Military Review

Interview Comrade. I.V. Stalin

136



One of the correspondents of Pravda asked Comrade Stalin to clarify a number of issues related to the speech of Mr. Churchill. Comrade Stalin gave appropriate explanations, which are given below in the form of answers to the questions of the correspondent.

Question. How do you assess the last speech of Mr. Churchill, delivered by him in the United States of America?

Answer. I regard it as a dangerous act designed to sow the seeds of discord between the Allied states and impede their cooperation.

Question. Can Mr. Churchill's speech be considered detrimental to the cause of peace and security?

Answer. Of course, yes. In fact, Mr. Churchill is now in the position of the instigators of war. And Mr. Churchill is not alone here - he has friends not only in England, but also in the United States of America.

It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends are strikingly reminiscent in this respect of Hitler and his friends. Hitler began the cause of unleashing war by proclaiming racial theory, declaring that only people who speak German represent a full-fledged nation. Mr. Churchill begins the process of unleashing war, too, with racial theory, arguing that only English-speaking nations are full-fledged nations, called upon to decide the destinies of the whole world. German racial theory led Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only fully-fledged nation, should dominate other nations. English racial theory leads Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that the English-speaking nations, as the only full-fledged, should dominate the rest of the nations of the world.

Essentially, Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and the United States impose on nations that do not speak English, something like an ultimatum: recognize our domination voluntarily, and then everything will be all right, otherwise war is inevitable.

But nations shed their blood for five years of brutal war for the sake of the freedom and independence of their countries, and not to replace the rule of Hitlers with the rule of Churchill. Therefore, it is likely that nations that do not speak English and constitute at the same time the vast majority of the world's population will not agree to go into new slavery.

The tragedy of Mr. Churchill is that he, like an inveterate Tory, does not understand this simple and obvious truth.

There is no doubt that the installation of Mr. Churchill is an installation for the war, a call for war with the USSR. It is also clear that such installation of Mr. Churchill is incompatible with the existing union treaty between England and the USSR. True, in order to confuse the readers, Churchill declares in passing that the term of the Soviet-English agreement on mutual assistance and cooperation could well be extended to 50 years. But how to combine such a statement by Mr. Churchill with his installation on the war with the USSR, with his preaching of the war against the USSR? It is clear that these things can not be combined. And if Mr. Churchill, who calls for war with the Soviet Union, at the same time considers it possible to extend the term of the Anglo-Soviet treaty to 50 years, it means that he views this treaty as an empty piece of paper, which he needs only to cover it and Disguise your anti-Soviet installation. Therefore, one cannot take seriously the false statements of Mr. Churchill's friends in England about extending the term of the Soviet-English treaty to 50 and more years. Extension of the contract does not make sense if one of the parties violates the contract and turns it into an empty piece of paper.

Question. How do you assess the part of Mr. Churchill’s speech where he attacks the democratic structure of our neighboring European states and where he criticizes the good-neighborly relations established between these states and the Soviet Union?

Answer. This part of Mr. Churchill’s speech is a mixture of slander elements with elements of rudeness and tactlessness.

Churchill claims that "Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia - all these famous cities and people in their districts are in the Soviet sphere and all are subject to one form or another not only to Soviet influence, but also greatly increasing Moscow’s control. " Mr. Churchill qualifies all of these as borderless "expansionist tendencies" of the Soviet Union.

It does not take much effort to show that Mr. Churchill rudely and unceremoniously slanders both Moscow and the neighboring states of the USSR.

Firstly, it is completely absurd to talk about the exclusive control of the USSR in Vienna and Berlin, where there are Allied Control Councils from representatives of four states and where the USSR has only the 1 / 4 part of the votes. It happens that other people can not slander, but you still need to know when to stop.

Secondly, we must not forget the following circumstance. The Germans made an invasion of the USSR through Finland, Poland, Romania, Hungary. The Germans could invade through these countries because in these countries there were then governments hostile to the Soviet Union. As a result of the German invasion, the Soviet Union irretrievably lost about seven million people to the German penal servitude in battles with the Germans, as well as thanks to the German occupation and the hijacking of the Soviet people. In other words, the Soviet Union was lost by people several times more than England and the United States of America combined. It is possible that in some places these colossal sacrifices of the Soviet people, which ensured the liberation of Europe from the Hitlerite yoke, are prone to oblivion. But the Soviet Union cannot forget about them. The question is, what can be surprising is that the Soviet Union, wishing to protect itself for the future, is trying to ensure that there are governments in these countries that are loyal to the Soviet Union? How can you, without going mad, qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist tendencies of our state?

Mr. Churchill argues that "the Polish government, under Russian domination, was encouraged to huge and unjust encroachment on Germany."

There is not a word here, a rude and insulting slander. Modern democratic Poland is led by outstanding people. They proved in practice that they know how to protect the interests and dignity of the homeland in the way their predecessors did not. What is the basis for Mr. Churchill to assert that the leaders of present-day Poland can admit in their own country the "domination" of representatives of any foreign states? Is this why Mr. Churchill is slandering the "Russians" here, that he intends to sow the seeds of discord in relations between Poland and the Soviet Union? ..

Mr. Churchill is unhappy that Poland has made a turn in its policy towards friendship and alliance with the USSR. There was a time when elements of conflicts and contradictions prevailed in the relations between Poland and the USSR. This circumstance made it possible for statesmen like Mr. Churchill to play on these contradictions, to pick up Poland under the guise of protection from Russians, to intimidate Russia with the specter of war between her and Poland, and to preserve the position of arbitrator. But this time is a thing of the past, because the enmity between Poland and Russia has given way to friendship between them, and Poland, modern democratic Poland, does not want to be a playing ball in the hands of foreigners. It seems to me that it is precisely this circumstance that causes Mr. Churchill to irritation and pushes him to rude, tactless antics against Poland. It's no joke to say: he is not allowed to play for someone else's account ...

