Facts about Stalin
1. Stalin’s usual rate of reading literature was about 300 pages a day. He constantly educated himself. For example, while undergoing treatment in the Caucasus, in 1931, in a letter to Nadezhda Aliluyeva, having forgotten to inform about his health, he asks to send him textbooks on electrical engineering and ferrous metallurgy.
2. Stalin’s level of education can be assessed by the number of books he read and studied. It is apparently impossible to establish how much he read in his life. He was not a collector of books - he did not collect them, but selected them, i.e. in his library there were only those books that he intended to somehow use in the future. But even those books that he selected are difficult to take into account. In his Kremlin apartment, the library contained, according to witnesses, several tens of thousands of volumes, but in 1941 this library was evacuated, and it is unknown how many books were returned from it, since the library in the Kremlin was not restored. Subsequently, his books were in the dachas, and an outbuilding was built in Nizhnyaya for a library. Stalin collected 20 thousand volumes for this library.
3. The range of education can be assessed from the following data: After his death, books with his notes were transferred from the library at the Blizhnaya Dacha to the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. There were 5.5 thousand of them! In addition to dictionaries and several geography courses, this list included books by both ancient and modern historians: Herodotus, Xenophon, P. Vinogradov, R. Winner, I. Velyaminov, D. Ilovaisky, K.A. Ivanova, Herero, N. Kareeva, 12 volumes of “History of the Russian State” by Karamzin and the second edition of the six-volume “History of Russia from Ancient Times” by S.M. Solovyov (St. Petersburg, 1896). And also: the fifth volume of “History of the Russian Army and Navy” (St. Petersburg, 1912). "Essays on the history of natural science in excerpts from the original works of Dr. F. Dannsman" (St. Petersburg, 1897), "Memoirs of Prince Bismarck. (Thoughts and memories)" (St. Petersburg, 1899). A dozen issues of "Bulletin of Foreign Literature" for 1894, "Literary Notes" for 1892, "Scientific Review" for 1894, "Proceedings of the Lenin Public Library of the USSR", vol. 3 (M., 1934) with materials about Pushkin, P.V. Annenkov, I.S. Turgenev and A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylina, two pre-revolutionary editions of A. Bogdanov’s book “A Short Course in Economic Science”, a novel by V.I. Kryzhanovskaya (Rochester) “The Web” (St. Petersburg, 1908), G. Leonidze’s book “Stalin. Childhood and Adolescence” (Tbilisi, 1939. in Georgian), etc.
4. According to the currently existing criteria, Stalin, in terms of the scientific results achieved, was a Doctor of Philosophy back in 1920. His achievements in economics were even more brilliant and have not yet been surpassed by anyone.
5. Stalin's personal archive was destroyed shortly after his death.
6. Stalin always worked ahead of time, sometimes several decades ahead. His effectiveness as a leader was that he set very distant goals, and the decisions of today became part of large-scale plans.
7. Under Stalin, the country was in difficult conditions, but in the shortest possible time it sharply rushed forward, and this means that at that time there were a lot of smart people in the country. And this is true, since Stalin attached great importance to the minds of the citizens of the USSR. He was the smartest man, and he was sick of being surrounded by fools; he strove for the whole country to be smart. The basis for the mind, for creativity is knowledge. Knowledge about everything. And never so much has been done to provide people with knowledge, to develop their minds, as under Stalin.
8. Stalin didn’t fight with vodka, he fought for people’s free time. Amateur sports have been extremely developed, and specifically amateur sports. Each enterprise and institution had sports teams and athletes from among its employees. More or less large enterprises were required to have and maintain stadiums. Everyone played everything.
9. Stalin preferred only Tsinandali and Teliani wines. It happened that I drank cognac, but was simply not interested in vodka. From 1930 to 1953, the guards saw him “in zero gravity” only twice: at S.M.’s birthday. Shtemenko and at the funeral of A.A. Zhdanov.
10. In all cities of the USSR, parks remained from Stalin’s time. They were originally intended for mass recreation of people. They had to have a reading room and game rooms (chess, billiards), a beer hall and ice cream parlours, a dance floor and summer theaters.
11.Under Stalin, discussions were freely held on all fundamental issues of existence: on the fundamentals of economics, social life, science. Weismann's genetics, Einstein's theory of relativity, cybernetics, the structure of collective farms were criticized, and any leadership of the country was severely criticized. It is enough to compare what satirists wrote about then and what they began to write about after the 20th Congress.
12. If the Stalinist planning system had been preserved and further rationally improved, and I.V. Stalin understood the need to improve the socialist economy (after all, it was not without reason that his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” appeared in 1952), if the task of further improving the standard of living of the people was put in first place (and in 1953 there were no obstacles to this ), by 1970 we would have been in the top three countries with the highest standard of living.
13.The economic backlog that Stalin created, his plans, the people he prepared (both technically and morally) were so outstanding that neither Khrushchev’s foolishness nor Brezhnev’s apathy could waste this resource.
14. During the first 10 years of being in the first echelons of power in the USSR, Stalin submitted his resignation three times.
15.Stalin was similar to Lenin, but his fanaticism extended not to Marx, but to the specific Soviet people - Stalin fanatically served him.
16. In the ideological struggle against Stalin, the Trotskyists simply had no chance. When Stalin proposed to Trotsky in 1927 to hold an all-party discussion, the results of the final all-party referendum were stunning for the Trotskyists. Of the 854 thousand party members, 730 thousand voted, of which 724 thousand voted for Stalin’s position and 6 thousand for Trotsky.
18. Not the least role in the creation of the State of Israel was played by Stalin’s support at the vote on the resolution at the UN.
19.Stalin broke off diplomatic relations with Israel only because something like a grenade was exploded on the territory of the USSR mission in Israel. Mission personnel were injured by this explosion. The Israeli government rushed to the USSR with an apology, but the Stalinist USSR did not forgive anyone for such an attitude towards itself.
20.Despite the severance of diplomatic relations, national mourning was declared in Israel on the day of Stalin’s death.
21. In 1927, Stalin passed a decree that the dachas of party workers could not be larger than 3-4 rooms.
22.Stalin treated both the security and the service personnel very well. Quite often he invited them to the table, and one day when he saw that the sentry at his post was getting wet in the rain, he ordered to immediately build a mushroom at this post. But this had nothing to do with their service. Here Stalin did not tolerate any concessions.
23.Stalin was very thrifty with himself - he didn’t have anything superfluous in his clothes, but he wore out what he had.
24.During the war, Stalin, as expected, sent his sons to the front.
25. In the Battle of Kursk, Stalin found a way out of a hopeless situation: the Germans were going to use a “technical novelty” - the Tiger and Panther tanks, against which our artillery was powerless. Stalin remembered his support for the development of the A-IX-2 explosive and the new experimental PTAB aerial bombs, and gave the task: by May 15, i.e. by the time the roads dry out, produce 800 thousand of these bombs. 150 factories of the Soviet Union rushed to fulfill this order and fulfilled it. As a result, near Kursk, the German army was deprived of striking power by Stalin’s tactical innovation - the PTAB-2.5-1.5 bomb.
26.After the war, Stalin, “by default,” gradually reduced the role of the Politburo only to the body for leading the party. And at the 19th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, this abolition of the Politburo was recorded in the new charter.
27.Stalin said that he saw the party as an order of sword-bearers, numbering 50 thousand people.
28.Stalin wanted to remove the party from power altogether, leaving only two matters in the party’s care: agitation and propaganda and participation in the selection of personnel.
29. Stalin said his famous phrase “personnel decide everything” in 1935 at a reception in honor of graduates of military academies: “We talk too much about the merits of leaders, about the merits of leaders. All, almost all of our achievements are attributed to them. This, of course , is incorrect and wrong. It’s not just about the leaders... To set the technology in motion and use it to its fullest, we need people who have mastered the technology, we need personnel capable of mastering and using this technology according to all the rules of art... That’s why the old slogan<техника решает все>... must now be replaced by a new slogan, the slogan that<кадры решают все>".
30. In 1943, Stalin said: “I know that after my death a heap of rubbish will be placed on my grave, but the wind of history will mercilessly scatter it!”
31st fact - Inventory of property.
October 25th, 2016 , 01:10 pm
Facts about Stalin
1. Stalin’s usual rate of reading literature was about 300 pages a day. He constantly educated himself. For example, while undergoing treatment in the Caucasus, in 1931, in a letter to Nadezhda Aliluyeva, having forgotten to inform about his health, he asks to send him textbooks on electrical engineering and ferrous metallurgy.
