on duty for 10 hours. After the incident, Sakalauskas, diagnosed with a chronic mental illness with a continuously progressive course, was sent for compulsory treatment.

July 2002. The seminar was held on the basis of the Internet forum "Discussion of the works of S.G. Kara-Murza with his participation (about the situation in Russia)"

Today, for some reason, the overwhelming majority of young people consider army hazing to be something characteristic of the Soviet Army throughout its existence. And they are very surprised when they first hear that before 1969-1970 such a phenomenon did not exist on a mass scale. Questions of older generations gave the date of the first mention of the appearance of hazing somewhere around 1970.

Here's what they say on this topic:

Original taken from oper_1974

“My father and (maternal) uncle were drafted into the army in 1943. 2 years at the front. After the war, my father served for 3 years, my uncle for 5 years. Both said that there was nothing like hazing.”

“My father served in the navy in the late 1940s, and managed to catch those who took part in the war. I didn’t observe anything similar to hazing. When in the 1970s - 1980s, “voices” began to talk about hazing in the Soviet Army, considered this an invention and nonsense, because he sincerely believed that “this is simply impossible” (although in general he was quite critical of the then government and willingly believed other anti-Soviet stories.)

“The first time I heard about hazing was in 1979. From someone the same age. Then for the first time the expression “army grandfathers” entered our lexicon. Before that, none (!) of my parents, relatives and acquaintances had ever mentioned or hinted about army bullying.”

It was often observed that representatives of the older generation, who served in the army until the early 50s, categorically refused to believe in the existence of hazing.
The fact that the older generation refused to believe in the existence of hazing is not blinkered. But the old people lived a very difficult life and had a hard time. But they remained Human.
Having seen many more evil things than hazing, they could say: “It happens worse, but less often. Cannibalism, for example, or mutilation, or typhus.” But hazing was perceived by them as a shame, as a break with the basics of life, as a deep moral failure.

The entire soldier society is divided into the following groups:

military personnel who have not yet taken the oath and live in a separate barracks - quarantine, elephant, mammoth, salabon

military personnel of the first period of service (up to 0.5 years) - spirit, salabon, goldfinch, siskin, goose

military personnel of the second period of service (0.5 - 1 year) - young, walrus, sloth, goldfinch, elder goose

military personnel of the third period of service (1 - 1.5 years) - cauldron, ladle, brush, pheasant

military personnel of the fourth period of service (1.5 - 2 years) - grandfather

military personnel who are in the unit after the release of the order to transfer to the reserve (demobilization order) - demobilization, quarantine

The transition of soldiers from one category to another is often associated with a transitional rite - transfer. The forms of translation vary in different parts; There is, for example, such a ritual: a soldier must receive as many blows with a belt as many months he has left to serve, and he must endure all this in silence.
However, when the kettle is transferred to grandfathers, he is struck with a thread, and he must scream at the top of his voice, as if in severe pain. Rights, responsibilities and even appearance military personnel depend on which category they belong to.
The most powerless among all categories are spirits, the most powerful are grandfathers. An intermediate position between them is occupied by young and boilers. In other words, a serviceman has more rights and fewer responsibilities the more he serves.

The army became a reflection of changes in society. Society was changing - generations were changing, the builder of life was replaced by the consumer of life. Soviet society was not ready for the replacement of builders by consumers.
The “external” society has changed - it also affected the army. It is very interesting to read the memoirs of some military personnel dating back to that period. It is clear that the people who joined the army have changed.
It turned out that order in the Russian army was not based on the regulations, and not on the fear of beatings, but on these very non-statutory relations - friendship, camaraderie, support, mentoring. And when people incapable of these feelings joined the army en masse, army discipline collapsed. In general, of course, it is similar to what happened throughout the country.
Perhaps hazing is another achievement of Western civilization that we learned during the period preceding perestroika. Hazing is associated with the fall of the “communal” principle of building the Union and with the transition to Eurocentric and individualistic lines of the entire world order of the population. In fact, this is the first bell of a catastrophic destruction of public morality.

All transformations of society were expressed in failures of the “army machine”. The same thing, for example, happened in the 50s - a new generation arrived, “de-Stalinization”, etc. - and suddenly there was a failure in the discipline system and the helplessness of officers.
But back then the system still had inertia of development, and they dealt with it like a disease. In the 70-80s, general illness (especially among the upper classes of quasi-class society) weakened the body.
The breakdown that began in the early 60s was caused by the fact that the elite, having escaped from the total control of the Stalinist system, began to turn the situation in its favor. Pragmatism and strict responsibility for the result were replaced by voluntarism and irresponsibility.
This, of course, also affected the army. It was then that large reductions took place, ships and planes were cut for scrap, and the sergeant corps was destroyed. The generals who tried to counteract this idiocy were removed. And their place was taken by a new, “parquet” generation, more concerned about their personal well-being than about a real increase in combat readiness.

