Last edited Wed May 27, 2015, 12:34 PM - Edit history (1)
But I can say the same about other countries, including the US. Dead bodies are the result of most conflicts and disposing of those bodies is a function ALL ARMIES HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH. Most armies dealt with it with mobile burial units, prior to mechanization bodies of men to dig a huge trench and throw the bodies into the trench (if trenches already exist, to fill in those trenches with bodies and cover over the bodies).
Generally armies have TWO sets of Burial units, one for their own soldiers and another for anyone else. You hear of the first type all of the time, they are the ones bring bodies back home. The other type is often ignored for people on the home front do not care to hear of them.
Unlike the Western Front during WWI, the Eastern Front was fairly mobile. Thus you saw a lot of dead bodies without pre existing trenches. This mobility was provided by the horse, so you had a lot of dead horses to get rid of also. During WWII this problem reappeared, for both the Germans AND the Russians still used a lot of horses in combat. Russia, like many western nations, did not unhorse they last horse units till the early 1960s (and maintain several horse units, but all below Divisional and Regimental strengths to this day to guard and patrol certain areas of their borders not otherwise patrol-able).
On top of this horses, to this day, are an important part of Russian Agriculture and thus would be killed off in huge numbers in any conventional war and will have to be disposed of. I hate to say this given the above having a mobile Crematorium makes sense, it is quicker then using back hoes to dig trenches to bury the dead (both people and horses). These are probably attached at Army or Army Corp Level not divisional level. Taking care of the dead is one of the unpleasant things an army has to do. Thus I fully suspect "Mobile Crematoriums" are among the troops the Russians have on their side of the Ukrainian Border. Being troops, they occasionally burn something in them to keep in practice.
Thus, YES, Russian has "Mobile Crematoriums" in the area. Now, the loss of life in the fighting in the Ukraine has NOT been that high. If used, most likely to burn dead horses, cows, sheep etc the Rebels could not dispose of themselves (The fighting is in a heavy agricultural area of the world). The actual area in rebellion is a Rural Coal mining area, and if it is like similar area in the US, the coal miners tend to own small plots of land near the mine where they grow crops for themselves and their families. On such small farms (Less then 50 acres), horses, even in the US, considered more cost effective then tractors. Now, most of the better farm lands are in large farms (Either Collectives or whatever succeeded the Soviet Era Collectives in that part of the Ukraine) those would be mechanized, but the smaller farms would not be.
Side note: The Best Farm Land in the Ukraine is is the WESTERN UKRAINE, where Russian is rarely spoken and the heart of the Anti-Russian movement in the Ukraine. The Eastern Ukraine is still agricultural but NOT to the extent of the Western Ukraine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/business/ukraine-faces-hurdles-in-restoring-its-farming-legacy.html?_r=0
The breakup of the old collectives has reduced productively (Much like the original collectivization reduced productively). The reason for this is simple, the support system for the collectives have not adjusted to these small farms, and the small farms have not adjusted to the distribution system. People are working to bring back the large farms of the collectives:
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/business/bloomberg-ukraine-farms-are-takeover-targets-for-private-equitys-bleyzer-387910.html
But the most productive farms are the smallest farms if you go by total production per acre as opposed to one crop per acres (Smaller farms often plant three or more crops in the same field, reduced productivity of each on a per acre basis, but an over all increase of total crops per acre, thus in the days of the Soviet Union, the small fields maintained by the peasants independent of the collective itself, were must more productive then the collective and an important part of Soviet food production).
On the other hand on a per person basis or per single crop basis, the larger collectives were more productive and for these reasons even farms in the US have had to go to larger farms (Smaller farms can produce more food, but the larger mechanized farms can produce more food per WORKER, thus a greater return on a per man hour basis). Thus the areas were small farms survive, even in the US, is in areas close to where such farmers can commute to and from other work (In my area of Western Pennsylvania, within driving distance to the Steel Mills in Pittsburgh or Johnstown or the various coal mines to the area or other employment). Where you can not commute to work, such small farms are either abandoned or taken over by someone to make a larger farm (And this tendency to even larger farms has increased since the 1950s).
I bring this up for the Eastern Ukraine is a Coal Mining Area, thus you will have more "Small Farmers" whose main source of Income is Coal Mining. These tend to be very productive on a total crops per acre basis, but not on a per man hour basis or even a one crop per acre basis. This is similar to the situation in the US Today.
For example in small farms (less then 50 acres) you will see more hand hoeing and less chemicals to get rid of weeds, more hand harvesting then mechanical harvesting for it is easy to pick beans and NOT disturb the Corn plant the bean is climbing on, or the pumpkins growing below both and among their roots, the pumpkins and corn can be harvested by hand later on. In larger mechanized harvesting, it is better to have to handle only one crop per field, thus the above three crops have to be in three different fields (And the beans tend to be "bush beans" not "Pole beans", the later is favored by small farmers for it planted among the corn, will climb the corn stock, it is disfavored among larger farmers for Pole Beans have to be picked by hand, while Bush beans can be picked by machine.