2. Stalin’s level of education can be assessed by the number of books he read and studied. It is apparently impossible to establish how much he read in his life. He was not a collector of books - he did not collect them, but selected them, i.e. in his library there were only those books that he intended to somehow use in the future. But even those books that he selected are difficult to take into account. In his Kremlin apartment, the library contained, according to witnesses, several tens of thousands of volumes, but in 1941 this library was evacuated, and it is unknown how many books were returned from it, since the library in the Kremlin was not restored. Subsequently, his books were in the dachas, and an outbuilding was built in Nizhnyaya for a library. Stalin collected 20 thousand volumes for this library.
3. The range of education can be assessed from the following data: After his death, books with his notes were transferred from the library at the Blizhnaya Dacha to the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. There were 5.5 thousand of them! In addition to dictionaries and several geography courses, this list included books by both ancient and modern historians: Herodotus, Xenophon, P. Vinogradov, R. Winner, I. Velyaminov, D. Ilovaisky, K.A. Ivanova, Herero, N. Kareeva, 12 volumes of “History of the Russian State” by Karamzin and the second edition of the six-volume “History of Russia from Ancient Times” by S.M. Solovyov (St. Petersburg, 1896). And also: the fifth volume of “History of the Russian Army and Navy” (St. Petersburg, 1912). "Essays on the history of natural science in excerpts from the original works of Dr. F. Dannsman" (St. Petersburg, 1897), "Memoirs of Prince Bismarck. (Thoughts and memories)" (St. Petersburg, 1899). A dozen issues of "Bulletin of Foreign Literature" for 1894, "Literary Notes" for 1892, "Scientific Review" for 1894, "Proceedings of the Lenin Public Library of the USSR", vol. 3 (M., 1934) with materials about Pushkin, P.V. Annenkov, I.S. Turgenev and A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylina, two pre-revolutionary editions of A. Bogdanov’s book “A Short Course in Economic Science”, a novel by V.I. Kryzhanovskaya (Rochester) “The Web” (St. Petersburg, 1908), G. Leonidze’s book “Stalin. Childhood and Adolescence” (Tbilisi, 1939. in Georgian), etc.
4. According to the currently existing criteria, Stalin, in terms of the scientific results achieved, was a Doctor of Philosophy back in 1920. His achievements in economics were even more brilliant and have not yet been surpassed by anyone.
5. Stalin's personal archive was destroyed shortly after his death.
6. Stalin always worked ahead of time, sometimes several decades ahead. His effectiveness as a leader was that he set very distant goals, and the decisions of today became part of large-scale plans.
7. Under Stalin, the country was in difficult conditions, but in the shortest possible time it sharply rushed forward, and this means that at that time there were a lot of smart people in the country. And this is true, since Stalin attached great importance to the minds of the citizens of the USSR. He was the smartest man, and he was sick of being surrounded by fools; he strove for the whole country to be smart. The basis for the mind, for creativity is knowledge. Knowledge about everything. And never so much has been done to provide people with knowledge, to develop their minds, as under Stalin.
8. Stalin didn’t fight with vodka, he fought for people’s free time. Amateur sports have been extremely developed, and specifically amateur sports. Each enterprise and institution had sports teams and athletes from among its employees. More or less large enterprises were required to have and maintain stadiums. Everyone played everything.
9. Stalin preferred only Tsinandali and Teliani wines. It happened that I drank cognac, but was simply not interested in vodka. From 1930 to 1953, the guards saw him “in zero gravity” only twice: at S.M.’s birthday. Shtemenko and at the funeral of A.A. Zhdanov.
10. In all cities of the USSR, parks remained from Stalin’s time. They were originally intended for mass recreation of people. They had to have a reading room and game rooms (chess, billiards), a beer hall and ice cream parlours, a dance floor and summer theaters.
11.Under Stalin, discussions were freely held on all fundamental issues of existence: on the fundamentals of economics, social life, science. Weismann's genetics, Einstein's theory of relativity, cybernetics, the structure of collective farms were criticized, and any leadership of the country was severely criticized. It is enough to compare what satirists wrote about then and what they began to write about after the 20th Congress.
12. If the Stalinist planning system had been preserved and further rationally improved, and I.V. Stalin understood the need to improve the socialist economy (after all, it was not without reason that his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” appeared in 1952), if the task of further improving the standard of living of the people was put in first place (and in 1953 there were no obstacles to this ), by 1970 we would have been in the top three countries with the highest standard of living.
13.The economic backlog that Stalin created, his plans, the people he prepared (both technically and morally) were so outstanding that neither Khrushchev’s foolishness nor Brezhnev’s apathy could waste this resource.
14. During the first 10 years of being in the first echelons of power in the USSR, Stalin submitted his resignation three times.
15.Stalin was similar to Lenin, but his fanaticism extended not to Marx, but to the specific Soviet people - Stalin fanatically served him.
16. In the ideological struggle against Stalin, the Trotskyists simply had no chance. When Stalin proposed to Trotsky in 1927 to hold an all-party discussion, the results of the final all-party referendum were stunning for the Trotskyists. Of the 854 thousand party members, 730 thousand voted, of which 724 thousand voted for Stalin’s position and 6 thousand for Trotsky.
18. Not the least role in the creation of the State of Israel was played by Stalin’s support at the vote on the resolution at the UN.
19.Stalin broke off diplomatic relations with Israel only because something like a grenade was exploded on the territory of the USSR mission in Israel. Mission personnel were injured by this explosion. The Israeli government rushed to the USSR with an apology, but the Stalinist USSR did not forgive anyone for such an attitude towards itself.
20.Despite the severance of diplomatic relations, national mourning was declared in Israel on the day of Stalin’s death.
21. In 1927, Stalin passed a decree that the dachas of party workers could not be larger than 3-4 rooms.
22.Stalin treated both the security and the service personnel very well. Quite often he invited them to the table, and one day when he saw that the sentry at his post was getting wet in the rain, he ordered to immediately build a mushroom at this post. But this had nothing to do with their service. Here Stalin did not tolerate any concessions.
23.Stalin was very thrifty with himself - he didn’t have anything superfluous in his clothes, but he wore out what he had.
24.During the war, Stalin, as expected, sent his sons to the front.
25. In the Battle of Kursk, Stalin found a way out of a hopeless situation: the Germans were going to use a “technical novelty” - the Tiger and Panther tanks, against which our artillery was powerless. Stalin remembered his support for the development of the A-IX-2 explosive and the new experimental PTAB aerial bombs, and gave the task: by May 15, i.e. by the time the roads dry out, produce 800 thousand of these bombs. 150 factories of the Soviet Union rushed to fulfill this order and fulfilled it. As a result, near Kursk, the German army was deprived of striking power by Stalin’s tactical novelty - the PTAB-2.5-1.5 bomb.
26.After the war, Stalin, “by default,” gradually reduced the role of the Politburo only to the body for leading the party. And at the 19th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, this abolition of the Politburo was recorded in the new charter.
27.Stalin said that he saw the party as an order of sword-bearers, numbering 50 thousand people.
28.Stalin wanted to remove the party from power altogether, leaving only two matters in the party’s care: agitation and propaganda and participation in the selection of personnel.
29. Stalin said his famous phrase “personnel decide everything” in 1935 at a reception in honor of graduates of military academies: “We talk too much about the merits of leaders, about the merits of leaders. All, almost all of our achievements are attributed to them. This, of course , is incorrect and wrong. It’s not just about the leaders... To set the technology in motion and use it to its fullest, we need people who have mastered the technology, we need personnel capable of mastering and using this technology according to all the rules of art... That’s why the old slogan<техника решает все>... must now be replaced by a new slogan, the slogan that<кадры решают все>".
30. In 1943, Stalin said: “I know that after my death a heap of rubbish will be placed on my grave, but the wind of history will mercilessly scatter it!”
31st fact - Inventory of property.
THE WIND OF HISTORY WILL BLOW EVERYTHING
I.V. Stalin:
“I know that after death they will put a lot of garbage on my grave. But the wind of History will mercilessly dispel it.”
For the enemies of socialism and Soviet power, a truly inexhaustible source from which most of their spiteful slander against the power of the working people is drawn, “arguments” that support dirty attacks are sought out, has become the “cult of personality” and all the activities of I.V. Stalin.
The history of the creation of a new society that arose as a result of revolutionary upheavals is non-linear, dramatic, and sometimes tragic. This is typical for any country after any revolution. The forces overthrown by the revolution always and everywhere strive to organize a powerful resistance to the new order, try in every possible way to discredit the authorities that replaced them, pour out streams of dirty slander, vilify the inspirers and leaders, fighters for the cause of the people.