Soviet army in the 60-70s. was in a difficult situation: there was no external tangible threat (no one seriously believed that the bourgeoisie would attack tomorrow - by the way, they did not attack openly!), and domestic politics was rapidly moving away from the principle of tightening the screws in all areas. In peacetime, the system of army punishments - all sorts of orders out of turn - is designed, in essence, for a schoolchild.
On the other hand, Soviet society from the time of the revolution to the 70s was steadily moving along the path of democratization, the establishment of the rule of law, etc. (in a good sense). In addition, people freed by the revolution from centuries-old oppression increasingly felt the taste and ability for freedom. “We are not slaves,” everyone read in the primer.
However, the army inherently does not tolerate any kind of freedom and democratization, this is no offense to the army, it’s just the way it is. If the opposite were true, the army would not be able to perform its functions. What did we have with our universal military service? The mass of people joining the army became more and more difficult to control. No one wanted to be slave soldiers anymore, ready to unquestioningly carry out any order.
However, the System still obliged the transformation into shortest time a young conscript into a machine gun, unquestioningly following orders. Therefore, the transition of officers and sergeants to non-statutory methods of maintaining discipline was a foregone conclusion. The emasculation of Stalinism from the army led to the fact that the obvious and harsh form of suppression of the individual was replaced by a softer and hidden one.

In 1968, regimental schools for junior commanders were liquidated, and sergeants began to be trained in training divisions. Regimental schools had a number of significant advantages; they met the requirements of individual selection. Sergeant candidates were selected some time after the arrival of young recruits and their adaptation to new conditions.
The connection between the future commander and his unit was not interrupted. The sergeant came to the barracks already a recognized leader. After the liquidation of the regimental schools, the sergeants lost all influence in the barracks.
Compared to armies Western countries, then a significant difference can be traced - an oversaturation of officers and a complete absence of professional sergeants and non-commissioned officers.
In the American army, a sergeant is a considerable authority and a pro. And it is he who bears the lion's share of responsibilities for maintaining discipline. In ours there is the same conscript soldier, only with an extra stripe. It’s not at all a fact that this stripe will give him authority among fellow 20-year-olds.
In the previous SA (the first post-war years) this was at least partially compensated by the presence of an “old-regime foreman”. Now such elders have died out like mammoths. It was planned that ensigns would take on this role, but in practice, ensigns are almost entirely the unit's business executives.
However, nature abhors a vacuum - the place of professional sergeants and foremen has been taken by “grandfathers”. But grandfather’s power has one significant feature - it is completely unofficial and therefore more susceptible to abuse - especially since maintaining discipline for grandfathers is a secondary task, although related to their well-being.

The company of the sixties against snitching also greatly contributed to the flourishing of hazing, because Complaining about bullying has become rude and more socially frowned upon than bullying itself.
Having firmly confused and combined the concepts of snitching and an open call for help, the “sixties” did a lot to divide people. The thought of seeking help from state bodies specially appointed to protect the law and citizens of the USSR was blocked in my head.
Stereotypes played a role cold war. The basis of the psychological war against the USSR was the method of strengthening and developing the natural difficulties and contradictions present in every society. One of these weak points in the USSR there were contradictions between the leadership and the people.
Work was underway to widen this crack to the abyss. In particular, the campaign against snitching - you can’t turn to your bosses, because they are enemies, but you have to turn to “your own” - your bosses, your grandfathers.

Generation conflict is a very common explanation in society for the emergence of hazing in the army. The period when hazing arose occurred in the late 60s - early 70s. In time, it coincides with the transition from a 3-year to a 2-year service life.
Therefore, it can be assumed that there was a generational conflict. Many people mention this conflict, but there are two interpretations:
1) “three-year conscripts” who had served their third year and began to take out their displeasure on the younger conscription, who only had to serve for 2 years. For this reason, many excesses could arise, which, thanks to the presence of powerful favorable factors, quickly developed into a stable phenomenon of hazing.;
2) in order to maintain the previous number, it was then that it was necessary to significantly expand the conscription contingent, which led to its deterioration and the penetration of criminal elements.

In the 70-80s, officers and warrant officers who had direct contact with personnel were already from those who were born after the war, i.e. no longer witnessed severe hardships. It was at this time that serving in the army became profitable.
Those. someone went to school by vocation, etc., but a lot of young people appeared who began to consider a military career as a decent way to settle down in life: the pay was good; retirement by age 45; the opportunity to receive both a military pension and salary in the future; upon retirement, many were provided with housing.
At the same time, many no longer wanted to strain themselves. So, for example, one warrant officer (platoon commander) openly shared why he welcomes and supports hazing. "Hazing is beneficial to me. What is most important to me? That there be order and that everything be done clearly and on time. I will ask the grandfathers, and let them demand from the young people. If they can’t, they will ... figure it out on their own. So I need to control everyone, and so - only grandfathers."

To attempt to create a representative sample, completely different people who served at different times, in different units and regions. Without exception, all respondents (ages from 20 to 45 years) said that hazing is created, supported and in every possible way stimulated by officers.
This survey is useful for understanding the essence of the phenomenon, but one amendment must be kept in mind. If such a survey is conducted among former soldiers military service, then there is a high probability that they will blame exclusively the officers for hazing. No one wants to admit that they themselves succumbed to the temptation to become a grandfather; it is always easier to blame someone else (officers, the state, the party, etc.).

More interesting are the surveys among the officers themselves. For example, one officer interviewed simply could not understand why hazing was outrageous! He quite sincerely did not understand why it was humiliating for soldiers to clean their assholes with a toothbrush. They said: “I cleaned it, let others clean it now.”
No big deal! It would seem on the contrary, “I cleaned when I was a soldier, I was humiliated, but now I’m a colonel, and therefore I must at least try to eradicate this evil.”
And this colonel did not hesitate to say that he indifferently watched as a recent conscript washed the floors with his toothbrush. For this officer, this state of affairs is a school of courage.