As for Mr. Churchill’s attacks on the Soviet Union in connection with the expansion of Poland’s western borders at the expense of Polish territories captured in the past by the Germans, here it seems to me that he clearly distorts the maps. As is known, the decision on the western borders of Poland was taken at the Berlin Conference of the Three Powers on the basis of the demands of Poland. The Soviet Union has repeatedly stated that it considers the demands of Poland correct and fair. It is likely that Mr. Churchill is unhappy with this decision. But why Mr. Churchill, not sparing the arrows against the Russian position on this issue, hides from his readers the fact that the decision was made at the Berlin Conference unanimously, that not only Russians, but also British and Americans, voted for the decision? Why did Mr. Churchill need to mislead people?

Churchill argues further that "the communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern European states, have achieved exceptional strength far outnumbering them and are seeking to establish totalitarian control everywhere, police governments prevail in almost all these countries and to date with the exception of Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy in them. "

As it is known, in England one party controls the state now, the Labor Party, and the opposition parties are deprived of the right to participate in the government of England. This is called by Mr. Churchill genuine democracy. In Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary a bloc of several parties controls - from four to six parties, and the opposition, if it is more or less loyal, is guaranteed the right to participate in the government. This is called in Mr. Churchill's totalitarianism, tyranny, police. Why, on what basis, do not expect an answer from Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill does not understand the ridiculous position in which he puts himself with his noisy speeches about totalitarianism, tyranny, and the police.

Mr. Churchill would like Poland to be ruled by Sosnkovsky and Anders, Yugoslavia - Mikhailovich and Pavelic, Romania - Prince Stirbey and Radescu, Hungary and Austria - some king from the house of the Habsburgs, etc. Mr. Churchill wants to assure us that these are the Lord of fascist gateways can provide "true democracy." Such is the "democratism" of Mr. Churchill.

Mr. Churchill wanders around the truth when he talks about the growing influence of the communist parties in Eastern Europe. It should, however, be noted that it is not entirely accurate. The influence of the communist parties grew not only in Eastern Europe, but in almost all European countries where fascism previously dominated (Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland) or where German, Italian or Hungarian occupation took place (France, Belgium, Holland, Norway , Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, the Soviet Union, etc.).

The growing influence of the Communists can not be considered an accident. It is a completely natural phenomenon. The influence of the communists grew because in the difficult years of the domination of fascism in Europe, the communists turned out to be reliable, courageous, selfless fighters against the fascist regime, for the freedom of nations. Mr. Churchill sometimes recalls in his speeches about “ordinary people from small houses”, patting their shoulders and pretending to be their friend. But these people are not as simple as it may seem at first glance. They, the "ordinary people", have their own views, their own politics, and they know how to stand up for themselves. It was they, millions of these “ordinary people,” who had swamped Mr Churchill and his party in England, casting their votes for the Laborites. It was they, millions of these "ordinary people", who isolated the reactionaries and supporters of cooperation with fascism in Europe and preferred left-wing democratic parties. It was they, millions of these "ordinary people" who, having tested the communists in the fire of struggle and resistance to fascism, decided that the communists fully deserve the trust of the people. This is how the influence of the communists grew in Europe. Such is the law of historical development.

Of course, Mr. Churchill does not like this development of events, and he sounded the alarm, appealing to the force. But he also did not like the appearance of the Soviet regime in Russia after the First World War. He also sounded the alarm and organized a military campaign of "14 states" against Russia, setting himself the goal of turning back the wheel stories. But the story was stronger than the Churchill intervention, and the quixotic habits of Mr. Churchill led to the fact that he suffered a complete defeat. I do not know whether Mr. Churchill and his friends will succeed in organizing a new campaign against Eastern Europe after the Second World War. But if they succeed, which is unlikely, because millions of “ordinary people” are guarding the affairs of the world, then we can confidently say that they will be beaten just like they were in the past, 26 years ago.

True. 14 March 1946 of the year
136 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mystery12345
    Mystery12345 7 January 2017 05: 59
    +25
    The words of I.V. Stalin are always relevant ...
    1. cap
      cap 7 January 2017 06: 46
      +32
      Quote: Mystery12345
      The words of I.V. Stalin are always relevant ...


      I agree with you hi . Maybe today even more than yesterday. I looked into the future and not in my pocket.

      1. Cat
        Cat 7 January 2017 07: 24
        +18
        Mr. Churchill is unhappy that Poland has made a turn in its policy towards friendship and an alliance with the USSR. There was a time when the relations between Poland and the USSR were dominated by elements of conflict and contradiction. This circumstance made it possible for statesmen such as Mr. Churchill to play on these contradictions, to pick up Poland under the guise of protection from the Russians, to intimidate Russia with the ghost of a war between it and Poland, and to retain the position of arbiter.

        Yes ... if we replace Cherchel with Obama, Poland with Ukraine, the USSR, and the Union with Russia. Then we get:
        Mr. Obama is unhappy that Ukraine has made a turn in its policy towards friendship and an alliance with Russia. There was a time when elements of conflicts and contradictions prevailed in the relations between Ukraine and Russia. This circumstance made it possible for statesmen like Mr. Obama to play on these contradictions, to pick up Ukraine under the guise of protection from the Russians, to intimidate Russia with the ghost of a war between it and Ukraine, and to retain the position of arbiter.