Given the basic economics of farming today, small farms, and but this I mean farms with less then 50 acres, can NOT pay for themselves except as housing for someone working elsewhere. Thus most such small farms tend to be near urban areas and the value of such land is four to ten times what land is worth further away. Thus the further away from what the US Census Bureau calls "Urban Centers" the less valuable the land.
Side note: The same can be seen in the US today. California has extensive large farms, but most such farms no one lives on. The employees working such farms live in "Urban Clusters" that these farms surround, thus when it comes to US Census data, these are "Urban Counties" for most people live in these "Urban Clusters" not on the farms that surround them. In a reverse of what happens in Western Pennsylvania (Travel from the Farms to the Urban centers) in Those "Urban" Countries people commute from the "Urban Clusters" to the Farms to work.
Most California Counties are "Urban Counties" under the rules defining such counties as "Urban" for most people in those counties living in urban areas OR Urban Clusters, as those terms are defined by the US Census Bureau:
?itok=90BA1lDJ
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/factsheets-reports/strengthening-the-rural-economy/the-current-state-of-rural-america
Even in the US most Rural Income is off the farm:
?itok=SwVevu1O
Please note, some of the "Off Farm" income, has to do with the increase mechanization of Farming. i.e. less breeding of horses which could be done on the farm, but increase use of specialized equipment that needs off farm support. In the Grain fields of the mid west, more and more of the planting and harvesting is done by outside contractors who go from farm to farm with the heavy machinery to plant and then harvest as oppose to the farmer doing that work. This would be "Off Farm" employment replacing "on farm" employment. The Ukraine has to respond to the fact US farms mechanized heavily starting in the 1950s and becoming bigger and even more mechanized since the 1950s. This brought down the price of grain and other per acre crops do to increase productively on a per man hour basis. Small farms just can not compete with these low prices, so even if more productive on a total crop basis, you can not raise a family on such income so unless the farm is close enough to commute to some other employment, it ends up abandoned or sold to a larger farm.
Another area of the growth of Rural off the Farm income is in housing. Prior to Mechanization it was common for farm hands to live on the farm with the farmer (often in the Farmer's house, thus they large size). Today, most such farm hands live in the nearby Urban Cluster and thus housing is no longer "On the farm Income" (if it was counted at all) but "Off the farm income" (Please note most such on the farm housing ended with WWII, some lingered on but I really have not heard of any since the 1950s) .
This increase in "Rural non-Farm Income" in the form of Housing is much like the "increase" in GDP do to the fact women reentered the work force in the 1970s. Were these women unproductive in the 1950s and 1960s? NO, but what they did was given no value and thus had no affect on the GDP. When they quit staying at home and join the work force, this increase GDP numbers, even if the amount of work they did was the same as when they stayed at home (and the increase in having to eat out due to no time to prepare a meal also increased GDP numbers, even if the amount of work to prepare the meal was the same in both cases for what the woman did at home was given no value while the same work done in the restaurant was given some value).
The founder of establishing what we now call Gross Domestic Product (GDP) admitted when he developed it in the 1930s to be a "Bad" way to estimate actual production in the National Economy, but he could NOT come up with a better way to calculate the numbers. It is still the best way to look at these numbers, but you have understand the short comings of such numbers. I bring this up for you are seeing similar situation in the Eastern Ukraine as in Rural US, Small farmers tend to be near Urban Areas, where the owners of such small farms commute to and from to work, Thus they are both Rural Residents and Urban Unionized employees. The Eastern Ukraine tends to be a low industry area with most of their "Wealth" tied in in the more productive farms of the Eastern Ukraine. Thus the split in the Ukraine, with a large Russian Speaking Rural population in the Eastern Ukraine, with a large Russia Speaking Urban areas opposed to the Ukrainian speaking Eastern Ukraine, with the middle of the Ukraine low population large farms with low population compared to the Eastern and Western parts of the Ukraine (The Southern Ukraine is similar to the Eastern Ukraine, but it is based on trade via the Black sea as oppose to mining or Industry as is the case with the Eastern Ukraine).
The more I study the Ukraine the more I see Putin's proposal of a Federation may be the best way to handle the Ukraine. The Ukraine is a country going in at least three different directions based on which area that part of the Ukraine sees as they main trading partner. The Eastern Ukraine see Russia as they main Trading Partner, The Western Ukraine see the EU as they main trading partner. The Southern Ukraine see Turkey and Greece as they main trading partners (and given the situation in Greece and Turkey, tends to turn to Russia for support).
It took a while, but sooner or later when it comes to the Ukraine, that the Western and Eastern Ukraine trade with other people more then each other comes up and with it the concept the Federation may be the best option for the Ukraine.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read