Thus, main reason the stability of hazing (but not the reason for its occurrence!) is the support of officers. Due to the democratization of society and the degradation of control mechanisms, officers' opportunities for maintaining order and discipline were sharply limited.
Therefore, officers began to secretly encourage hazing as a non-statutory method of maintaining order - the “grandfathers” used means for this that were not available to the officer.
The decomposition of the officer corps itself also played a role - the second reason for supporting hazing was the reluctance of officers to intensively engage in the education and training of soldiers. The “grandfathers” began to do this.

We received a new uniform in 1969.

Today I will tell you whether there is hazing in the army. Before answering this question, I will explain what is hazing in the army, and what is hazing.

Hazing in the army- this is the process of training by old-timers (military personnel more than early date conscription) or in other words, “grandfathers” of the young recruits. And hazing in the army is a relationship between soldiers who grossly violate the requirements of the regulations and are usually a violation of the law with all the ensuing consequences.

Hazing in the army today - myth or reality?

As you understand, hazing in the army and hazing in the army are completely different things. Hazing is when young recruits arrive, and “grandfathers” or so-called “demobilization”, servicemen of a more senior conscription begin to teach them, for example, how to walk correctly, speak correctly, address senior military ranks, etc. That is, there is a smooth formation of a military man and, strictly speaking, from this.

Hazing in the army and hazing in the army

Hazing in the army has nothing to do with what you can see, for example, on YouTube by entering it in the search films about hazing in the army. All you see there is hazing in the army.

When you join the army, you are, accordingly, a recruit. You meet half-year students - these are the same soldiers, but they have already served for six months, the so-called “elephants”. In the general understanding, hazing is when a so-called old soldier begins to humiliate a young soldier physically or mentally.

Useful information for conscripts:

How many days, hours, minutes are left until your demobilization?

But, fortunately, today this problem in the army has generally been eliminated. Therefore, if mothers or young people who are just about to join the army are reading me, remember: there is no hazing in the army!

Now the difference between the grandfathers and the new addition is only six months. Hazing in the army appears because servicemen in the army live in a male group and, of course, they may have disagreements. These disagreements arise absolutely various reasons, even for household purposes. So don’t think that the entire army is built on the fact that grandfathers show their superiority over young soldiers.

Many people think that this is what hazing looks like in the army. But that's not true!

In the general understanding, hazing is when an old soldier beats a young soldier (the so-called “spirit”). Of course, a lot depends on the people, and in every military collective there are such “rotten” soldiers who begin to tell what kind of “grandfather” he is and how long he served.

But in fact, given his current service life, what kind of “grandfather” can he be? He served 4-5 months more than the young soldier. But still, mostly more or less adequate young people serve in the army, for whom honor and decency are not empty words, and, accordingly, they do not behave like that.

Young people, now I am turning to you, remember, no matter what the situation, always keep your head cool. Don’t let your emotions get the better of you, because this momentary weakness of yours (the desire to hit someone) can lead to irreversible consequences.

Keep in mind that military people, in particular conscripts, and all their actions are multiplied by three. If in civilian life you hit someone in the face, and even if he writes a statement against you to the police, then you will receive a maximum administrative punishment.

In the army, this is all multiplied by three, if you hit a soldier and he wrote a report on you, then you will 100% be put in the so-called “diesel” - a disciplinary battalion (disbat), where you can serve a year, a year and a half, or a maximum of two years. And this momentary weakness can lead to such disastrous consequences.

Therefore, it is better to send such an opponent to three Russian letters than to bite your own elbows later. To summarize, I would like to say once again: there is no hazing as such. There are conflicts at the everyday level and not entirely adequate soldiers from the senior conscription who think that they are mega cool soldiers.

Also, what I wanted to say in this article: in the army there is hazing and hazing. Only hazing is good concept, the process of training young recruits, hazing in the army - this is any situation that violates military regulations or laws and can lead to bad consequences.

During the years of Perestroika and Glasnost, the curtain was lifted for the first time into the closed world of military service. Prior to this, statistics on deaths during exercises, war crimes and suicides were under the jurisdiction of the military prosecutor's office and therefore were completely closed. Only sometimes isolated episodes hazing spread in the form of rumors. Those returning from demobilization service were reluctant to tell men's groups that in the first year of service, young soldiers have to take care of the "old-timers" - clean their boots, fill their beds, wash their uniforms, hem their collars, and do much more that degrades human dignity.

The story “One Hundred Days Before the Order”

1987, Yuri Polyakov

The first “swallow” that opened the eyes of the general public was the story of the future editor-in-chief of Literaturnaya Gazeta, Yuri Polyakov, “One Hundred Days Before the Order,” published in the November 1987 issue of the Yunost magazine. Two years earlier, Polyakov tore the veil off the Komsomol, exposing the “non-Soviet” behavior of Komsomol leaders in the story “Emergency of a Regional Scale.” The censorship missed criticism of the Komsomol, but the army since the Great Patriotic War was still something sacred and solemn, and it was accepted to write about it only in a positive way! For a long time they did not want to let the story go into print.

She was helped by an incident - the famous episode with the landing of the German pilot Matthias Rust on Red Square in the same year 1987. And when the military censor once again declared that he would not let the story go into print, the editor of Yunost, Andrei Dementyev, answered him with a bilious phrase: “It would be better if you didn’t let Rust through!”, and this argument, oddly enough, worked. Or maybe it helped that the topic of hazing was raised at the 20th Congress of the Komsomol in April of the same ’87...