        The impression that the world is developing in a circle. On the face of the events of 2014, before the fall of Yanukovych. Either the "partners" simply lack imagination, it's so pathetic that in 1947, that in 2017.
        Decorations for the film "60 years later" a dark barn and the only rake on the earthen floor. If only the sign was added "Beware of the rake! See Russia"
        1. Spnsr
          Spnsr 7 January 2017 22: 10
          +4
          Quote: Kotischa
          ... Or the "partners" simply lack fantasy

          why do they need imagination, if the West already manages to split up the Russian Empire, the USSR, now they are finishing the result by tearing piece by piece from the Russian world!
      2. Monarchist
        Monarchist 7 January 2017 09: 58
        +19
        By whom. Pay attention to how the thoughts of Stalin and Aleksandr3 coincide :: both urged to rely only on their own strengths and not rely on someone else's uncle
        1. bastard
          bastard 7 January 2017 13: 17
          +7
          Quote: Monarchist
          Pay attention to how the thoughts of Stalin and Aleksandr3 coincide :: both urged to rely only on their own strengths and not rely on someone else's uncle

          Not a supporter of the monarchy, but I support your comment. Do not be lazy, watch this video, the revelation of a very interesting, in my opinion, person. I do not like him, it’s just interesting, the material is practically first-hand and correlates very well with the interview of IV Stalin.
          1. bastard
            bastard 7 January 2017 13: 28
            +2
            Quote: villain
            Do not be lazy, watch this video, the revelation of a very interesting, in my opinion, person. I do not like him, it’s just interesting, the material is practically first-hand and correlates very well with the interview of IV Stalin.

            Sorry, distracted. Here is the video:
            1. Monarchist
              Monarchist 7 January 2017 14: 18
              +4
              Wretch, thanks for the video: curious information. In something I can agree with him, and with something I disagree. We also disagree with you in something.
              If you are interested, I gradually came to neo-monarchism. You know or not, but Charles da Zero was from a monarchical family and himself until the end of his life he was a monarchist, but he was a practical person
              1. bastard
                bastard 7 January 2017 15: 21
                +7
                Quote: Monarchist
                Wretch, thanks for the video: curious information.

                To your health!
                Quote: Monarchist
                In something I can agree with him, and with something I disagree.

                And well, it's just interesting infa, nothing more.
                Quote: Monarchist
                If you are interested, I gradually came to neo-monarchism.

                It is not so important who rules the country, the king, the president or the secretary general, it is important how he rules the state entrusted to him. hi
                1. porv50
                  porv50 7 January 2017 15: 56
                  +2
                  I disagree with both: no one has the right to manage anyone without the consent of the governed, which, subject to conditions agreed in advance, can be immediately canceled; moreover, birthright is an absolute mossy wildness.
                  Moreover, the subordinate himself must have the right to constantly be aware of events and decisions made, and, as one vote, to influence them.
                  1. Dekabrist
                    Dekabrist 7 January 2017 16: 13
                    +7
                    Especially your control model is good for the army. Any army with such control is invincible.
                  2. Stanislas
                    Stanislas 8 January 2017 01: 22
                    +3
                    Quote: porv50
                    moreover, native rights - absolute mossy wildness
                    Did you receive the rights of a citizen of any country at birth? Give them back. Like, I don’t need your skills ... well, you know better than me how to say it.
                  3. bastard
                    bastard 8 January 2017 20: 36
                    +2
                    Quote: porv50
                    Disagree with both

                    And with Engels, and with Kautsky? lol
                  4. yehat
                    yehat 21 July 2017 11: 09
                    0
                    no one has the right to control anyone without the consent of the governed

                    it’s demagogy, pseudo democracy and just nonsense. Will explain.
                    It is impossible to delegate everything everywhere in a complex society, and the greater the degree of division of labor and the development of production, the more difficult, and therefore it is technologically impossible (it was at least earlier. Now with social networks it can already be different.)
                    Therefore, most of the governance of the country (in the form of a state, they haven’t come up with anything better!) Should be carried out proactively, without demand.
                    This is an objective necessity. But there is also the second half of management - responsibility for the initiative. Under Stalin, there were no problems with this. There are none now in China. But here in Russia, this is a complete disaster. In retrospect, indulgence is the only way to effectively build a society, it all comes down to determining the responsibility of people for what they “violated” and in the motives originally laid down in their actions.
        2. kuz363
          kuz363 7 January 2017 18: 36
          +7
          Well, now everyone is only hoping for foreign investment. Without them, supposedly a pipe.
        3. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 9 January 2017 23: 34
          +2
          "both urged to rely only on their own strength and not rely on someone else's uncle" ////

          Both CALLED, but both relied on allies.
          Alexander 3rd signed an alliance agreement with France - the future Entente.
          Stalin relied on the economic power of the United States - Lendliz.
          For all the difference between the two rulers (I respect Alexander the 3rd, but I don’t tolerate Stalin
          I can, although I admit that he was not a stupid person) - both understood the importance of unions.
          1. Gerard Roussillon
            Gerard Roussillon 10 January 2017 10: 56
            +2
            Alexander 3rd signed an alliance agreement with France - the future Entente.
            Stalin relied on the economic power of the United States - Lendliz.

            There was also a Russian-Prussian-Austrian alliance, so it was not bad with our allies under the kings.
            As for Land Lisa, he did not go right away. The main deliveries are the 43rd. We met the war without allies in general
          2. yehat
            yehat 21 July 2017 10: 42
            0
            let's not overestimate the power of lendlize
            he allowed to win the war with less casualties, but if the Germans were forced to keep 80 divisions in France, then no land-lease would be needed, and it so happened that 15-20 divisions guarded the allies, and 180 tried to destroy the USSR.
            here's the real price of lendliz. Do not forget that the economy of all of Europe really worked for Germany. In addition, lendlize was not free and financial conditions for supplies were tough.
        4. Jääkorppi
          Jääkorppi 11 January 2017 08: 29
          0
          Alexander III? Isn’t that the reign of which the entire Russian banking system and industry came under the control of French and English capital? Bad role model! It would be better to refer to Nicholas I.
          1. Gerard Roussillon
            Gerard Roussillon 12 January 2017 00: 00
            0
            Was the entire Russian banking system and industry under the control of French and English capital?

