The appeal of students to the Armed Forces of the USSR (1980s)

The last call during World War II took place in 1944. All students of Soviet universities were exempted from him; then many students were recalled from the fronts to continue their education. Since then, until the collapse of the USSR (as well as in post-Soviet Russia), full-time students of universities received the right to deferment from conscription into the Armed Forces (AF) until graduation ^[10] . At the time, V. I. Lenin also opposed the “student return to the soldiers” ^[11] . This well-established social tradition (namely, the perception of higher education as a greater value compared to military duty) was enshrined in Art. 35 of the 1967 General Military Duty Act ^[1] .

In practice, the delay often turned into a full or partial exemption from service. At universities with a military department, students went to school during one of the summer holidays, and upon graduation they became reserve lieutenants ^[10] (they were selectively called up by officers for two years, with appropriate allowance). University graduates without a military department served for one year as ordinary soldiers, instead of two (or, in the Navy , three) years of standard regular service under the law of 1967 ^{[1] [10]} . Capable schoolchildren, in addition to those aiming at a military career, considered conscription as a threat and sought to avoid it by entering institutes with a military department. In universities without military departments, closer to graduation, students were looking for a reason for new delays: in marital status, in health.

In fact, an alternative has implicitly taken shape in the country and today there is an alternative: “good school and then a university” - or “army”. An artificial incentive has been created that is not related to interest in a particular subject, for successful study and higher education, which ultimately affects the labor market ^[12] . Strengthening the slogan “learn, otherwise you will join the army” was facilitated by the deterioration of the situation with discipline in the armed forces ^[13] .

In the 1980s (especially in their second half), the USSR was faced with a shortage of draftees due to the echo of a deep demographic hole ^[4] caused by the Second World War : the number of births in the mid and late 1960s and, accordingly, reached draft age in the mid-1980s were less than usual due to the small number of parents. So, if before the beginning of the 1960s and from the mid-1970s, 2.4-2.6 million boys a year appeared, then in 1964 - 2.29 million, in 1965 and 1966 - 2.18 million each, in 1967, 1968 and 1969 - approximately 2.09 million each, in 1970 - 2.16 million, 1971 - 2.24 million, and then with a tendency to increase ^[5] . At the same time, the eighties saw the height of the political confrontation between the USSR and the USA and Western countries, as well as the war in Afghanistan ^[8] , which did not allow risking the combat effectiveness of the armed forces . In such a situation, the restriction or cancellation of student postponement was critical to solving the problems of recruitment, because due to its presence, about 70% of young people in large cities of the USSR (Moscow, Kiev and others) dropped out of the draft contingent. In addition, it was important to attract better educated citizens into the army, in view of the increasing complexity of military equipment ^[4] .

One of the reasons for calling students was also called the desire to generally deal with privileges ^[5] and stop providing “army” benefits to a certain segment of society, future intelligentsia , although such reasoning did not take into account the difference in the starting incomes of young specialists (100-120 Soviet rubles in 1970 —1980s) and workers (about 200 rubles a month or more), leveling the “advantage” of exemption from student service.

• December 17, 1980 - amendment to article 35 of the law on military duty: the new version of the article did not allow students of all universities to postpone, but only "included in the list ... approved by the USSR Council of Ministers on the proposal of the USSR State Planning Commission and the USSR Ministry of Defense " ^[2] . This complicated the situation, making it opaque and transferring the most important question about student recruits from the level of law to the level of coordination of ministries. There was no real cancellation of deferrals then. Another amendment extended the service life of people with higher education from 1 to 1.5-2 years, which affected graduates (not students) of universities without military departments.