Having spread throughout the country, the story had the effect of a bomb exploding, but this was just the tip of the iceberg! Soon they started talking about hazing in Glavpur and the Politburo. The reasons for the degradation of the valiant Red Army, of which there were two, were also identified.

The first one was voiced by Yuri Polyakov. The Law on General Military Duty of October 12, 1967 reduced military service from three years to two (in the navy from four to three), which caused acute discontent among the old-time soldiers, who had to serve a year longer than the new conscription, on which they took out their anger. As a result, after a year of service, the “aged” young ones took it out on the recruits, and they took it out on even younger ones...

The second reason was more serious - and, oddly enough, stemmed from the same law. Due to a sharp shortage of conscripts associated with the post-war demographic decline, former criminals began to be recruited into the army, which was previously considered unacceptable. The thieves brought thieves' rules and thieves' jargon to the heroic Red Army, where officers and senior front-line soldiers still served. The origins of many of today's Aramaic "traditions" come from prison ones. But for the time being, everyone was happy with everything - having shifted the responsibility of educating recruits to the “old men”, the officers seemed to abstract themselves from unnecessary problems. And they even saw the advantages of using them as sixes - they will learn everything faster!

Suddenly Valera Chernetsky asked to speak, stood up, bowed like an entertainer, and began:
- Comrade Major, if I’m not mistaken, everywhere we write about mentoring. So?
- So.
- Should an experienced warrior mentor conscripts?
- Must.
- How is experience consolidated? On practice. This means that the more salabon... excuse me... the more the young warrior does, the faster he will get used to it and gain experience. Right?
“W-well, that’s right...” Osokin became wary.
- Well, if it’s correct, then this is not bullying, but the most ordinary mentoring. And the best “old men” mentors should even be encouraged! For example, I have never been on vacation before.

(Yuri Polyakov - “One Hundred Days Before the Order”)

In the 80s, hazing was declared the “enemy of Perestroika,” and a giant propaganda machine began to publish posters condemning the non-Soviet behavior of old-timers, which, like rust, was eating away at the Soviet Army (“the stronghold of the peace-loving policy of the Party and Government of the USSR”), and therefore the combat effectiveness of the entire state.

Cases of hazing were dealt with at Komsomol meetings in military units, but, as Polyakov again showed, they were of little use, because the “old men,” as a rule, were the Komsomol asset. It was during this period that the most brutal and desperate films about hazing were made, which marked new topic in the genre of perestroika noir - army.

Today, perestroika cinema is commonly criticized and even accused of the fact that it not only did not reflect reality, but, on the contrary, the themes raised in the cinema of the 80s carried over into life. So films about the army, according to patriotic critics, should only be positive and patriotic, like the stagnant “Maxim Perepelitsa” and “Ivan Brovkin”. But in reality the problem lay deeper. The degraded army, like a litmus test, showed the decomposition of society, revealing its most terrible vices in a more acute and uglier form. These days these films have great importance, helping us to see the Soviet past without embellishment, without the glamorous shine with which they so often try to rub it today...

Team 33

1987, Nikolay Gusarov

An army drama-light, the action of which takes place not yet in the army, but on a train that carries conscripts to Far East. It is not yet customary to make films about hazing, and it is not there. There are difficult relationships between future soldiers and strict but fair father-commanders, led by the courageous Lieutenant Colonel Nikitin (Yuri Nazarov, dad from Little Vera).

As befits a perestroika film, it contains a number of problems, but diligently avoids criticism of the army, all the problems are only in civilian life: the conscript’s girlfriend Golubka is following the train, but he is not allowed to meet her. Speculator conductor Marina (Milena Tontegode), who is covered by the senior lieutenant (Valery Khramtsov) who is in love with her. One of the conscripts is also a profiteer, but being drafted into the army “whitewashes” him, and he remains unpunished.

“We will amputate with dull scissors!”

There is a lot of humor in the film (as its creators believed, army humor). There is no main character, as such. The plot consists of a patchwork quilt of human destinies, which by chance (and the military registration and enlistment office, of course) are intertwined in a rumbling train rushing to the ends of the world...

Apparently, the story was written long before Perestroika and therefore reflects the realities of an earlier, stagnant period. The conscripts ask to stage Vysotsky, and the commanders are seriously discussing whether they can stage such a controversial singer. But in the era of Glasnost, Vysotsky had long been allowed, and young people listened to completely different music. The theme of speculation was also not new at all, because cooperatives were already in full swing, against the background of which all the machinations of Soviet gastronomes paled.

The positively patriotic film was approved by the Ministry of Defense and was even shown to conscripts as proof that there was nothing terrible in the army.

Do it once!

1989, Andrey Malyukov

A magnificent duet by Evgeny Mironov and Vladimir Mashkov, where the first plays a young soldier (in the film they are called “skulls”), and the second plays a “grandfather”.

This is the first Soviet film to touch on the topic of hazing, and it is difficult to accuse its director of being anti-Soviet, because before that he directed the canonical patriotic film “In the Zone of Special Attention.”

Conscript Alexey Gavrilov is the dream of any commander. He is not a weakling - when Sergeant Shipov, who was assigned to accompany the “youngsters” from the unit, touches him with his shoulder on the parade ground, Gavrilov quickly puts him in his place. However, the proud Shipov does not forgive insults. He is trying to get Gavrilov, who was originally assigned to the team, to Marine Corps, transferred to his motorized rifle unit, where the sergeant becomes his commander.