            This is how the global economy works. This is called raising loans. With this money, a railway to Siberia was built and the industrial development of this region began. One could not do this. And enjoy the beauties of nature
            Communists, for example, raised funds by squeezing juices from the people. Money for industrialization squeezed out of the peasants
      3. Stanislas
        Stanislas 8 January 2017 00: 51
        +7
        Quote: cap
        Looked to the future
        And connected it with the past: "Be worthy of the memory of our great ancestors." A real Russian communist.
      4. Rt-xnumx
        Rt-xnumx 8 January 2017 12: 59
        +4
        A strong Russia does not need the world ...
        I did what I could, I hope you do more and better.


        And where and when is Comrade Dzhugashvili spoke these words?
        Can I get a link to that from the collected works or the number of the party congress, plenum?
        It seems like a fiction of the Stalinists.
        1. JS20
          JS20 8 January 2017 16: 43
          +2
          Quote: Rt-12
          It seems like a fiction of the Stalinists.

          90% of quotes and other verbal garbage from Dzhugashvili, as it were, are fictions of the Stalinists. And the remaining 10%, this is his own lies.
          Low was a man. In every way. A big misfortune happened in the USSR in 1927, when he finally became stronger in power.
          But up to that moment the USSR developed along the path that was later called "Chinese" in the world. In Runet it is called "Trotskyism".
          By the way, in China, such a twist in the future is also not excluded. There, too, his own Dzhugashvili can still be organized.
          1. Gerard Roussillon
            Gerard Roussillon 8 January 2017 18: 18
            0
            [Quote] [/ quote]
          2. Jääkorppi
            Jääkorppi 11 January 2017 08: 33
            +2
            Do not show your illiteracy! Stalin's victory over the opposition is the adoption of the Stalin Constitution in 1936! And to you, with your views on the page of the "Dilettant" magazine!
            1. JS20
              JS20 11 January 2017 16: 48
              +1
              Quote: JääKorppi
              Do not show your ignorance!

              You follow. Write frank nonsense.
              Quote: JääKorppi
              Stalin's victory over the opposition is the adoption of the Stalin Constitution in 1936

              In particular, I wrote about this a little higher. The opposition was destroyed in the late 20s. Then in December 1927. at the XV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Dzhugashvili decided to "build socialism." Before that, the Bolsheviks seemed to be "building communism."
              And since December 1936. Dzhugashvili has already moved to the shooting of former like-minded people. Why, this is a separate conversation. But there were no oppositionists for a long time.
              Quote: JääKorppi
              And you, with your views on the page of the magazine "Dilettant"!

              It’s immediately obvious that you are his patron.
              1. Gerard Roussillon
                Gerard Roussillon 11 January 2017 23: 54
                0
                . But there were no oppositionists for a long time.

                Well, it depends on what is considered the opposition.
                1. JS20
                  JS20 11 January 2017 23: 57
                  0
                  Quote: Gerard Roussillon
                  Well, it depends on what is considered the opposition.

                  The real opposition, not the one that was invented in 1937-38.
          3. yehat
            yehat 21 July 2017 10: 46
            0
            you don’t understand what you’re talking about. This person could not create any economic policy, but he created a huge number of problems that the country is still raking. This explains the hatred that was put into the term "Trotskyist." If not for Trotsky, Hitler would not have thought of an attack on the USSR at all.
  2. 210ox
    210ox 7 January 2017 06: 40
    +11
    This speech completely destroys the myth of the aggressiveness of the USSR, the imposition of pro-Soviet regimes in Europe ..
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 7 January 2017 22: 03
      +4
      "Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia - all these famous cities and the population in their areas are in the Soviet sphere and all are subject in one form or another not only to Soviet influence, but also to a large extent increasing control Moscow "

      If Churchill were wrong all these cities today would be ... with us!
      1. Gerard Roussillon
        Gerard Roussillon 8 January 2017 12: 01
        +2
        If Churchill were wrong all these cities today would be ... with us!

        Churchill is right in many ways. However, many cite him taking phrases out of context. How does anyone benefit?
  3. knn54
    knn54 7 January 2017 06: 47
    +15
    In 1946, I.V. Stalin spoke of TODAY.
    -on exclusive control of the USSR in Vienna ...
    And who liberated Austria, whose soldiers and prisoners of war are lying in Austrian soil. "Kukuzrunik" withdrew our contingent in 1955, and a year later they received events in Hungary ..
    1. Monarchist
      Monarchist 7 January 2017 10: 08
      +10
      Quote: knn54
      In 1946, I.V. Stalin spoke of TODAY.
      -on exclusive control of the USSR in Vienna ...
      And who liberated Austria, whose soldiers and prisoners of war are lying in Austrian soil. "Kukuzrunik" withdrew our contingent in 1955, and a year later they received events in Hungary ..

      But the "corn" explained Stalin in a qualitative manner and appointed himself a "true Leninist." Yes, it is so high quality that daddy Zu is still chewing snot about the "healthy forces of the party" and other nonsense of the "cornman"
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. EvgNik
    EvgNik 7 January 2017 07: 09
    +14
    It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends are strikingly reminiscent of Hitler and his friends in this respect.

    Well, tell me, has something changed now?
    1. cap
      cap 7 January 2017 07: 39
      +5
      Quote: EvgNik
      It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends are strikingly reminiscent of Hitler and his friends in this respect.

      Well, tell me, has something changed now?


      Answer Eugene! Absolutely nothing. hi
      1. EvgNik
        EvgNik 7 January 2017 07: 52
        +5
        Quote: cap
        Absolutely nothing.

        hi Voooot! What am I talking about.
  6. Olgovich
    Olgovich 7 January 2017 07: 26
    +13
    The Germans invaded the USSR through Finland, Poland, Romania, Hungary. what could be surprising is that the Soviet Union, wishing to protect itself for the future, is trying to ensure that governments exist in these countries, loyal to the Soviet Union?