For the enemies of socialism and Soviet power, a truly inexhaustible source from which most of their spiteful slander against the power of the working people is drawn, “arguments” that support dirty attacks are sought out, has become the “cult of personality” and all the activities of I.V. Stalin. Everything has long been assessed, its causes and consequences revealed. But the counter-revolution could not rest on this! On a huge scale, under the pretext of fighting the “cult of personality,” an unprincipled and unscrupulous denigration and falsification of absolutely everything that happened in the country after 1917 began. V. Pozner, M. Shvydkoy, M. Shatrov, G. Baklanov, Yu. Afanasyev, G. Popov, a noisy pack of their like-minded people spew out streams of lies, strive to spit on the majestic fact of world-historical significance - the transformation of a backward, semi-colonial country into a highly developed, modern , the front line, which even its enemies called a superpower. They brazenly and completely ignore the inclusion of millions of illiterate, downtrodden, oppressed people in the achievements of human progress!
Not a single revolution has escaped the blood of innocent victims. Thus, fulfilling the will of the Convention, the body created by the Great French bourgeois revolution, in Lyon alone, in just a few weeks, on the orders of the representative of the Convention, Fouche, more than one thousand six hundred people were executed, and not in the entire year of 1793 - the harbinger of our 1937. Even the vocabulary of those years is similar. “The people's avengers will remain firm in fulfilling the mission entrusted to them...,” Fouche wrote in one of the proclamations. “They will have the courage to calmly walk along the longest rows of graves of the conspirators, so that, walking through the ruins, they will come to the happiness of the nation and the renewal of the world.” Over five years during the Great French Revolution, 750 thousand people were sent under the punishing knife of the guillotine. In those years, the population of France was 25 million people. In proportion, this is many times greater than during repressions in the USSR. However, even in those difficult years, population growth in the Soviet Union reached almost 12 million people.
As Stefan Zweig wrote: “This is one of the secrets of almost all revolutions and the tragic fate of their leaders: they all do not like blood and are still forced to shed it.” It is not for me, of course, who lost my father in 1937, to justify political repression, but the patterns of development of revolutions are such that no one can change them.
Objective prerequisites for pursuing a punitive policy existed. This is confirmed even by Churchill, who spent his entire life striving to strangle the first state of workers and peasants in world history. Here are his words: “The German government maintained contact with important Russian persons through the Soviet embassy in Prague. The purpose of the conspiracy is to overthrow Stalin and introduce a new pro-German regime in Russia. Soviet Russia began purges, merciless, but in any case necessary, which cleansed political and economic circles. The Soviet Army was liberated from pro-German elements."
Some facts of the treacherous activities of “important persons” cannot be denied by the current detractors of everything Soviet. Not long ago a film about Tukhachevsky was shown on television. It quite convincingly reveals the treacherous actions of one of the first marshals of the Soviet Union. True, the screenwriters and directors of the film are trying to justify it by saying that conspiracies were being hatched against Stalin. The fact that at the same time our state and our people became victims of vile betrayal is completely ignored.
In 2004, the work “The Affairs of the Kremlin” by Semyon Vavilovich Korobenkov was published. The author is my fellow Irkutsk resident; he worked for many years in the apparatus of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. In the three books of this work (Semyon Vavilovich labeled them - “Case No. 1”, “Case No. 2”, “Case No. 3”) there is a lot of interesting information for historians, politicians and the ordinary reader. It may be useful to borrow something from this book related to the topic of repression. S.V. Korobenkov writes: “It is known that none of the defendants (meaning the famous Moscow trials), including such as Yagoda, Bukharin, Tomsky, Rykov, knew both the Criminal Code and the current then the rules of judicial procedure, did not state in court that their confessions of anti-Soviet activities were “extorted” by torture. Not because of pride, when it was a question of life and death?! And they knew very well the price of the “promises” - to save their lives in case of “sincere confession and repentance” - from past proceedings in which they themselves were participants...
Admitting themselves guilty under the pressure of irrefutable evidence, the main accused slandered the innocent and deliberately involved innocent people in the repressive whirlwind. More and more people, including those close to the then rulers, became, in essence, hostages of the main accused.
The principle is the same: “If they shoot us, they will kill you too!” And they killed. But they are not groaning for those innocently killed unfortunate “hostages”, but for the representatives of the “thin layer”. About those who for many years mercilessly tore off the thick “soil” layer from Russia and wanted to continue this “operation” even at the cost of betrayal, openly like Trotsky, or secretly like Tukhachevsky, calling on Western countries, including and fascist Germany, to intervention, war against the USSR, promising them the most tasty “pieces” of its territory in return. Throughout the entire “second” half of his life, V.M. Molotov never tired of repeating that if in the 30s. If it had not been possible to destroy the “fifth column” that had formed in our country at that time, the Soviet Union would have lost the war with Nazi Germany.”
The German writer of Jewish origin, Lion Feucht-Wanger, in his book “Moscow 1937,” which was carefully hushed up by apologists for Trotsky and Bukharin, as is known, took Stalin’s side in his cleansing of the country from the “fifth column.” “Previously, the Trotskyists,” he wrote, “were less dangerous, they could be forgiven, or, in the worst case, exiled... Now, immediately on the eve of the war, such kindness could not be afforded. Schism and factionalism, which do not have serious significance in a peaceful situation, can pose a huge danger in a war.”
In the summer of 1941, US Ambassador to the USSR Joseph E. Davis wrote in his diary: “Today we know, thanks to the efforts of the FBI, that Hitler’s agents were active everywhere, even in the United States and South America. The German entry into Prague was accompanied by the active support of Gelen's military organizations. The same thing happened in Norway (Quisling), Slovakia (Tiso), Belgium (de Grell)... However, we do not see anything similar in Russia. “Where are Hitler’s Russian accomplices?” - they often ask me. “They were shot,” I answer.
Only now are you beginning to realize how far-sighted the Soviet government acted during the years of the purges... At that time, we argued a lot in our circle about the struggle for power in the Kremlin leadership, but, as life showed, we were sitting “in the wrong boat.”
Of interest are the observations and conclusions recorded by this ambassador in his diary on July 28, 1937: “There is an opinion among the diplomatic corps that the executed generals were guilty of crimes that, according to Soviet laws, are punishable by death.
In April, Tukhachevsky was present, among others (Voroshilov, Egorov, etc.) at a reception organized by our embassy in honor of the Red Army. He had a reputation as a talented person. However, he didn’t make much of an impression on me... If, on top of everything else, he still suffered from Bonapartist habits, then I must admit that Stalin got rid of his “Corsican”.
Adolf Hitler, speaking on May 8, 1943 at a meeting with
Reichs-Leiters and Gauleiters, stated that the USSR “was freed in time from this threat (“the fifth column.” - S.K.) and can therefore direct all its energy to the fight against the enemy.” This, in his opinion, “put an end to defeatism.”
West German military historian (and ardent anti-Soviet) Joachim Hoffmann in his book “History of the Vlasov Army” (ed. Rombach, Freiburg, 1984) provides a long list of “outstanding” traitors who went over to the Germans in 1941 and 1942 , and, as a rule, not due to forced circumstances. They created them themselves. Among them are such as Tukhachevsky’s former personal adjutant, at the beginning of the war commander
41st Rifle Division Boyarsky, head of the operational department of the Baltic Special Military District (from June 22 - Northwestern Front) Major General Trukhin. Is it any wonder the difficult situation at the front from the very first day of the war! The list is not short, from modest lieutenants to generals, most of whom went over to the enemy deliberately. There were especially many of these in Vlasov’s headquarters, which numbered about three hundred senior and senior officers, former commanders of the Red Army...
Against this background, the words spoken by Trotsky back in 1936 that in the event of Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union, Stalin could not avoid defeat are no longer perceived as bragging. Such confidence suggests that Trotsky knew well about the hidden traitors and was connected with them... He raised and nurtured them himself. Hitler planned the war with them in mind. But he miscalculated - the traitors ensured his initial successes and our tragedy, then the contingent of traitors dried up...