• The end of 1982 - the beginning of 1983 - the appearance in the army of students deprived of grace. Basically, these were university students without military departments and some with military departments, and from the autumn of 1983 they began to cancel the delay in many institutes with military departments. The head of state at that time (November 1982 - February 1984) was Yu. V. Andropov .
• Since January 1984 - the decision of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee on the cancellation of the postponement in all universities, which is reflected in the Order of the USSR Ministry of Higher Education dated March 13, 1984 No. 44c. In fact, the delay in some places was preserved for another six months or a year. But since the spring of 1985, in contrast to the previous period, only a few “uninvited” universities remained throughout the country. This made it possible to recruit approximately 200 thousand people annually into the armed forces ^[5] . The call of that time is sometimes called “Yazovsky,” by the name of Minister of Defense D. T. Yazov , which is extremely inaccurate, since Yazov took up the post of Minister only in May 1987, and the mass call began under the Minister D. F. Ustinov and turned around under the Minister S. L. Sokolove . Nevertheless, it was under Yazov, in 1987, at the expense of students, that the percentage of drafted Soviet men from the cohort of 18-year-olds turned out to be the highest - about 89% ^[4] . For comparison: in the 1970s it was 65%, in 1981-1982. while tightening overall control in this area, even before students were enrolled, 74%. If during the time of the widespread granting of deferrals in universities, the country's recruiting resources decreased by about 14% because of this, then the decrease was due to the “student” reason in 1986-1987. estimated at only 2% ^[4] (in fact, these figures indicate that “at the peak” about 85% of students were to be called up).

Unfortunately, not only for us, but for the entire Russian student body of that time as a whole, the Ministry of Defense, having entered into a criminal conspiracy with the relevant educational ministry, canceled the postponement of draft in the army and navy, despite the presence of military departments. The first draft swallows left our group in 1985.

- Dmitry Klimov (student of the journalism department of Moscow State University , drafted into the ranks of the Navy in June 1986) ^[14] .

• Since 1986, the decision to call on students only in June, at the end of a specific school year .
• April 10, 1989 - the return to Section 35 of the Law of the norm on deferment for students of all universities, the refusal of further calls by students ^{[3] [15]} ; this was directly preceded by the complete withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan , ending February 15.
• July 11, 1989 - a decision on 100% transfer to the reserve of students who were at that time in the Armed Forces ^[7] ; prematurely dismissed (from the ground forces it was born July 1, 1969 or later) returned home in late July - early September.

The appeal of students affected people born from about 1964-1966 (there is no clear border) until June 30, 1970 (the border is strict). Students in the vast majority of universities born in 1966 or later, and many students born in 1965 were supposed to serve, and those born before 1965 were mainly able to remain out of conscription.

People were usually taken away at the end (and before 1986, during) of the first or second year of higher education, depending on whether a particular man had reached the age of 18. Those leaving in the autumn calls were forced to interrupt their studies without passing exams for the fall semester , although an early session was sometimes organized. Those leaving in the spring calls, as a rule, passed the session and then, in June or early July, fell into the army or navy. A break in studies in connection with the departure to the Armed Forces was formalized as an academic leave .

Undergraduates (3rd year and above) universities with a military department , subject to training at it, were not called up; such training in some universities began just from the 3rd year, in others - from the 2nd. But when the reservation was withdrawn from this institution, the student really didn’t have time to go to the third year before receiving the summons to the army - rare exceptions occurred if the young man became a student at an earlier than usual age. Without a military department, after canceling a postponement at a particular university, any student from the age of 18 could be called up from any course.

It was impossible to achieve liberation from the army by any academic success.

Students were sent to the Sun on an equal basis with everyone. Sometimes, trying to use their mental potential, they were first sent to military training units (where they received a military specialty ), with subsequent transfer to the service as a junior technician, usually with little or no correlation with the university profile ^[16] . There was almost no opportunity to devote at least minimal time to self-education or repetition of institute material.

After the transfer to the reserve, a former student who decided to continue his studies was automatically restored at his university; during the year after the army, such students received a scholarship regardless of grades. In some cases, free additional classes were held for those who needed it ^[5] . Serving students are often, but not always, exempted from non-academic affairs, such as compulsory trips to collective farms . Since 1988, in universities with a military department it was possible not to attend it, remaining in the rank assigned during military service ( private or sailor , some during their stay in the Armed Forces became sergeants or foremen ).