    The goal is true, but the way to get such governments — by refusing reparations and pumping huge resources from the USSR devastated by THESE countries — was wrong.

    Until today, these countries had to pay for the crimes that they had committed during the war.

    And so they forgave them all, of course, they all forgot, and today they are participating in sanctions against Russia with a righteous physique ....

    .
  7. moskowit
    moskowit 7 January 2017 09: 22
    +13
    "... It is possible that in some places these colossal sacrifices of the Soviet people, which ensured the liberation of Europe from the Nazi yoke, are inclined to be forgotten. But the Soviet Union cannot forget about them ..." (JV Stalin)

    And now the firm and uncompromising position of the Russian state is obliged to stop the orgy of desecration and destruction of monuments and memorials to the glorious Sons and Daughters of the Fatherland, who have laid down their heads in the fight against fascism !!!
    1. Duisenbay Bankankulov
      Duisenbay Bankankulov 7 January 2017 18: 36
      +3
      But alas !!! Now in Russia there is a war with the heroes of the Second World War, but who will stop them ???
      1. Gerard Roussillon
        Gerard Roussillon 8 January 2017 12: 05
        +4
        . Now in Russia there is a war with the heroes of the Second World War
        what are you talking about?
        Have you heard anything about the Immortal Regiment, for example?
        1. yehat
          yehat 21 July 2017 10: 55
          0
          adding a fetish does not cancel other processes
          for example, WWII veterans are still dynamically receiving housing.
  8. thinker
    thinker 7 January 2017 09: 40
    +3
    Quote: EvgNik
    Well, tell me, has something changed now?

    Now everything is the same, only it has become fashionable to say "our colleagues" or "Western partners."
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 7 January 2017 22: 06
      +2
      This is "not fashionable", this is the absence of an alternative - an alternative to nuclear war and total destruction. Do you want that? No! So we need to negotiate ...
      1. Alf
        Alf 7 January 2017 23: 11
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        So you have to agree ...

        But how to negotiate with those who change their shoes very quickly in a jump?
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 8 January 2017 08: 55
          +2
          So you need to change shoes even faster, that's all!
          1. Stanislas
            Stanislas 9 January 2017 16: 05
            +1
            Quote: kalibr
            you need to change shoes even faster, that's all!
            This is only at competitions where they change the speed of the felt boots for flippers, and in other cases it can do much harm.
            1. kalibr
              kalibr 10 January 2017 08: 10
              +1
              Not really. For each information message you need to give a quick and clear answer and distribute it as widely as possible. How can it do any harm?
              1. Stanislas
                Stanislas 10 January 2017 11: 36
                0
                Quote: kalibr
                For each information message you need to give a quick and clear answer and distribute it as widely as possible. How can it do any harm?
                I have a different version. "Overfitting" (as a violation of the contract) is not an "informational message", sometimes it is done secretly. In any case, I believe that our Foreign Ministry operates in this way, any agreement with these partners can be concluded by them only so that we comply with it, and they could violate at any time they need, either explicitly or secretly. They do not immediately give a message that they changed their shoes, but they are also waiting for the moment. Here the speed of informational responses to their "changing shoes" has a purely technical meaning: you need to give an answer when you need it, and not as quickly as possible, so that local trolls do not shout that whoever wants to wipe their feet about us.
  9. parusnik
    parusnik 7 January 2017 09: 46
    +7
    Nothing in the world changes ... Europe and the United States want to live without Russia ... or that Russia would be on the parcels ... Napoleonic wars ... were in the interests of England ... Russia was attracted ... the Crimean War, France and England understood that if Turkey is defeated by Russia, she will get a huge inheritance .. To stand on the side of Russia means to share .. I didn't want to, "don't get it to anyone else" ... Europe was outraged by the atrocities of the Turks, when the Bulgarian uprising was suppressed .. But it did not intervene .. Russia intervened ... liberated Bulgaria, broke Turkey ... like jackals, the whole of Europe pounced on the fruits of Russian victories ... the Berlin Congress ... And this can go on for a long time ... Europe and the United States do not need us as an equal partner, they do not need us ..
  10. igordok
    igordok 7 January 2017 10: 08
    +19
    Somewhat off topic.
    1. Stanislas
      Stanislas 8 January 2017 09: 04
      +4
      Quote: igordok
      Somewhat off topic
      Still in the subject. I looked through Soviet newspapers for the 20s and 40s, looking not at all about the cult, but I was very surprised that the so-called "personality cult" phoned dear Leonid Ilyich in the newspapers of the 70s and 80s. much stronger than Stalin in his time. For a long time we were given the most sycophantic, not to say even worse, quotes of that time, of which under any ruler you can easily collect 3 sacks - platters were never translated under the power.
      1. Gerard Roussillon
        Gerard Roussillon 8 January 2017 12: 14
        +2
        ... "personality cult" phoned dear Leonid Ilyich in the newspapers of the 70-80s. much stronger than Stalin in his time
        Download a selection of Youth Techniques. In the issues for the 40th year, for example, one issue is devoted exclusively to Stalin, while others, according to Stalin and his comrades-in-arms, always have materials in the issue, and there are more such propaganda articles in the Spark.
        1. Stanislas
          Stanislas 8 January 2017 13: 03
          0
          Quote: Gerard Roussillon
          download a selection of Youth Techniques
          I looked at the local periodicals. Much still depends on the editor here. We need a systemic comparative analysis: the cult of Lenin (who started, for what purpose), the cult of Stalin, the cult of the "collective mind of the party" (Politburo). Doctoral (three candidate))).
          1. Stanislas
            Stanislas 8 January 2017 13: 27
            +1
            Quote: Stanislav
            Doctoral (three Ph.D.)
            (as an advertisement) The offer is still valid.
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 11 January 2017 12: 46
      0
      I should have looked at other newspapers. "Litgazeta" had a special status, its employees were allowed to confront within certain limits. Simonov wrote about this well in his memoirs.
  11. midshipman
    midshipman 7 January 2017 10: 26
    +19
    Well, that critics I.V. Stalin, they realized what a wise leader was. Before the Second World War, we had a radio in the family. But his mother said that he had to surrender when the Second World War came. We lived on Nevsky Prospect. After WWII, my mother bought a reproducer, such a black plate. Often listened to I.V. Stalin. Father died on the Leningrad Front and we could not afford more. I keep the certificate of honor issued to me after the end of the 7th grade with a portrait of Stalin. I was an excellent student, so without exams I entered the secondary military technical school. At the age of 18, a lieutenant, then further studies (three universities), doctor of sciences, academician, chief designer of many military and technical schools, prepared more than 100 doctors and candidates of sciences. Supervised 6 GU MCI USSR. Sachs Scientific secretary of one of the research institutes and the head of the department at the University. That's what kind of leader our country needs, and not bulk, cassian. I have the honor.
    1. veteran66
      veteran66 7 January 2017 11: 01
      +5
      Quote: midshipman
      I was an excellent student, so without exams I entered the secondary military technical school. At the age of 18, a lieutenant, then further studies (three universities), doctor of sciences, academician, chief designer of many military and technical schools, prepared more than 100 doctors and candidates of sciences. Supervised 6 GU MCI USSR. Sachs Scientific secretary of one of the research institutes and the head of the department at the University. That's what kind of leader our country needs, and not bulk, cassian.