Day after day, he takes out his anger on Gavrilov, and at the same time on other young soldiers, especially Tolstoy (Bazin from “Courier”), breaking their personalities and the remnants of self-respect, subordinating them to harsh military vehicle which he himself once went through. Another “grandfather,” a junior sergeant, is played by young Alexander Domogarov. Sergeant Stepanov (Sergei Shentalinsky) tries to intercede for Gavrilov, who, against the backdrop of the general brutality, looks like some kind of guest from the past, an exemplary Soviet soldier who miraculously preserved his humanity almost to demobilization. But the “old men” break him too, threatening that instead of going home he might go to disbat...

The “skulls” find themselves in the almost uncontrollable power of the old people, who drive them to extremes with daily abuse...

Later, director Andrei Malyukov will repeatedly return to military theme, but this will be a completely different movie: “I am a Russian Soldier”, “We are from the Future”, as well as the series “Special Forces” and “Saboteur” - deliberately patriotic films in the spirit of the new time!

Fan

1989, Vladimir Feoktistov

The film combines several favorite genres of perestroika cinema: martial arts (despite the wild popularity of karate in the USSR, there are very few domestic films on this topic), racketeering and the army. Although the hero's service in the army takes up a small part of the film, the theme of hazing is well explored in it.

While still a teenager, Malysh (Aleksey Serebryakov) comes to the local karate section, where, under the guidance of coach Oleg Ivanovich (Oleg Kantemirov), he grows into an experienced fighter. Yegor is now called by his former nickname only as a joke. Because of his character, he does not get along with his stepfather and eventually ends up in a local teenage gang. The intercession of the coach saves Yegor, and instead of the “youngster” he is sent to serve in a construction battalion, where, due to his character, he immediately has problems...

Although Yegor knows how to stand up for himself, he encounters local Caucasian authorities who fight no worse. They give him a test - Yegor must defeat everyone in his platoon. He almost copes with this, and the “grandfathers” take Yegor under their wing, teach him about life, and at the same time help him hone his skills, thanks to which he emerges from the army as a different person - more courageous and cruel.

A year later, the director will make a sequel, “Fan-2,” but Alexey Serebryakov will refuse to act in it, and Oleg Fomin will play the role of the Kid.

Guard

1990, Alexander Rogozhkin

Perhaps one of the most difficult army films, the drama of which is given by the fact that it was based on real events, the details of which are even more terrible than shown in the film...

In February 1987, a freight train with a carriage for transporting prisoners arrived at the Moskovsky station in Leningrad, but no one unlocked the door to those greeting them. Seven corpses were found under the mattresses in the guard compartment, all of them had been shot. Private internal troops Arturas Sakalauskas shot six colleagues, as well as a warrant officer and a civilian guide, and then fled with five loaded Makarov pistols. For several days Leningrad lived in fear - a dangerous maniac, armed and very dangerous, was roaming the streets! But after…

Having arrested Sakalauskas (unlike the movie hero, he surrendered without a fight), the investigation found out that during the transportation of prisoners, old-timers regularly mocked Arturas, with the tacit consent of the commander and the conductor, humiliating his human dignity, depriving him of food and sleep, which brought him down to the murder of seven people and desertion...

Shot on black and white film, the film looks like a documentary, conveying to the smallest detail the monotony and melancholy of the endless journey in a barred carriage, where the soldiers go berserk from idleness and from the caretakers of the “menagerie” (as they call cramped cages with prisoners) turn into its inhabitants...

In this grayness, we gradually begin to distinguish the characters of the almost faceless soldiers: Private Iveren (Sergei Kupriyanov) is a classic “spirit”: thin and haggard from worries and lack of sleep. His colleague Khaustov (Alexander Smirnov) has long given up his hands and unquestioningly obeys the “old men.” Nachkar (Alexei Buldakov) is an intellectual warrant officer who, while relaxing in his compartment, listens to classical music and writes a philosophical treatise. He sees the situation perfectly, but does nothing to help. Senior Sergeant Zhokhin (Dmitry Iosifov, a favorite of many generations of Soviet children in the role of Buratino) is a deputy warrant officer and senior in his conscription. There are still remnants of humanity left in him. In Iveren he sees himself a year ago. He makes an attempt to have a heart-to-heart talk with Andrei, but due to the huge difference in the army hierarchy, he fails to do so.

At one of the stations the ensign temporarily leaves the train (at real life he didn’t go anywhere, and he didn’t have the right). Lost control personnel gets drunk and goes wild. Realizing that they could pay severely for this tomorrow, the grandfathers try to get the new boys to drink, but Iveren flatly refuses and accidentally spills the port wine. Enraged grandfathers rush to beat him. Drunk Zhokhin worries about him, but does not stop his subordinates. The beatings are stopped only by shots...

...According to eyewitnesses who watched the film in a cinema in 1990, at the moment when Iveren opened fire on the “grandfathers”, the audience gave him a standing ovation...

Curious details that are incomprehensible to the uninitiated: one of the demobilizers sews the black shoulder straps of a tanker onto his uniform, rightly fearing that with the crimson shoulder straps of the internal troops (with which many Soviet citizens are familiar firsthand), he will not make it home (at least, he could be thrown off the train) . According to the recollections of the author’s friends, the fear was so great that other “red shoulder straps” (for example, motorized riflemen) did the same, fearing that they would be accidentally mistaken for internal troops.