Without Stalin, without the “cult of personality,” the champions of the restoration of capitalism would have clung to anything to denounce socialism and the Communist Party. They did not even bother to analyze what our country was like at the time Stalin entered the historical arena and what it became by the end of his reign. Historical figures are judged not by individual events, facts, or even stages, but by the final results, the real results of their reign. Stalin left behind a strong party that skillfully united and directed the people to solve the most difficult problems. He left the country with the most advanced social and political system that strengthened its position. He left the Soviet Union - a power of world significance, enjoying the greatest respect and authority, which received universal recognition for the defeat of the darkest, most reactionary, most cruel force of big capital - German fascism. These results pale in comparison to the mistakes and miscalculations that are often inevitable when charting a new and unknown path. It would be worth comparing, what achievements could the people of our country be proud of and rejoice after the tragic disappearance of the first and last president of the USSR?!
The “revision” of Stalin’s role in Soviet history was started by his successor N.S. Khrushchev, who tried to deal with Stalin’s legacy using the “cavalry attack” method. He sullied Stalin from all sides, although millions of people believed in the late leader, believed with conviction and unconditionally. Stalin is a personality of truly world-historical proportions, despite some of the negative aspects of his rule. Millions of Soviet people, and not just ordinary people, and this should have been foreseen, perceived N.S. Khrushchev’s report at a closed meeting of the 20th Congress of the CPSU as a blow to them, as an erasure of their military and labor achievements, and of their entire difficult life. His ridiculous “cavalry attack” created a deep crack in society, and it still hasn’t healed, like the trenches and trenches of the war...
Nowadays, a lot of data has appeared on the basis of which we can more calmly and objectively consider some of Khrushchev’s accusations against Stalin. First of all, about repression. No one can deny that they existed; they swept across the country like a terrible skating rink. At the same time, knowledge of the situation in the pre-war years forces us to admit that repressions were practically inevitable, although their scale could have been less destructive. Nowadays, many documents have become known that irrefutably prove that many Trotskyists and other oppositionists were in the pay of Western intelligence services, including fascist ones. Of course, it cannot be justified that innocent people fell under the comb of repression. However, it is also impossible to consecutively and indiscriminately rehabilitate those who caused enormous harm to our Motherland and betrayed it.
Khrushchev dirtyly hinted more than once that I.V. Stalin had a direct connection to the murder of S.M. Kirov. It has now become clear that Sergei Mironovich had an affair with a waitress at the secretariat in Smolny, Matilda Draule. Her husband Nikolaev was a jealous and unbalanced person. He had the right to enter Smolny, and the guards knew him well. It was not difficult for him to deal with his opponent. As is known, a special commission was created to substantiate Khrushchev’s “version”. All the efforts of the commission were in vain. When the results were reported to Khrushchev, he burst into abuse and forbade their publication. Khrushchev’s statement that at the XVII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks someone proposed Kirov for the post of General Secretary and therefore Stalin saw him as a rival turned out to be nothing more than an evil fiction.
N.S. Khrushchev, when attacking I.V. Stalin, often referred to the so-called “testament” of V.I. Lenin; speaking directly, he speculated on the letter of the sick party leader to the XII Congress of the CPSU (b). In it, Vladimir Ilyich gave characteristics to the leading leaders of the party of that time and made a proposal to expand the composition of the Central Committee of the party. However, the letter was not read at this congress. After the congress, Trotsky and his supporters launched a campaign against Stalin, often citing Lenin's letter. In order to stop all sorts of rumors and speculations of the opposition, the Politburo decided to announce the letter to the regional delegations of the XIII Party Congress. Each delegation had to vote for its candidacy for the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee. As a result, not a single (!) candidate other than Stalin was proposed. It is noteworthy that Trotsky and his supporters - the delegates to the congress - voted for Stalin! Nevertheless, at the first, organizational Plenum of the new Central Committee, Stalin resigned, but it was proposed to him - unanimously! - remain at your post.
The magazine “Bolshevik” No. 16 for 1925 published an article by Trotsky “On Eastman’s book “After the Death of Lenin.” Trotsky writes: “In several places in the book, Eastman says that the Central Committee “hid” from the party a number of extremely important documents written by Lenin in the last period of his life (the case concerns letters on the national question, the so-called “will”, etc. ); this cannot be called anything other than slander against the Central Committee of our party. From the words of the Eastman, we can conclude that Vladimir Ilyich intended these letters, which had the nature of intra-organizational advice, for publication. In fact, this is completely false. Since his illness, Vladimir Ilyich more than once addressed the leading bodies of the party and its congress with proposals, letters, etc. All these letters and proposals, of course, were always delivered to their destination, brought to the attention of the XII and XIII party congresses and always, of course, , had a proper influence on the decisions of the party, and if not all of these letters were published, it was because they were not intended by their author for publication. Vladimir Ilyich did not leave any “will,” and the very nature of his attitude towards the party, as well as the character of the party itself, excluded the possibility of such a “will.” (Emphasis by me. - S.K.) Under the guise of a “will” in the emigrant and foreign bourgeois and Menshevik press, one of Vladimir Ilyich’s letters, which contained organizational advice, is usually mentioned (in a distorted form beyond recognition). The 13th Party Congress paid the most attention to this letter, as to all others, and drew conclusions from it in relation to the conditions and circumstances of the moment. Any talk about a hidden or broken “will” is a malicious fiction and is entirely directed against the actual will of Vladimir Ilyich and the interests of the party he created.”
Let us emphasize once again that Trotsky wrote this. And in October 1927, at a meeting of the joint Plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Stalin addressed this issue: “Now about Lenin’s “testament”. Here the oppositionists shouted - you heard it - that the Central Committee of the Party “hidden” Lenin’s “testament”. This issue was discussed several times at the plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission, you know this. (Voice. Dozens of times.) It has been proven and re-proven that no one hides anything. It was discussed at the XIII Party Congress. The opposition knows all this as well as the rest of us. And yet the opposition has the courage to declare that the Central Committee is “hiding” Lenin’s “testament”... On what basis are Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev now foolishly speaking, claiming that the party and its Central Committee are “hiding” Lenin’s “testament”? It’s “possible” to use your tongue, but you have to know when to stop.
They say that in this “testament” Comrade. Lenin suggested that the congress, in view of Stalin's rudeness, consider the question of replacing Stalin as General Secretary with another person. This is absolutely true. Yes, I am rude, comrades, towards those who crudely and treacherously destroy and split the Party. It is possible that a certain softness towards schismatics is required here. But I can't do it. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the XIII Party Congress, I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to relieve me of my duties as General Secretary. The Congress itself discussed this issue. Each delegation discussed this issue. And all delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain in his post. What could I do? Run away from post? This is not in my character, I have never run away from any posts and have no right to run away, because that would be desertion. I am, as I said before, a forced person, and when the party obliges me, I must obey.
A year after this, I again submitted an application to the plenum for release, but I was again obliged to remain at my post.
What else could I do?
As for the publication of the “testament” ... then we have a decision of the plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission in 1926 to seek permission from the XV Congress to print this document.”
At the insistence and demand of Stalin, Lenin’s letter, against his will, was published on the pages of a special “Discussion Sheet” in Pravda on November 10, 1927. Khrushchev, of course, knew about this document and was obliged, as he was already in a leadership position by that time, to explain the party line on this issue. What motivated him when, contrary to all known facts, he declared: “The letter to the congress was never published, but it was not mentioned at all. Was Stalin afraid of this letter? It is quite obvious that he deceived and misled the younger members of the CPSU, our entire people.
Khrushchev was especially gloating about Stalin as a military leader, trying not only to belittle his role and services in the defeat of Nazi Germany, but to present him as militarily ignorant. They say how Khrushchev once tried to recruit famous marshals to join his supporters in spitting on Stalin. “Ivan Stepanovich,” he turned to Marshal Konev, “you suffered from Stalin in 1941, come forward, judge... what the hell kind of commander he is...
- No, Comrade Khrushchev! Stalin really was a commander..."
He makes the same request to Marshal Grechko.
- No! Stalin was a great figure and a great commander! - Grechko answered.”
Khrushchev tried to persuade Marshal Zakharov, known for his directness and rudeness, to do this. But he sent Nikita Sergeevich... He paid for this with his position. Marshal Rokossovsky, who was subjected to repression, stated very politely and firmly:
- How can one talk about Stalin’s mediocrity if he has no equal leaders of states?! And we won thanks to Stalin’s talent. No, Comrade Stalin is a saint to me!
The former Chief of the General Staff, Marshal Vasilevsky, sharply stated:
- Stalin is a great statesman and great
Pol-commander!