      Congratulations, a worthy life! But what does Stalin have to do with it? Do you think a letter with a portrait of the leader helped you, or is it you as a self-PR, so, by the way, had to?
    2. Kostya Andreev
      Kostya Andreev 7 January 2017 12: 14
      +5
      Quote: midshipman
      That's what kind of leader our country needs, and not bulk, cassian. I have the honor.

      I read your post after listing your achievements and merits, should these last words be considered as your application for the post of president of the Russian Federation?
      1. midshipman
        midshipman 7 January 2017 12: 30
        +17
        Dear, Kostya Andreev, of course not. I have done my life for the country. We need a leader who can raise industry, eliminate poverty, and ensure the country's defense. I have the honor.
        1. porv50
          porv50 7 January 2017 16: 09
          +3
          I agree, but not quite: such a leader is needed by the whole world, then it will not be necessary to ensure defense capability - what gigantic forces will be released!
          You have the honor.
        2. Stanislas
          Stanislas 8 January 2017 14: 07
          +1
          Quote: midshipman
          Need a leader who could raise the industry
          I will allow myself a small but important clarification: we need a leader in which the people can raise industry, etc.
    3. Stanislas
      Stanislas 8 January 2017 09: 45
      +2
      Quote: midshipman
      three universities), doctor of sciences, academician
      For the chief designer - it’s normal, but for the head of state - it’s too much, it seems to me. An incomplete seminary was enough for Stalin, he got the rest. Of the academicians, nmv, among the representatives of the exact, natural, and technical sciences, there are an order of magnitude more worthy than among the humanities and social scientists. But, unfortunately, it is precisely the knowledge of the person and society that the ruler needs first of all, and this is closer to the seminary and the KGB High School)). Sorry, but here is a different profile smile
      1. Gerard Roussillon
        Gerard Roussillon 8 January 2017 12: 21
        +4
        . An incomplete seminary was enough for Stalin, he got the rest.
        Enough to meet the 41st with Hitler near Moscow. He could have stopped in the Urals if the Japanese had helped the Germans. The Stalinist People’s Commissar is usually a speaker who speaks the right words with two classes of education. Stalin did not tolerate bright personalities near himself
        1. Stanislas
          Stanislas 8 January 2017 14: 19
          +4
          Quote: Gerard Roussillon
          to meet the 41st with Hitler near Moscow
          An extremely educated, say, Yavlinsky, (you won’t remember the candidates at that time and were dispersed before that), you probably would have heard the news of Hitler’s approach to Moscow somewhere in London, and if you had stayed in Moscow, you would have met Hitler at long distances with bread and salt in a suit of the Snow Maiden.
          1. Gerard Roussillon
            Gerard Roussillon 8 January 2017 16: 40
            +1
            . Extremely educated, say Yavlinsky,
            Well, Yavlinsky
            Take Zyuganov, he is closer. Or Limonov
            1. Stanislas
              Stanislas 8 January 2017 17: 11
              +1
              Quote: Gerard Roussillon
              Yavlinsky then what does
              Dispersed, I say the same. The techies were not touched, if he did not persecute an obvious counter, but ideologically unreliable humanitarians and social scientists at the root, so that the policy of the world revolt would not be extinguished. Philosophical steamer in 22, count the last and took out, some of the remaining were then finished off. Replaced these sciences with historical materials. And everything had to start almost from scratch within a rigid ideological framework. There were no educated politicians. There are not very many performers who have been entrusted with important posts, but there were enough. They are suitable for secondary roles, since they have a specific business in the foreground, they can work well only "under the roof". And politics is art.
              1. Stanislas
                Stanislas 8 January 2017 18: 06
                +2
                Quote: Stanislav
                Take Zyuganov
                Thanks, I already took it, he missed his chance. And where did he fight for, whom did he lead? Do you have victories? He is probably a good apprentice, but that's different.
              2. Gerard Roussillon
                Gerard Roussillon 8 January 2017 21: 07
                +2
                Quote: Stanislav
                Quote: Gerard Roussillon
                Yavlinsky then what does
                They dispersed, I say. Techies did not touch
                Well, Tupolev, Korolev and thousands of other working in sharashki .... Shot Langemak ...
                1. Stanislas
                  Stanislas 9 January 2017 01: 04
                  +2
                  Quote: Gerard Roussillon
                  Well, Tupolev, Korolev and thousands of other working in sharashka
                  They were used, they created scientific, design, engineering schools. And those were kicked out of the country, shot or used at a sawmill. Do you catch the difference? To manage a project for the development of society, you need to develop it. This requires specialist social scientists, cultural experts, etc., and not the proletarians who have not believed in Marx. The isthmate of new social scientists did not produce enough for the appearance of scientific schools, because oranges would not be born from aspen. But Marx's theory led the wrong way in the end, due to an incorrect interpretation of man. Do you feel where I'm driving? You will not design a plane with opera soloists? And then society ...
                  1. Gerard Roussillon
                    Gerard Roussillon 9 January 2017 08: 36
                    +2
                    But Marx's theory led the wrong way in the end, due to an incorrect interpretation of man.
                    What kind of theory is this that no one can understand. Not one of the options for putting it into practice has worked.
                    They were used, they created scientific, design, engineering schools.