The list of universities whose students were not subject to appeal was not published and was constantly reviewed. Until 1984, most of the country's universities remained “unapproachable” and the announcement of such a list would have caused a complete outflow of male applicants from where the delay was canceled. The situation was a reflection of the struggle of various ministries and the Ministry of Defense. At that stage, there were many medical and agricultural institutions among the institutions that allowed to leave the army ^[4] , then the situation changed and became more complicated.

Since 1985, the delay was partially preserved at some faculties in approximately twelve leading (or declared leading) universities ^{[17] in} Moscow and other major cities of the Union. For example, in Leningrad, students of many departments of the Voenmekh , as well as, except for 1987, the Shipbuilding Institute (LCI) and LITMO, were exempted from conscription. In 1988, a year before the widespread restoration of deferrals, individual faculties of Moscow State University (MSU) became non-invaders, however, the bulk of students at Moscow State University of that period served in full. At the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology and them. Bauman had one-time calls in 1987. Delays were also provided in a number of artistic universities, where a student’s entry into the army would mean his end as a professional.

The criteria for classifying educational institutions as “armored” were not explained. Sometimes the rules concerned only certain structural units of the university and time periods, but this was not specified in advance. Fuzziness turned to sources on the topic: for example, in relation to Moscow State University, one can find “information” about the postponement of four faculties ^[8] , but in fact, in 1984-1987 there was not a single faculty that completely avoided conscription.

Accurate information can only be obtained for a particular university and year.

Among the former students who served in the 1980s and subsequently became prominent public figures are Russian economist and politician M. G. Delyagin (school medalist, economics student at Moscow State University ), Russian entrepreneur and politician M. D. Prokhorov (also a medalist , student of the Moscow Financial Institute ), a prominent businessman R. A. Abramovich (average student of the Ukhta Industrial Institute , did not graduate from the army after the army), President of Ukraine in 2014-2019. Petro Poroshenko (student of Kiev State University ), and others.

The fame of these people is largely associated with commercial or social activities, that is, with the role of not so much a specialist as an organizer or manager. But there are also examples of the purely professional success of men whose studies in the 1980s were interrupted by conscription. So, physicist P.V. Logachev (who served in 1984-1986 as a student at NSU ) then became an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences , and a participant in the Afghan war in 1987-1989. then- agrarian student V. A. Bagirov was elected a member-correspondent . The aforementioned Delyagin defended his doctoral dissertation and published a number of books. The ex-soldier-student, writer D. L. Bykov completely "took place" in his sphere.

Of course, not only individual examples, but also statistical selections are important for a comprehensive assessment of the situation. However, there is no summary data (for relevant years of birth) on the proportion of those who have served among those who have reached one or another high qualification and official level. Indirect evidence ^[18] indicates the smallness of this proportion, compared with the percentage of students who visited the Armed Forces.

The social conditions of those years excluded mass protests. Students were forced to join the army without resistance. Some have attempted to give bribes (in military registration and enlistment offices or doctors for a certificate of unfitness for health). There was a noticeable number of people wishing to emigrate.

Изначально, в защиту студентов не выступила ни одна серьёзная инстанция в стране — ни АН СССР , ни АПН СССР , ни КГБ , ни РПЦ , ни КПСС , ни ВЛКСМ . Часть ректоров заняла соглашательскую позицию. Но ситуация изменилась примерно с 1988 года, когда, во-первых, стал понятен масштаб квалификационных потерь от перерыва в обучении (приступили к работе первые прошедшие службу), а во-вторых, стала набирать обороты политика гласности ^[17] . Вышли статья академика Б. В. Раушенбаха ^[19] о вредности призыва студентов и серия других публикаций ^[20] .

При нараставшем недовольстве общественности было решено вернуть отсрочку студентам с весны 1989 года ^[3] . В своём выступлении на I Съезде народных депутатов СССР , академик А. Д. Сахаров , в числе важнейших вопросов, отметил, что, помимо уже состоявшегося к тому моменту возврата "брони", «…надо [досрочно] демобилизовать к началу учебного года всех [солдат-]студентов…» ^[21] ; в июле 1989 года Правительство , отвергнув возражения со стороны Министерства обороны, пошло на такой шаг ^[7] .