The phrase “demobilization through the tall grass” means leaving home later than everyone else, that is, in the summer (similarly, you can leave in the winter “under the Christmas tree”). When the "old men" theatrically perform "Separation" for the staff sergeant, they remind him of how they served in their first year, performing so for their "grandfathers."

Nishchenkin tells Iveren that he has “40 baths” left before he becomes a grandfather, that is, 10 months. Baths in the Soviet Army were strictly once a week.

The convicted informer was played by Nikita Mikhailovsky, who was barely recognizable in this role - the actor would pass away in a year.

“Guard” is not the first film adaptation of the Sakalauskas case; in 1988, director Saulius Berginis made the documentary “Brick Flag”.

Alexey Rogozhin will continue the theme of “obsession with violence” in the films “Chekist” and “Life with an Idiot”, but later he will move on to higher-rated films, putting on the “features” of national hunting and fishing, “Cuckoo” and the cop series “Streets”, which are beloved by viewers broken lanterns" and "Destructive force."

Deserter

1990, Vadim Kostromenko

A little-known perestroika film from the creator of the patriotic action film “The Secret Fairway” Vadim Kostromenko.

The action of the film begins in a peripheral artillery unit, where the harsh everyday life of Private Lukov (Alexey Yasulovich - the son of Igor Yasulovich, Charles II from the film "The Musketeers 30 Years Later") takes place. There are 4 days left before the demobilization of the “old men”, I wish I could wait! Lukov gets it especially hard from junior sergeant Tabakin (Sergei Chonishvili - Prince Shadursky from “Petersburg Secrets”), whom he hates with every fiber of his soul. But then it happened, to the music of the orchestra and the solemn speeches of the demobilization commanders, they lined up on the parade ground. The “young” manage to lure one of them around the corner and give him a good beating, taking out all the anger for past humiliations.

A year passes. Now Lukov is a corporal. IN New Year's Eve he is on duty on a frosty and deserted highway. But when a car comes for him, Lukov does not have time to climb into the back, and the truck leaves without him... Lukov is picked up by a bus with artists from a provincial theater, where he meets costume designer Masha (Lada Skibyuk-Timoshina). Realizing that during his long absence he still faces a “hauptic watch,” Lukov remains with Masha to celebrate the New Year.

By chance, in a cooperative bar, where Lukov went for a bottle of champagne, he ran into Tabakin, who, in the company of friends, was posing as an Afghan warrior (although he served in a completely peaceful unit). Lukov also accidentally learns that in civilian life Tabakin became a racketeer, having stolen a Stechkin automatic pistol from his unit, for the loss of which an innocent soldier was sent to a disbat. Fearing that Lukov might give him away, Tabakin tries to eliminate his former colleague, but Masha and the Afghan veteran Shuravi (Sergei Latun) interfere with him...

The plot of the film seems to remind us that “the people and the army are one,” and lawlessness in military units is inseparable from the social degradation of the entire society, where roles can be distributed completely differently than in the army...

Ivin A.

1990, Igor Chernitsky

The debut film of director Igor Chernitsky, based on the story “Stop in August” by Anatoly Kim. Another film about servicemen of the internal troops, but this time the central theme in it is not hazing, but the justice of the commandment “thou shalt not kill.”

Private Andrei Ivin (Alexander Peskov), standing on the tower, could not shoot at the escaping prisoner Mishka Prince. The commanders sympathize with Ivin and persuade him to write a report that he was confused or simply fell asleep at his post, but the honest and very principled young man writes in the report that he “refuses to continue to manage someone else’s life,” which for the “guard” is tantamount to treason. He refuses to write “untruths”.

“Do the creators of the film “Ivin A.” fully understand what kind of hero they pulled out? After all, the fate of any wonderful idea depends on where the machine guns of such lieutenants are directed, what revolution will occur in their minds...”

(Aelita Romanenko, “Ten days without lies. Notes from the All-Union Film Festival of Young Cinema “Debut” (1990)”).

The head of the zone, Lieutenant Colonel Ovsyannikov (Vladimir Menshov), argues with Ivin, reproaching him for not wanting to do the “dirty work” himself, he wants to sit behind the backs of his comrades, who, obviously, have no right to choose.

A significant part of the film is not action, but the road. Ivin is accompanied to the disbat by Senior Lieutenant Narotiev (his role was played by the director himself), who believes to the last that Ivin will come to his senses and rewrite the report. He doesn’t put handcuffs on Ivin, they talk in a friendly, confidential way against the backdrop of the hot summer, like old friends who went for a walk...

Sitting naked on a warm river sand, Narotiev is trying to show Ivin the other side of his good-naturedness, because of which the killer is now roaming free, and if he kills someone else, this blood will be on the conscience of the pacifist Ivin...

In 2007, Igor Chernitsky will film another army drama, albeit from a completely different era - the television series “Junkers”.

One hundred days before the order

1990, Hussein Erkenov

We have already mentioned Yuri Polyakov’s story “One Hundred Days Before the Order” above, however, as often happens, the film inherited only the title from the original story.

“...The fact is that the film directed by Erkenov has nothing to do with my story, because it is an author’s film. The young director, who immediately wanted to become Pasolini, used the title of mine... not even the title, but a line in thematic terms to self-actualize. I told him: “I won’t twist your arms or close the film - God be with you! But there will be no way for you to go to cinema, because if you undertake to film a realistic story, make a realistic film, why the hell is this surreal? If you want it, write the script yourself and film it.” However, he did it his way.”