In his book “The Work of My Whole Life,” the marshal writes: “I had good relations with N.S. Khrushchev in the first post-war years. But they changed dramatically after I did not support his statements that I.V. Stalin did not understand operational-strategic issues and unqualifiedly led the actions of the troops as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. I still can't understand how he could say this. Being a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Party and a member of the Military Council of a number of fronts, N.S. Khrushchev could not help but know how high the authority of Headquarters and Stalin was in matters of conducting military operations. He also could not help but know that the commanders of the fronts and armies treated Headquarters and Stalin with great respect and valued them for their exceptional competence in leading the armed struggle.”
At one meeting in the Kremlin, Khrushchev stated:
- The Chief of the General Staff Sokolovsky is present here, he will confirm that Stalin did not understand military issues. Am I right?" “No way, Nikita Sergeevich,” the marshal answered clearly. He was also relieved of his post.
Well, Zhukov was brief: “We are not worth Stalin’s little finger!”
I had the good intention of putting together everything that outstanding figures of our country said and wrote about Stalin: military leaders, ministers, industrial workers, representatives of the scientific, technical and creative intelligentsia, who knew him not from stories, books and articles, but who worked with him, who regularly communicated and observed this figure in a variety of situations. But he failed to fully realize this intention. I only managed to write out something from the works of G.K. Zhukov. I believe it would be appropriate to quote only some of the statements of the Grand Marshal. Describing the work of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command, Georgy Konstantinovich unequivocally states: “The activities of the Headquarters are inseparable from the name of I.V. Stalin. During the war years I often met with him. In most cases, these were official meetings at which issues of managing the course of the war were decided. But even a simple invitation to dinner was always used for the same purposes. I really liked the complete lack of formalism. Everything that he did through the Headquarters or the State Defense Committee was done in such a way that the decisions made by these high bodies began to be implemented immediately, and the progress of their implementation was strictly and steadily controlled personally by the Supreme Commander or, at his direction, by other leading persons or organizations. […] …the work practice of the Headquarters and the State Defense Committee was physically very difficult for their members, but during the war this was not thought about: everyone worked to the fullest extent of their strength and capabilities. Everyone looked up to Stalin, and he, despite his age, was always active and tireless. When the war ended and the days of relatively systematic work began, J.V. Stalin somehow immediately aged, became less active, even more silent and thoughtful. The past war and everything connected with it had a strong and tangible impact on him. […]
J.V. Stalin made a great personal contribution to the cause of winning victory over Nazi Germany and its allies. His authority was extremely great, and therefore the appointment of Stalin as Supreme Commander-in-Chief was received positively by the people and troops. […]
Marshal Zhukov appeals to the authority of the genius of world and Russian literature, Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov, so that his assessments of I.V. Stalin are more convincing:
“It is impossible to dumb down and belittle Stalin’s activities during that period,” said the greatest writer of the 20th century. “Firstly, it is dishonest, and secondly, it is harmful for the country, for the Soviet people, and not because the winners are not judged, but first of all because the “overthrow” does not correspond to the truth.” G.K. Zhukov writes: “It is hardly possible to add anything to these words of M.A. Sholokhov. They are accurate and fair. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief did everything possible to ensure that the Headquarters, its working apparatus - the General Staff and the Military Councils of the fronts became truly wise and skillful military assistants to the party in achieving victory over Nazi Germany." […]
“The style of work, as a rule, was businesslike, without nervousness, everyone could express their opinion. The Supreme Commander addressed everyone equally - strictly and officially. He knew how to listen carefully when they reported to him knowledgeably. He himself was a man of few words and did not like the verbosity of others; he often stopped someone who was talking with remarks - “in short!”, “Clarify!”. The meetings were held without introductory opening remarks. He spoke quietly, freely, only to the essence of the issue. He was concise and formulated his thoughts clearly.” […] He did not tolerate answers at random; he demanded exhaustive completeness and clarity.
The Supreme Commander had some special instinct for weak points in reports or documents; he immediately found them and strictly punished them for unclear information. Possessing a tenacious memory, he remembered well what was said and did not miss an opportunity to rather sharply reprimand for what was forgotten.” […]
“Unremarkable in appearance, J.V. Stalin made a strong impression during the conversation. Devoid of posturing, he captivated his interlocutor with the simplicity of his communication. A free manner of conversation, the ability to clearly formulate a thought, a natural analytical mind, great erudition and a rare memory forced people during a conversation with him, even very sophisticated and significant people, to gather themselves internally and be on the alert.”
“...He read a lot and was a knowledgeable person in a wide variety of areas of knowledge. His amazing efficiency and ability to quickly grasp the essence of a matter allowed him to view and assimilate in a day such a quantity of the most varied material that only an extraordinary person could do it.” […]
“J.V. Stalin was a strong-willed man and, as they say, “not one of the cowardly dozen.” […] Stalin firmly ruled the country, armed struggle, and international affairs. Even at the moment of mortal danger hanging over Moscow, when the enemy was at a distance of 25-30 kilometers from it, J.V. Stalin did not leave his post, was at Headquarters in Moscow and behaved as befits the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.” […]
“The merit of I.V. Stalin here lies in the fact that he quickly and correctly accepted the advice of military experts, supplemented and developed them in a generalized form - in instructions, directives and manuals - and immediately transferred them to the troops for practical guidance.
In addition, in supporting operations, creating strategic reserves, organizing military equipment and, in general, creating everything necessary for waging war, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, frankly speaking, proved himself to be an outstanding organizer. And it wouldn’t be fair if we didn’t give him credit for that.” […]
“In leading the armed struggle as a whole, J.V. Stalin was helped by his natural intelligence, experience in political leadership, rich intuition, and broad awareness. He knew how to find the main link in a strategic situation and, seizing on it, outline ways to counter the enemy and successfully carry out one or another offensive operation. Undoubtedly, he was a worthy Supreme Commander." (Emphasis added by me. - S.K.)
It is worth recalling that all the above statements about I.V. Stalin were written by G.K. Zhukov in the years when it was not easy to evaluate this personality positively.
In one of the articles, Marshal D.T. Yazov, the last Minister of Defense of the USSR, provides a very remarkable dialogue. Once, when meeting with him, People's Artist of the USSR Innokenty Smoktunovsky said:
- What is Stalin! Such commanders as Zhukov or Vasilevsky could decide everything even without Stalin. We could do even better!
Yazov replied:
- Here at the Moscow Art Theater almost all of you are great artists! Why do you need a director?
- What about without a director?
“But what about without the Supreme Commander-in-Chief?” the marshal asked in turn. “Each front will drag on its own, each front will be on its own.”
The questions of a prominent representative of the Soviet intelligentsia, a great artist, were dominated by naive unprofessionalism, a frivolous substitution of serious reflections for emotional outbursts.
A person is never unambiguous, monochromatic. Everything is mixed up in it. So it is with Stalin. Only Stalin is the greatest statesman and political figure, a convinced, uncompromising communist. Another Stalin is an ordinary person, a personality with inherent advantages and disadvantages. But for Stalin, the first dominated the second, which was almost unknown to anyone and occupied a subordinate, even secondary position in relation to the first. That is, the obvious primacy of the first over the second. For Stalin, the highest interests of building a socialist state always unconditionally stood above personal requests and needs. JV Stalin was not so naive as not to imagine how in the future certain forces would evaluate his activities. Air Marshal A.E. Golovanov quotes the following words of Stalin: “I know that when I’m gone, more than one bucket of dirt will be poured on my head. But I’m sure the winds of history will blow all this away.”
With Khrushchev, his individuality, his personal needs and passions dominated Khrushchev as a politician, statesman, and communist. His base, philistine, selfish interests rose above the interests of the party, country, and people.
Sometimes the thought arises: was it necessary for N.S. Khrushchev to blame J.V. Stalin for everything negative that happened under him? Yes, and add a stupid gag like directing military operations according to the globe, confusion and the like, clearly not characteristic of J.V. Stalin, nonsense.
Cult of personality?! He blurted out “our dear”, but, as they say, did not look into the calendar. There is a cult of personality, and there is also a micro-cult. A cult is when a significant person, through his service to the country and the people, achieves a high position in the party and in the state, and the grateful people glorify and even deify him. A microcult, a stump, a stump - you choose - this is when a nonentity, which cannot be seen with the most powerful microscope, inflates itself immensely, thinks of itself, in much the same way as that frog that burst. Stalin cannot be compared even with such figures as Alexander the Great and Napoleon! They are small fry compared to him! Stalin is a personality, and such that his deeds will be remembered and glorified for centuries! The pug barked at the elephant!