                    Many even abroad. Sikorsky, Cartwelli, Seversky, Zvenyagin ....
                    You will not begin to design a plane with the soloists of the opera ?.

                    Me not. They are yes. Each cook must be able to manage the state.
                    This was a general approach. Yesterday you are in charge of a small business - today a fishing state farm, today - an editor, tomorrow - a director of a factory. Hence the lack of professionalism. Failures in the economy, adventurism in decision making
                    1. Stanislas
                      Stanislas 9 January 2017 15: 06
                      +1
                      Quote: Gerard Roussillon
                      What kind of theory is this
                      Theory that changed the world. But theory is not a dogma. If it is removed from criticism, then it ceases to be a scientific theory, but becomes a dogmatic ideology on which the pseudo-communists have baksheesh. Still! Think about the power of theory. Stalin was the last to criticize her, if my memory serves me right.
                      1. Gerard Roussillon
                        Gerard Roussillon 10 January 2017 11: 02
                        0
                        Stalin was the last to criticize her, if my memory serves me right.

                        Communist practice excludes criticism of idols and apologists. Stalin could not criticize Marx or Lenin, he could only follow their teachings.
                  2. Gerard Roussillon
                    Gerard Roussillon 9 January 2017 08: 38
                    +1
                    There were no educated politicians

                    And there was no politics. All politics came down to repression
                    1. Stanislas
                      Stanislas 9 January 2017 15: 36
                      +2
                      Quote: Gerard Roussillon
                      And there was no politics. All politics came down to repression
                      The repressions were, are and will be, and the policy is to whom they are directed and with what force.
                      1. Gerard Roussillon
                        Gerard Roussillon 9 January 2017 17: 34
                        +2
                        Repressions were, are and will be, and ...

                        Only repression should be justified. Tupolev, for example, was accused of membership of the Russian fascist party and cooperation with French intelligence.
                        Now it sounds like something wild.
            2. yehat
              yehat 21 July 2017 10: 57
              0
              You don’t have to confuse Yavlinsky with Limonov.
              Lemonov is a fanatic with his own convictions, and Yavlinsky is a carbalet.
  12. Monarchist
    Monarchist 7 January 2017 10: 28
    +7
    Comrades, you can moo at me, etc., but the communists have been translated for a long time: the Union was gone and in a moment the countries of the social commonwealth sent Leninism into a forest, Khrushch claimed that he was a real communist, Mishka was "tagged"
    Avchuk, Borya "red nose", Voronin, Gaidar (grandson) daddy Kondrat and other GENERALS.
    As a child, I had a front-line neighbor and shouted like a drink: "Give me a machine gun, I will shoot the current communists, etc." Now I am convinced that he is right
    1. veteran66
      veteran66 7 January 2017 11: 03
      +8
      Quote: Monarchist
      As a child, I had a front-line neighbor and shouted like a drink: "Give me a machine gun, I'll shoot the current communists, etc."

      do you have a mistake?
      Quote: Monarchist
      i shoot

      or from which side of the front did he fight?
    2. parusnik
      parusnik 7 January 2017 14: 28
      +5
      "Rebirth" is a natural process of all revolutions, popular uprisings ... The revolutionary generals of France, many ... accepted the emperor, but became kings, many of them were princes from the common people ... Sovanorolla opposed luxury, but went to the extreme ended badly, Taipins pounded pearls in stupas, wished universal equality and prosperity, but understood in their own way, by the way, the history of the Taiping uprising and the state is somewhat similar to the history of the USSR ... And then the whole New Testament is saturated with the communist spirit: "The haves should have as the have-nots, and those who buy as not acquiring, and using this world as not using "; “Do not lay up for yourself treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal.” “You cannot serve God and wealth” ... well, etc. What they did with it .. they got rid of it .. they made a cult out of a man .. But his ideas were not promoted in life .."give me a machine gun, I'll shoot the current communists, etc."..And were there those whom your neighbor wanted to shoot communists on ideas? On a membership card, I think yes, on an internal conviction no .. Christianity with its progressive ideas has existed for more than 1000 years and what has become better in the world ..? The rich have become poorer and the poor have become richer? Isn't justice gone? Stopped serving wealth? There is too much communism in Christianity, but it did not become the spiritual foundation of capitalism. It is a pity that the communists at one time in Christ did not make out their comrade-in-arms .. the opposition wrote down, but in vain ..
      1. porv50
        porv50 7 January 2017 16: 29
        +2
        I think that the Communists did the right thing: they adopted humane ideas, but rejected the main thing that those ideas drastically dropped - non-resistance to evil by violence.
      2. Stanislas
        Stanislas 8 January 2017 10: 00
        +2
        Quote: parusnik
        It is a pity that the Communists at one time in Christ did not discern their comrade-in-arms .. the opposition wrote down, but in vain ..
        The stone, which the builders rejected, became the head of the corner (NZ). The Communists understood that it is better to bow to God than to bend in front of people. But Stalin immediately grasped it, he did not bow to the strong, and they figured out a relationship with God, I suppose.
  13. Grandadmiral
    Grandadmiral 7 January 2017 10: 56
    +1
    Imagine: here we once turn on the TV box, take a look at the news, and there ...
  14. The comment was deleted.
    1. porv50
      porv50 7 January 2017 16: 34
      +2
      It's so early to think
      But this must be imagined.
      1. ZNGRU
        ZNGRU 7 January 2017 16: 59
        +5
        You are right.
        It is very necessary to understand the need for such changes. Well, political will is needed.