The fact that there are characters in the film whose names coincide with the heroes of the story - Zub, Elin, Titarenko, senior lieutenant Umnov (in the book Uvarov) can only be learned from the credits. They are in no way connected with their prototypes and live an independent life.

While Polyakov’s story had a fairly lively (albeit non-linear) action, in which the gray everyday life of artillery private Kupryashin is interspersed with his fragmentary memories of the past, the film does not have a plot as such. Its central theme is the hopelessness of military service. It is entirely woven from short broken scenes, gray autumn slush, dark corridors of a military unit, the inhabitants of which have long ago lost their human appearance. It is about inhuman relationships in a closed male society and about the distorted worldview of people forcibly connected to each other, who, even if they really want to, have nowhere to run. There are a lot of understatements and symbols in it that remain unrevealed. We can only guess about the past and present of the characters. The deaths of the soldiers are shown allegorically.

From time to time, symbolism turns into realism, and “tangible” figures come to the fore – the lecherous Death in captain’s uniform (Elena Kondulainen), swimming naked in the training pool (“it’s good here with you”) and seducing the guard soldier. Colonel (Armen Dzhigarkhanyan), who arrived to personally figure out why the soldiers were dying. Mustachioed officers punishing his comrades for the silent disobedience of a private (Oleg Vasilkov)…

The soldiers are closely monitored by CCTV cameras hung in the unit on every corner, but they turn out to be absolutely useless, because the violence is happening under the indifferent gaze of the officers on duty.

Judging by the emotional comments, the film evokes complex and ambiguous reactions. Viewers are divided into those who criticize the film:

“The authors probably did not serve themselves, there is no hazing in the army!”, those who tried to understand him: “Yes, such cases do occur, but service does not consist only of them, there are bright and even funny moments in it, but here it’s as if only bad things are collected in a heap of different parts" And those who understood it: “You shouldn’t look for any plot or meaning in the film. It's about something else. It conveys that painful and depressive mood in which every soldier finds himself in the first year of service, when you feel that you are in a place where you should not be, and you try to imagine that all this is not happening to you.”

Among the actors involved in the film you can see the hero of “Jumble” Pavel Stepanov and Oleg Yakovlev from the group “Ivanushki”.

I wish you good health! or Mad demobilization

1990, Yuri Volkogon

And this film is the first attempt to show something scary and funny - a sort of “Schweik of the 80s” and the grandfather of the film “DMB”.

The main character is a young soldier Mitya Agafonov (Anton Androsov, known to us from the films “Plumbum or a Dangerous Game” and “Mayhem”).

In the army, where its own order has long been established, Agafonov literally torments everyone with his strict adherence to the regulations and optimism bordering on idiocy, over and over again fooling stupid and cruel “old men”, narrow-minded officers and even the ministerial inspectorate headed by a general (Yuri Katin- Yartsev, Giuseppe the Gray Nose from “The Adventures of Pinocchio”)!

“I was the director of photography for this film. I'm ashamed of this work. I am ashamed that, due to weakness of character, I could not send someone in time and leave, pull myself out of this “super-duper project.” The script was very good, it was written by a very talented person, it was expected that the film would be no worse, but much better. I believed in the director, this was the debut work in a full-length feature film for both him and me, I believed and tried with all my might to make the plans come true... Then the first and serious conflict arose before the filming of the episode “Demobilization Dream”, I was against filming this episode. But I’m a cameraman and naturally the director decides everything. Then again and again... Yura, forgive me, but you are not a director. And anyone who understands the difference between “to be” and “to be called” will tell you about this...”

In the spirit of its time, eroticism was added to the film, which was not originally in the script.

Afghan break

1991, Vladimir Bortko

The last days of the Afghan war. The withdrawal of troops has already been announced, and everyone is packing their bags. But there is an enemy around, and therefore the situation is combative and it is too early to relax, the service continues. For the airborne regiment, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Leonidov (Mikhail Zhegalov) hot earth Afghanistan has already become a home (chickens roam next to the trailers, and at the market of neighboring Dukhan there is more choice than in Moscow stores). Combat missions have become something of a daily routine, between which the heroic Major Bandura (the Italian actor Michele Placido, a favorite of Soviet women) has an affair with nurse Katya (Tatyana Dogileva). Everything here is familiar and familiar, but returning to the Union, where everything has changed so much, is scary...

In that crucial moment Senior Lieutenant Steklov (Philip Yankovsky, whose father is invisibly present in the frame in the form of the voice of Major Bandura) - the unfired son of the general - arrives in the regiment. For him, a trip to Afghanistan is a shopping tour, where you can stock up on foreign goods, and at the same time receive the title of “combat participant” (and if you’re lucky, then the Order of the Red Star). The major takes charge of him. But, as the viewer dimly guesses, something will go wrong...

The film could have become a full-fledged action movie, if not for the “excesses”, which today look artificial and violate the integrity of the picture. Apparently the director really wanted to show the horror and senselessness of war, the coarsening of morals (not so much of soldiers, but of Soviet people in general), in a word, to say something “new” in this genre. As a result, despite the superbly conveyed atmosphere of a hostile country scorched by the sun, strong character roles that you immediately begin to sympathize with, there are several disgusting scenes in the film, because of which you will not want to watch it again and will be ashamed to show it to your friends.