Обобщающие выводы о влиянии призыва на судьбу студентов 1980-х невозможны по объективным причинам (эти люди сейчас находятся в активном возрасте и их биографии продолжаются), но на начальном послеармейском этапе последствия призыва оказались явно отрицательными для тех, кого он коснулся.

Непосредственно в ВС студент сталкивался с теми же проблемами и опасностями, что и другие солдаты: в Афганистане — тяготы военных действий, в большинстве прочих мест службы — дедовщина , отрыв от дома, неоплачиваемая тяжёлая работа ^[9] . Есть основания предполагать, что хуже всего пришлось студентам с высокой успеваемостью, поскольку такие люди, как правило, труднее адаптируются в условиях жёстких межличностных отношений ^[22] . Известны случаи самоубийств сильных студентов, оказавшихся «под прессом военной машины» ^[14] , для многих пребывание в ВС становилось вычеркнутым из жизни периодом унижений ^[23] . Воспитательная функция армии, полезная для некоторой части призывников , применительно к студентам неактуальна: они и так были сравнительно организованными, законопослушными гражданами. На них служба нередко оказывала, наоборот, негативное влияние:

Вернулся домой другим человеком — «свинья свиньёй», по маминой характеристике.

— Дмитрий Климов (студент журфака МГУ, уволенный со срочной службы в рядах ВМФ в июне 1989 года) ^[14] .

Особые сложности именно у студента возникали после демобилизации и сводились к следующему:

• утрата знаний и обучаемости после перерыва ^{[9] [24]} , студенты, особенно естественнонаучных факультетов, оказывались отброшенными по уровню на несколько лет назад. Многие возвращавшиеся осенью продлевали академотпуск , так как вообще не могли сразу воспринимать материал, из-за чего с 1986 года студентов стали призывать только в июне. Самые серьёзные проблемы в учёбе возникали после службы в Афганистане (почти у 90 % студентов- «афганцев» ) ^[25] ;
• «сдвиг по возрасту». Перенос старта трудовой деятельности в условиях нараставшей социально-политической нестабильности усугубил для студентов проблему профессионального и личного становления, характерную для представителей поколения середины-конца 1960-х . Кроме того, при трудоустройстве специалистов на разных уровнях приняты возрастные рубежи, подобные рубежи действуют при присуждении грантов, например в науке (и переросток оказывается в проигрышном положении на всех ступенях);
• восприятие как человека второго сорта. Многие россияне не знают или не помнят, что студентов когда-либо призывали, а в ряде справочных источников по истории призыва в СССР ^[10] на данную тему нет ни слова. Поэтому факт срочной службы в биографии специалиста рассматривается как нечто подозрительное ^[26] .

Но так как число отслуживших студентов составляло сотни тысяч, не могло не быть и единичных положительных индивидуальных ситуаций. Кто-то нашёл себя в армии, кто-то приобрёл что-то по специальности (скажем, учился на врача, в армии был медбратом); имелись отдельные желающие отказаться от досрочной демобилизации летом 1989 года ^[27] . Опыт армейской службы оказался нелишним для тех, кто затем окончил вуз, но в 1990-е годы работать по специальности не стал, занявшись торговым бизнесом, «выживание» в котором в тот период часто требовало умения функционировать по понятиям уголовного мира. Отмечалось также повышение уровня общей социальной зрелости студентов, прошедших через армию.

В будущем, вследствие службы в ВС студенты 1980-х могут оказаться массово ущемлёнными в пенсионных правах . Если не изменится законодательство, то недобор нескольких трудовых лет из-за призыва сделает для отслуживших студентов малореальным досрочный выход на пенсию ^{[28] [29]} (такая льгота, по закону 2018 года , даётся после выработки 42-летнего стажа, но время в ВС не учитывается) даже при условии постоянной легальной занятости начиная с 4-5 курса, а «открутившиеся» от армии смогут получить эту льготу с большей вероятностью.

Путём призыва студентов удалось решить вопрос комплектования ВС в демографически сложный период . Появление образованных людей в армии помогло её оздоровлению. За счёт культурного уровня призывников-студентов повысились формальные показатели военно-политической подготовки.