From the closed report of N.S. Khrushchev at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the enemy received such arguments in the fight against the communists, against the Soviet state, which he did not even dare to dream of. You can’t help but wonder who Nikita Sergeevich served more - the cause of communism, the international communist and workers’ movement, his party, his state or the enemies of communism, reactionaries and obscurantists, opportunists and traitors? At one time, Nikita Sergeevich mixed with the Trotskyists, so wasn’t this a kind of relapse, a regurgitation of this past, which he really carefully concealed?
Stepan KARNAUKHOV
Stepan KARNAUKHOV
August 25th, 2011
The topic of Stalin is so huge and multifaceted that it will be very difficult to fit everything into one post, he was too ambiguous and an extraordinary person, but I’ll try. To begin with, a personal assessment of the Leader’s actions; at the end of the post there will be useful facts and an attempt to debunk the main myths attributed by the “liberal environment” to this great man, as well as the country’s achievements during the reign of I.V. Stalin.
In April 1922, immediately after the XI Party Congress, the plenum of the Central Committee elected Joseph Vissarionovich General Secretary of the RCP (b).
So, you get power in a country that has still not recovered from the civil war and the 1st World War, with a destroyed agriculture and industrial sector, with a huge 5th column of henchmen of world capital (of a certain nationality), with whose input the revolution in Russia began. The economic formation in which the country will live has not been determined, the further path of development is not clear.
Stalin does the most logical thing to save the country - he begins to concentrate power in his hands. The first thing is, of course, the army and special services, then industrialists, then agriculture.
A complete turnaround in the country's economy and an attempt to put it on the rails of industrial development, the founding of a new engineering and scientific school, naturally entailed sacrifices. Stalin knew that there would be losses, and considerable losses, but here one of his most necessary (for a ruler) qualities manifested itself - to think in terms of state and world, and not personal. Yes, it’s hard, but it’s necessary for future life, so that the country does not disappear from the world map.
It took Stalin 7 years to process the struggle for power, internal political squabbles, and getting his people into key positions.
Stalin's policy can be considered truly independent since 1929 (the decision to expel L.D. Trotsky from the USSR was made by the OGPU in January 1929). And already in December 1929, collectivization began. At the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, the country achieved self-sufficiency in food. Can you imagine - bearing the burden of the deaths of so many people, anyone’s nerves will break down? What if the initial decision was wrong, and nothing will work out, and there will be no one to blame? But again, Stalin had the confidence that he was doing everything for the state, and an amazing ability to see things through at any cost.
37th year. Only the lazy did not write about the events that took place this year. I’ll just write that if we now organize an analogue of ’37 (purge of ranks) from corrupt officials, bribe-takers and agents of Western influence, you will agree that there will be much more victims, and those events will seem to us like a children’s party. Of course, those who are not guilty will also be targeted - without this, cleaning is IMPOSSIBLE.
In general, don’t the liberals and democrats I adore experience cognitive dissonance when they broadcast their slogans like: “Bribery takers will be shot,” “Death penalty for corrupt officials”? - After all, this is the real 37th year, since this tsunami will capture the innocent. Do they want to be like Stalin? But what about Mandelstam, “bloody KGB” and “the damned one reached out”? Moreover, these “liberal democrats” should be the first to fall under the threat, because the sources of their funding are known, and this, whatever one may say, is treason. In my opinion, the 37th year is possible, but “this is not our method” (V.V. Putin), the current government is trying to educate society consistently.
And then.... And then there was a war, drawn out largely thanks to the authority and strategic vision of the leader (although now on the Internet and in real life, thanks to the Suvorovsko-Rezunovskys and his ilk, squabbles still arise).
And then the country was restored in the shortest possible time, and such a technological and infrastructural foundation was created that we are still using it.
It was during and after the reign of I.V. Stalin that Russia, as part of the USSR, spent years as one of the strongest world empires, showing the whole world that a person, in addition to the desire to have another new butt warmer or a toilet with gold plating, has a need to conquer space, develop as a person, create not for yourself, but for the world and people, for your state. It was this denial of consumerism that became fatal for Soviet society as a whole, and for Stalin in particular.
It's no secret that the bulk of the party's leadership until 1937 were people of a certain nationality. I am not an anti-Semite, but the fact remains that key positions in the USSR were occupied by people who were Jews (the facts will be at the end of the post). And imagine how much courage Stalin must have had to challenge groups with practically unlimited financial capabilities and a complete lack of principles. Naturally, these clans (the main places among them are the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Morgans) could not leave unpunished an attempt to stop them on the path to world hegemony.
The reasons for Stalin's paranoia, which especially intensified towards the end of his reign, become clear. I wonder how you will live knowing that your rivals (having a lot of finances and a minimum of principles) can at any moment poison you, shoot you, or simply strangle you by bribing anyone from your circle. Later there will be Kennedy, Charles De Gaulle, Hussein and Milosevic - the methods do not change.
Still, I support the point of view that Stalin was poisoned; there are too many absurdities and inconsistencies surrounding the day of his death. For some, March 1, 1953 was a tragedy, others rejoiced at the death of the “pockmarked devil,” but I believe that on this day Russia lost one of its greatest people, a true statesman, who, unfortunately, appear extremely rarely in our country. It is not surprising that they tried to make us forget this man, because against his background, the achievements of subsequent “rulers” look rather pathetic.
Does everyone remember what they were told about Stalin in school? At my school, for example, there wasn’t a single positive lesson or statement in the textbook about Stalin. Here the goals of Khrushchev, the general secretaries who followed him and world capital coincided - to erase from history all the achievements and bright moments of the country that took place. But Stalin foresaw all this (see post title).
In general, I have never been a fan of either numerology or conspiracy theories, but interesting analogies arise.
Stalin comes to power in 1922 after the revolution and devastation - Putin in 2000 after the revolution of 1991 and the devastation of the 90s Stalin begins to build a stable vertical of power - Putin is doing the same thing (this is the logical decision for a ruler that first comes to mind)
Stalin gains actual power in 1929 after Trotsky's expulsion - Putin delivers Munich speech in 2007
In 1929, industrialization and collectivization began - in 2007, re-industrialization and modernization of industry began to be actively carried out
That is, continuing this numerical series, we find that the year 1937 falls in 2015. Let's wait :) Very interesting coincidences are emerging.
Now some facts that may be needed for discussions with liberal-minded citizens.
The total number of those “sitting” under Stalin (in ’37 for example) and under the current democratic government:
Country USSR Russia
Year 1937 2008
Col. closing 1,296,494,890,000
Conclusion: With a larger population in the USSR, the relative number of prisoners in the “Stalinist” USSR was quite comparable to “democratic” Russia
The American non-governmental Pew Center published a report on the state of the US penitentiary system. According to the report, the United States has the largest prison population in the world. Their number by the beginning of 2008 amounted to 2.319 million people. This is almost a million more prisoners than in China. http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=859393
If you compare the number of prisoners with the United States, the question involuntarily arises - maybe there was democracy under Stalin after all? Sources: for the USSR: http://etendard.narod.ru/revisio/244.htm#v3 for Russia and the USA: http://www.rbcdaily.ru/2008/03/03/focus/326238
Regarding "repression":
In February 1954, a certificate was prepared in the name of N.S. Khrushchev, signed by the Prosecutor General of the USSR R. Rudenko, the Minister of Internal Affairs of the USSR S. Kruglov and the Minister of Justice of the USSR K. Gorshenin, which indicated the number of people convicted of counter-revolutionary crimes for the period from 1921 to February 1, 1954
In total, during this period, 3,777,380 people were sentenced by the OGPU Collegium, the NKVD “troikas”, the Special Conference, the Military Collegium, courts and military tribunals, including 642,980 to capital punishment, to detention in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years. years and below - 2,369,220, into exile and deportation - 765,180 people.
In eight years under the leadership of I.V. Stalin, the state managed to:
1.Defeat Hitler's Germany. (7 out of 8 Nazi soldiers were destroyed on the Eastern Front, that is, by Soviet troops under the leadership of Stalin)
2.Defeat the Japanese armed forces.
3. Restore on your territory what was destroyed during the war.
4. Re-equip the army by more than half, taking into account the experience of the ended war.
5. Eliminate the US nuclear monopoly. 6. Provide assistance to countries that have embarked on the socialist path of development. 7.Lay the foundation for your leadership in science and high technology (space, etc.)
8.START SYSTEMATICALLY ANNUALLY REDUCING PRICES FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND FOOD!!! (Average prices from 1947 to 1953 for basic food products and consumer goods were reduced by 1.5-2 times)
After the current rulers, yachts, mansions, gold, diamonds, bank accounts will remain, but what remains after the death of Joseph Vissarionovich?