Soviet soldiers (although Afghan soldiers are known for their front-line brotherhood) are shown as some kind of brutes, especially Sergeant Arsenov (Alexey Serebryakov - The Kid from “Fan”). They maraud, not embarrassed by their commanders, shooting and beating captured dushmans. The guards at the checkpoint fire machine guns out of boredom. Drunk officers are having fun shooting flies. Drunk "grandfathers" for fun give a young colleague an obscene tattoo...

Articles in foreign media were then filled with such stories - for example, one Canadian publication wrote that Soviet command shoots his soldiers from helicopters “so they don’t get captured.” By repeating one of these fables in an interview with foreign journalists, academician deputy Andrei Sakharov incurred a barrage of criticism from the Congress of People's Deputies in 1989.

Alexander Rosenbaum, who actually came to Afghanistan to perform and dedicated many songs to this war, starred in a cameo role. Although the filming took place in peaceful Tajikistan, trouble could not be avoided. The film crew found themselves in the midst of mass unrest in Dushanbe, during which the film’s administrator died and the actors had to be evacuated to neighboring Uzbekistan on military transport. At some point, the group was surrounded by a hostile crowd, and only Michele Placido (extraordinarily popular in the USSR, thanks to leading role Commissioner Cattani in the series “Octopus”), who was not afraid to go out to the crowd, was able to defuse the situation.

Oxygen starvation

1991, Andrey Donchik

The plot of this drama by Ukrainian director Andrey Donchik is something between “One Hundred Days Before Order” and “Do It Once”. The already familiar plot of the confrontation of characters: the “son” - private Bilyk (Taras Denisenko, who played one of the “old men” in the film “Guard”) and the “grandfather” - Sergeant Koshachiy (Oleg Maslenikov) against the backdrop of gray autumn and the dull hopelessness of the agonizing Union.. .

At the beginning of the film, we celebrate the day of the order with the “old men” of a provincial artillery unit. After reading his text from the bedside table, the young soldiers receive 24 blows with a belt (according to the number of months given by the “grandfathers” to their relatives armed forces), then drinking and entertainment begins in the form of attractions such as “demobilization train” and “driving tanks” under the bunks.

Many emergencies traditionally happen on this night, so in Yuri Polyakov’s story, the battery commander, Senior Lieutenant Uvarov (apparently taught by bitter experience), spends the night in the barracks on the day of the order to avoid “excesses.” However, in the film, the soldiers are left to their own devices.

At the end of the holiday, the young people “pierce the plywood” - they beat them painfully in the chest, after which everyone must say “thank you,” calling the “old man” not by rank, but by his first name and patronymic (since now he is not a military man, but a civilian) and go to bed . Bilyk doesn’t say thank you and runs into the sergeant...

“I won’t touch you, people like you hang yourself here.”

The film shows well how the “system” works. Everyone will probably recognize one of their officers in the sharp-tongued commanders. Captain Golikov (Aleksey Gorbunov) dumps all the work on the ensign (Viktor Stepanov, who brilliantly played Mikhailo Lomonosov) and Sergeant Koshachy, while he only dictates political lessons and lazily scolds the soldiers for their slack appearance.

“A red fighter by his very appearance should cause diarrhea in the enemy and impatience in women.”

"Grandfathers" - after the order already civilians, ironically, dressed in military uniform, are forced to hang around in the unit for extra days, weeks and months until they are released. But they are in no hurry to let them go, because the demobilization gait has begun, when each of them must earn the right to go home. For example, Junior Sergeant Boyko is tasked with shooting all the stray dogs, and Sergeant Koshachy is tasked with raising Bilyk.

Apparently, Andrei Donchik could not resist the temptation to “kick” Russia. His hero, Ukrainian Bilyk, fundamentally does not speak Russian, which infuriates everyone. There were such characters in Soviet cinema (for example, Fukin from “The Big Change” or Pasyuk from “The Meeting Place Cannot Be Changed”), but they made harmless jokes about their accent. Everything is serious here, and Bilyk is not just a victim of the bullying of an old-timer, but also an allegory of the “unfortunate” Ukraine, defending its originality and suffering from the Russia that oppresses it, where complete chaos is happening. It should probably be symbolized by the dirt on the ground and in the decaying buildings of the part where the remnants of communism smolder; in piles of rusty iron that were once mighty tanks and in dark, abandoned missile silos...

Another character is also of interest - Ensign Gamalia, a generally kind-hearted but strict person. He is trying to fight hazing (in fact, political officers usually do this, but here the garrison is small, because characters not so much). However, young soldiers are afraid of becoming “informers” more than anything else. Having lost hope of “splitting” Bilyk, the ensign sets him up, making it clear to Koshachy that Bilyk snitched on him...

Today the film evokes completely different emotions than it should. Bilyk's inflexibility is perceived not as heroism, but as stubbornness bordering on stupidity. To those who served, Sergeant Koshachy will seem even too kind: despite the fact that because of Bilyk he regularly receives reprimands, and his demobilization is delayed indefinitely, he is in no hurry to take out his anger on him.

The most despicable of all is the ensign, who not only framed Bilyk, but also immediately after the guardhouse sent him to guard duty, entrusting weapons to such a problematic soldier... One gets the feeling that he wanted to investigate cases of hazing only in order to have incriminating evidence on each of the grandfathers.

Summarizing all of the above, I would like to note another important message that unites all perestroika films about the army: as long as people allow themselves to be treated as slaves, their interests and rights will be violated, and increasingly so. This drives them to extremes, and then riots, bloody revolutions and executions happen. Through the revolt of humiliated and oppressed soldiers, the senseless and merciless rebellion of the Russian people is shown!