Однако, призыв имел глубокие негативные последствия ^[15] . Оказался подорванным кадровый потенциал страны в нескольких поколениях. Потери человеко-часов — а речь идёт о высококвалифицированных трудовых ресурсах — в каждой прошедшей армию возрастной когорте оцениваются в 6,7 % ^[4] , если воспринимать службу как просто паузу. Реальные потери значительнее, поскольку примерно 15—20 % отслуживших студентов решили не возобновлять учёбу ^{[5] [30]} , а выпускники из числа бывших солдат часто оказывались специалистами более низкого уровня, чем могли бы стать ^[19] . Кроме того, конкретно в 1989 и 1990 годах выпуски были меньше обычных, основную их часть составляли женщины. (В свою очередь, в 1993—1994 гг. завершали обучение студенческие потоки , переполненные мужчинами нескольких подряд возрастов, одновременно уволенными из ВС в 1989 г.; сложности трудоустройства при этом «смягчились» переходом многих выпускников «в торговлю» с полной профессиональной деградацией.)

В отличие от молодых рабочих, морально готовых к армии как к естественному этапу своей жизни, для студентов и их родителей призыв стал внезапным ударом, сломавшим планы и традиции (отмена отсрочки, по воздействию, — всё равно что «проснуться в другой стране», где уже не до образования ^[31] ). Ситуация усугублялась скупостью и несвоевременностью подачи информации в СМИ по настолько принципиальной теме. Это не могло не вызвать озлобленности по отношению к власти, принявшей подобное решение, в определённой мере повлияло на общую гражданскую стабильность и последовавший распад СССР .

Те, кому удалось избежать призыва, обучаясь в «непризываемом» на тот момент вузе или по блату, получили колоссальное преимущество, немыслимое в иных ситуациях. Из-за ослабления потенциальных конкурентов выиграли также бывшие студенты возрастных категорий, близких к тем, кого коснулся призыв.

С начала 1990-х годов, в условиях тяжёлого кризиса первых постсоветских лет, вопрос о судьбе солдат-студентов восьмидесятых ушёл с повестки дня. Спустя десятилетия, в 2018 году, среди инициаторов пенсионной реформы , дискриминирующей срочников (см. конец предыдущего раздела), были российские должностные лица — мужчины 1960-х гг. рождения, которые в 1980-е гг. учились в вузах СССР, но солдатами в ВС не служили ^[32] .

Целесообразность сохранения студентам отсрочки от призыва в ВС периодически ставилась под сомнение в постсоветские годы ^{[16] [33] [34]} . Этот вопрос всегда провоцирует состояние глубокого общественного конфликта , в котором на одной стороне находятся студенты-мужчины, их родственники и научно-педагогическое сообщество (плюс дельцы из псевдо-вузов), а на другой — Минобороны, приверженцы прямолинейной позиции «служить обязаны все» ^[34] , а также криминальные структуры, заинтересованные в более широкой востребованности «услуги» по освобождению от армии.

При этом, независимо от персональных мнений, проблема «студенты и армия» оценивается как серьёзнейшая проблема высшей школы России, превосходящая по значимости многие детали организации собственно учебного процесса ^{[12] [31]} .

Лишение студентов вузов отсрочки в 1980-е годы явилось уникальным событием в образовательной сфере СССР и России за более чем семьдесят лет истории. Его анализ может давать аргументы для дальнейших решений по части подходов к комплектованию рядового состава Вооружённых Сил.

• Документальный фильм «Уходит в армию студент…» (1987 год) на YouTube
• Климов Дмитрий . «Экспедиция называется». Флотские будни московского студента. — М., СПб.: [Б. и.], 2015. — 128 с. — ISBN 978-5-4469-0686-4 (2-е изд.: 2018).
• Смирнов-Гукер Илья, Жданов Александр . Кавполк : рассказы из дембельского альбома. — Б/м.: Издательские решения. 2016. — 174 с. — ISBN 978-5-4483-0279-4