Inventory of Stalin's property I.V.<<5 марта 1953 года в 22 часа 30 минут, я, комендант Ближней дачи Орлов, старший прикреплённый Старостин, помощник Туков, сотрудник Бутусова составили опись л / имущества товарища Сталина И. В. по указанию товарища Берия.
1. Notepad, covered in gray leather;
2. Notebook, leather, red;
3. Personal notes, notes compiled on separate sheets of paper and tear-off sheets. A total of 67 sheets (sixty-seven) are numbered;
4. General notebook with notes, red cover;
5. Smoking pipes - 5 pcs. Includes: 4 boxes and special. devices, tobacco. In Comrade Stalin's office: books, desk accessories, souvenirs are not included in the list.
Bedroom and wardrobe:
6. White jacket - 2 pcs. (The star of the Hero of Socialist Labor is attached to both).
7. Gray jacket, p/day - 2 pcs.;
8. Dark green jacket - 2 pcs.;
9. Pants - 10;
10. Underwear is folded in box No. 2. Box No. 3 contains: 6 tunics, 10 trousers, 4 overcoats, 4 caps. Box No. 1 contains notebooks, notebooks, and personal notes. Bath and shower accessories are packed in box No. 4.
Other property belonging to Comrade Stalin was not included in the inventory.
The completion time for compiling the inventory and document was 0 hours 45 minutes on March 6, 1953. Those present: (signature) ORLOV (signature) STAROSTIN (signature) TUKOV (signature) BUTUSOVA.
A savings book was found in the bedroom with 900 rubles written in it.>>
........................................ Interesting research, links and materials:
http://delostalina.ru/?p=387 In 1939 and the first quarter of 1940 alone, L.P. Beria contributed to the release of 381,178 people from prison, and by the beginning of the war, about 130 thousand more people. And this is not to mention the thousands and tens of thousands of those rehabilitated.
http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/reports/view/40539/ FIFTH COLUMN IN RUSSIA (Summer 1941)
Today we know, thanks to the efforts of the FBI, that Hitler's agents were active everywhere, even in the United States and South America. The German entry into Prague was accompanied by the active support of Gehlen's military organizations [Genlein - S.]. The same thing happened in Norway (Quisling), Slovakia (Tiso), Belgium (de Grell)... However, we do not see anything similar in Russia. "Where are Hitler's Russian accomplices?" - they often ask me. “They were shot,” I answer. Only now are you beginning to realize how far-sighted the Soviet government acted during the years of purges. Then I was shocked by the unceremoniousness and even rudeness with which the Soviet authorities closed the consulates of Italy and Germany throughout the country, regardless of any diplomatic complications. It was difficult to believe the official explanations that mission employees were involved in subversive activities. At that time, we argued a lot in our circle about the struggle for power in the Kremlin leadership, but as life showed, we were sitting in “the wrong boat.”
Here about the Allied trade with Hitler during the war: http://www.x-libri.ru/elib/highm000/00000001.htm
Khodos tells who killed Stalin and why. There are also explanations why Stalin is still being persecuted to this day.. http://rutube.ru/tracks/1816522.html?v=
Stalin and Orthodoxy http://www.libereya.ru/biblus/hodos3/ http://historyfoundation.ru/ru/news_item.php?id=789
The Novaya Gazeta publication illustrated an article about the victims of Stalin's repressions with a photograph of Soviet prisoners of war being transported to Nazi concentration camps. The photograph was published in a special issue of Novaya Gazeta entitled “The Truth of the Gulag.” http://www.lindex.lenin.ru/Lindex4/Text/8660/02.htm
About Jews in Stalin's government http://zarubezhom.com/antigulag.htm
Jews in Russia with a list of Jews from the Soviet Government of Russia
http://www.avanturist.org/forum/topic/791 A very intelligent forum where the personality of Stalin is discussed (some of the facts are taken from there)
Interesting sayings:
Hitler:
The strength of the Russian people lies not in its numbers or organization, but in its ability to produce personalities of the caliber of Stalin.
In terms of his political and military qualities, Stalin far surpasses both Churchill and Roosevelt. This is the only world politician worthy of respect. Our task is to fragment the Russian people so that people of Stalin’s caliber will no longer appear.
I.V. Stalin:
Capitalists are not empty talkers. They are people of action. They know that the fundamental question of revolution and counter-revolution is the question of power. ...democracy is not something given for all times and conditions, because there are times when there is no possibility and sense to carry it out. We, the representatives of the workers, need the people to not only vote, but also to rule. It is not those who choose and vote who rule, but those who rule.
The center of financial power in the capitalist world, the center of financial exploitation of the entire world, has moved from Europe to America. Previously, France, Germany and England were usually the center of financial exploitation of the world. Now this cannot be said without special reservations. Now the center of financial exploitation of the world is mainly the United States of North America. This state is growing in all respects: in the sense of production, and in the sense of trade, and in the sense of accumulation.
*** The general conclusion is that the circle of the main states exploiting the world has shrunk to the last degree compared to the pre-war period. Previously, the main exploiters were England, France, Germany, and partly America, but now this circle has been reduced to the last degree. Now the main financial exploiters of the world and, therefore, its main creditors are North America and partly its assistant, England. ***
This does not mean that Europe has moved to the position of a colony. European countries, while continuing to exploit their colonies, have now themselves fallen into financial subordination to America, as a result of which, in turn, they are and will be exploited by America. In this sense, the circle of major states exploiting the world financially has been reduced to a minimum, while the circle of exploited countries has expanded
. *** The Dawes Plan, drawn up in America, is this: Europe pays its debts to America at the expense of Germany, which owes Europe to pay reparations, but since Germany cannot pump out all this amount from empty space, Germany must receive a number of free markets that are not occupied still other capitalist countries, from where it could draw new strength and new blood to pay reparation payments. In addition to a number of minor markets, here America is referring to our Russian markets. They should be, according to the Dawes plan, provided to Germany so that she could squeeze something out and have something to pay reparation payments to Europe, which, in turn, should pay America along the line of national debt. This whole plan is well constructed, but it was built without an owner, because for the German people it means a double press - the press of the German bourgeoisie in relation to the German proletariat and the press of foreign capital in relation to the entire German people. To say that this double press will be in vain for the German people is to make a mistake. Therefore, I believe that in this part the Dawes Plan is fraught with inevitable revolution in Germany. It was created to pacify Germany, but it, the Dawes Plan, must inevitably lead to revolution in Germany. The second part of this plan, which says that Germany should pump out pennies for Europe at the expense of Russian markets, is also a solution without a master. Why? Because we do not at all want to turn into an agricultural country for any other country, including Germany. We ourselves will produce cars and other means of production. Therefore, to expect that we will agree to turn our Motherland into an agricultural country for Germany means to count without a master. In this part the Dawes plan has feet of clay. ***
One of the main issues for world powers is now the issue of oil. If we take America, for example, it produces about 70% of all world production and consumes over 60% of all world consumption. So in this area, which represents the main nerve of all economic and military activities of the world powers, America always and everywhere encounters opposition from England. If we take two world oil companies - Standard Oil and Koninklik Shell, of which the first represents America, and the second - England, then the struggle between these companies occurs in all parts of the world where oil is found. This is the struggle between America and England. For the question of oil is a vital question, for who will command in a future war depends on who has the most oil. Whoever has more oil will determine who will command world industry and trade. Oil, after the fleet of advanced countries switches to motor engines, is the vital nerve of the struggle of world states for dominance both in times of peace and in times of war. And it is in this area that the struggle between the oil companies of England and the oil companies of America is deadly, not always, however, of an obvious nature, but always existing and smoldering, as can be seen from the history of negotiations and from the history of skirmishes between England and America on this basis. It is enough to recall a whole series of notes from Hughes, when he was Foreign Minister in America, against England on the issue of oil. The struggle is taking place in South America, in Persia, in Europe, in those areas of Romania and Galicia where there is oil, in all parts of the world, sometimes in a hidden, sometimes in an open form. I'm not even talking about such an important fact as the struggle between the interests of England and America in China. You must know that there is a hidden struggle going on here, and quite often America, acting more flexibly, free from those crude colonial methods from which the English lords have not yet freed themselves, manages to bridle England in China in order to oust England and pave the way for itself To China. It is clear that England cannot look at this indifferently.
*** The fact is that since the victory of the proletarian revolution in our country, an entire huge country with huge markets, with huge sources of raw materials, fell out of the world system of capitalism, and this, of course, could not but affect the economic situation of Europe. To lose one-sixth of the world, to lose our country’s markets and sources of raw materials, means for capitalist Europe to reduce its production, to shake it radically. And so, in order to put an end to this alienation of European capital from our country, from our markets and sources of raw materials, it turned out to be necessary to enter into some kind of period of “peaceful coexistence” with us in order to get to our markets and sources of raw materials - otherwise there would be no , it turns out, the possibility of achieving some kind of economic stability in Europe. ***
Hence the conclusion: we must build our economy in such a way that our country does not turn into an appendage of the world capitalist system, so that it is not included in the general system of capitalist development as its auxiliary enterprise, so that our economy develops not as an auxiliary enterprise of world capitalism, but as an independent one an economic unit based mainly on the domestic market, based on the link between our industry and the peasant economy of our country.
*** There are two general lines: one proceeds from the fact that our country must remain an agrarian country for a long time, must export agricultural products and bring in equipment, that we must stand on this and continue to develop along this path. This line essentially requires the curtailment of our industry. This line leads to the fact that our country could never, or almost never, truly industrialize; our country, from an economically independent unit based on the domestic market, would have to objectively turn into an appendage of the general capitalist system. This line means a departure from the tasks of our construction. This is not our line. There is another general line, based on the fact that we must make every effort to make our country an economically independent country, based on the internal market, a country that will serve as a center for attracting all other countries that are gradually falling away from capitalism and flowing into the mainstream of the socialist economy. This line requires the maximum development of our industry, but in moderation and in accordance with the pace of the resources that we have. She resolutely rejects the policy of turning our country into an appendage of the world capitalist system. This is our construction line, which the party adheres to and which it will continue to adhere to. This line is obligatory as long as there is a capitalist environment. We absolutely need that minimum of independence for our national economy, without which it will be impossible to save our country from economic subordination to the system of world capitalism.
In light of the performance of Zaldostanov in Stalingrad, the controversy http://kompas-m.livejournal.com/2134.html around the famous quote attributed to Stalin has once again revived.
It is no secret that the quote below played a big role in the rehabilitation of the leader:
Many of the affairs of our party and people will be distorted and spat upon, primarily abroad, and in our country too. Zionism, striving for world domination, will brutally take revenge on us for our successes and achievements. He still views Russia as a barbaric country, as a raw materials appendage. And my name will also be slandered and slandered. Many atrocities will be attributed to me.
World Zionism will strive with all its might to destroy our Union so that Russia can never rise again. The strength of the USSR lies in the friendship of peoples. The spearhead of the struggle will be aimed primarily at breaking this friendship, at separating the border regions from Russia. Here, I must admit, we have not done everything yet. There is still a large field of work here. And yet, no matter how events develop, time will pass, and the eyes of new generations will be turned to the deeds and victories of our socialist Fatherland. New generations will come year after year. They will once again raise the banner of their fathers and grandfathers and give us full credit. They will build their future on our past.”
For many people, especially young people, it became a symbol of the fact that the leader foresaw the future collapse and his inevitable rehabilitation. Well, if there is a prophet, then an army of neophytes is not far off. Nowadays, it is one of the most common quotes and aphorisms that are mentioned in the context of a positive attitude towards Stalin, along with the phrase attributed to Churchill about the plow and the nuclear bomb.
The quote itself, as we know, surfaced at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries and referred to “extracts from the diary of Alexandra Kollontai” (a famous and authoritative Bolshevik), which were introduced into circulation by the historian Trush. In the 2000s, it became fashionable to compare certain events of that era with the log of visits to Stalin’s office, which led to the refutation of many historical myths, as it made it possible to find out that many events did not actually occur. For example, some author writes that on such and such a date he was in Stalin’s office and such and such happened there. The historian opens the visitor log and sees that the author or hero of his story was not there on the designated day.
Consequently, either this did not happen at all, or the author confuses the dates (which is also possible) - for example, he writes that on June 25 he was at a reception with Stalin, and according to the visit log, he was there on the 27th. It can be assumed that he was confused by the passage of time.
For example, it was found that, contrary to Khrushchev’s lies, that on June 22 Stalin fell into prostration after learning about the German attack, the leader worked all day in his office, but at the same time it was established that there was a gap at the end of June after the fall of Minsk, which historians Taking into account the new information, they tried to explain.
The same thing happened with this quote. They began to check and found out that on the indicated date Kollontai did not meet with Stalin and on the indicated day she could not hear such things from him purely physically, which she herself wrote about.
“although I was in Moscow for only two days, an order came from Vyacheslav Mikhailovich to fly back to Sweden at 6 o’clock in the morning. I never saw Stalin. It’s a shame!”
In this regard, the question arose - whether the quote is a complete lie. Then we have:
1. On the indicated date, Kollontai did not meet with Stalin, as evidenced by the log of visits to Stalin’s office and Kollontai’s entry in her diary.
2. All Kollontai’s diaries have not yet been published in full (from the editions that I have seen, they were only a selection of selected texts - maybe something more complete has been published in the last couple of years, but I have not come across it) and it is not entirely clear , what exactly Trush worked with, and if he collected his text from other texts by Kollontai, then from which ones. A historian he knew several years ago, who worked in the Moscow archives, pointed out that these documents are stored in the archives of the Russian Foreign Ministry and he came across documents there that were not in the two-volume Diplomatic Diaries published in 2004. The easiest way to finally clarify the issue is to check the array of documents related to Kollontai for the presence/absence of this quote or the fragments from which it is collected. Moreover, given the specifics of archival work, it is not even necessary to shovel all the funds, but just look through those where there are notes that the historian Trush worked with them at such and such a time, and given that there are practically no books related to these diaries over the past 10 years It turned out that I didn’t think that the check would take much time.
3. References to the fact that all volumes of Stalin’s works after 13 are doubtful are very naive, since they contain many documents whose authenticity is undoubted and which were not published in the classical collected works for ideological and organizational reasons. This does not mean that Trush could not add something of his own to the original documents, but to indiscriminately scrap the contents of 5 volumes is strong. In the foreseeable future, in light of the release of Stalin’s collected works edited by Kosolapov, where the authenticity of published documents is verified, it will be possible to draw conclusions about which documents are genuine, which are of dubious origin, and which are fakes.
4. Trush himself did not give any clear explanations on the topic of this quote - he did not admit to lying, he did not prove the authenticity with foam at the mouth. In addition to a possible gag, one cannot exclude the possibility of an error when the author simply mixed up the date by moving Kollontai’s meeting with Stalin to a day when it physically could not have happened, which of course also does not best characterize Trush as a historian.
5. The text itself, if we compare it with the content of other texts, the authenticity of which is undoubted, allows us to say that Stalin could really say this - since the quote does not have any particular discrepancies with his views on Zionism or the possibility of the defeat of socialism in the USSR . This allows us to say that the text may simply be a compilation of Stalin’s views, which Trush took from the collected Works and put into the form of a biting quotation, which he introduced into circulation through Alexandra Kollontai. Which does not change the fact that the quote itself in this form is a fake.
6. In the meantime, this is a kind of apocrypha living life in the style of “The Dulles Plan does not exist, but is being carried out.” If we agree that the quote was completely invented by Trush or compiled from other texts by Trush, then it turns out that he concocted a brilliant and prophetic forgery, which for several years anticipated the process of rehabilitation of Stalin in the public consciousness, and then we must admit that Trush with his lies did for rehabilitation of the Soviet era much more than other publicists and historians, because the ideological power of this quote is enormous. Could Trush have foreseen at the end of the 90s that in 10 years the number of admirers of the talents of the “bloody tyrant” would exceed 50%? Did he set such goals if he really threw his text into Stalin’s collected works?
For today, I will be careful not to say that this quote is completely false or, on the contrary, completely genuine. In my opinion, it requires additional verification, namely the direct work of professional historians with Kollontai’s diaries in the archives of the Russian Foreign Ministry to establish the final verdict. For now, I classify it in the category of quotes “attributed to Stalin.”
Regarding the question on the topic - “Are such unverified quotes needed to prove the greatness of Stalin and his foresight,” then for me personally, Stalin’s historical greatness is determined primarily by his deeds, and secondarily by how and what he said. I try not to use quotes of dubious origin, since even without them, the authorship of the Leader of the Peoples has more than enough prophetic and simply popular expressions that well reveal the scale of his personality. Anyone can see this for themselves by reading his collected works.
Well, regarding the wind of history, regardless of who gave birth to this phrase - Stalin or Trush, he actually cleared Stalin’s grave of the atrocities attributed to him.