        As they say....
  15. Odysseus
    Odysseus 7 January 2017 11: 43
    +12
    Still, you can’t say better than Comrade Stalin ...
    He possessed amazing art — he simply and intelligibly explained the most complex things, while at the same time saying everything by his own names.
    A rare gift even for very smart people. All subsequent Soviet leaders, unfortunately, were completely deprived of this.
    1. kuz363
      kuz363 7 January 2017 18: 42
      +7
      When he studied at the institute under the USSR, a philosophy teacher told us that Stalin sometimes processed Lenin's articles for a simpler understanding by the people. And surprisingly - he did it very intelligibly. without great abstraction of Leninist expressions
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 7 January 2017 21: 45
        +2
        Quote: kuz363
        . And surprisingly - he did it very intelligibly. without great abstraction of Leninist expressions

        Lenin cannot be belittled in any way. He simply had several different tasks before him. He is the one who comprehended and put into practice the world's first socialist revolution.
        Accordingly, for the time being, he simply did not have the task of the widest popularization of his ideas before the yet illiterate mass of the peasantry.
        As soon as this task arose, he managed to change the style and character of his work.
        To be able to explain simply without losing their semantic content is a great art. Both Lenin and Stalin owned it.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. Old26
    Old26 7 January 2017 13: 23
    +9
    Quote: 210ox
    This speech completely destroys the myth of the aggressiveness of the USSR, the imposition of pro-Soviet regimes in Europe ..

    I completely agree with the first part of your phrase. The myth of the aggressiveness of the USSR has always been only a myth. The USSR has always only responded to aggression.
    That's about the imposition of pro-Soviet regimes in Europe .... And what would you like to hear from the leader of a country like the USSR? What are we planting? Stupid. Of course, planted. And they would be the last fools if they did not. But no leader will ever say such things in an interview.
    1. Igor V
      Igor V 7 January 2017 13: 57
      +5
      To learn how they planted read S.Shtemenko "General Staff during the war" 2nd part. There it is clearly shown that they collaborated with all movements and parties, if only they were against Hitler. A batch of small shopkeepers, a batch of agricultural producers, and so on. And then all of them took place in governments. Who is to blame that the parties that were pleasing to the West during the war were incapacitated.
  18. Hapfri
    Hapfri 7 January 2017 14: 39
    +3
    Mr. Churchill begins the war unleashing also with racial theory, arguing that only nations that speak English are full-fledged nations,
    Did Churchill say that? England was bled of war, what kind of unleashing is it? Who would let the Churchill fight.? This is not the USSR where one single great leader decided everything
    Mr. Churchill is unhappy that Poland has made a turn in its policy towards friendship and an alliance with the USSR.

    Does anyone believe that the Poles made friends with us of their own free will? Are there still such boobies?
    . Hitler began the war unleashing by proclaiming racial theory,
    Stalin did not object to the war, proclaiming class theory ... how much was said about the victory with little blood on foreign territory.
    Churchill argues further that "the communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern European states, have achieved exceptional strength far outnumbering them and are seeking to establish totalitarian control everywhere, police governments prevail in almost all these countries and to date with the exception of Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy in them. "

    What, are there any doubts about the truth of Mr. Churchill’s statements now? Perhaps there were millions of communists in Eastern Europe? Where did they come from. They, these parties, were created by the NKVD from careerists and their agents, as well as the totalitarian governments of these countries. With the most severe suppression of all dissent.
    The influence of the Communists grew because in the difficult years of the reign of fascism in Europe, the Communists turned out to be reliable, courageous, selfless fighters against the fascist regime

    There were no communists at all. Stalin urged them to return to the territory of the Reich at the beginning of the war and start a workers' uprising, after which the Gestapo interrupted them all. The Gestapo knew her job tightly
    So the influence of the Communists in Europe grew. This is the law of historical development.
    Now these are dwarf parties. You can’t argue against the law
    . The influence of the communist parties grew not only in Eastern Europe, but in almost all European countries where fascism used to dominate (Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland) or where there was a German, Italian or Hungarian occupation (France, Belgium, Holland, Norway , Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, the Soviet Union, etc.).

    In some countries there were Soviet contingents, in others - numerous agents, in these states either anti-communist uprisings subsequently took place or bourgeois governments immediately came to power
    . In Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary, a block of several parties is managing - from four to six parties,

    Complete nonsense. You can allow 50 parties to power, provided that they are all communist. GB there are rules.
    1. Igor V
      Igor V 7 January 2017 15: 19
      +12
      Hapfrey's complete nonsense. You always get something flat and one-dimensional. This does not happen in life, so your opus is not viable. It would have to be somehow more convincing.
    2. parusnik
      parusnik 7 January 2017 16: 55
      +18
      Hapfri
      England was bled of war, what kind of unleashing is it? Who would let the Churchill fight.?
      ... According to W. Churchill, the armed forces of Great Britain during the Second World War lost 303 people killed and missing, and together with the dominions, India and the colonies - 240 people. And the total losses of Great Britain in World War II amounted to 412 240 people. And the territory of Great Britain was occupied by Germany, most of it .. the NATO bloc was created in 450. four years after the war .. Against the USSR .... The Warsaw Pact was created in 000 and two years after the death of Stalin .. .
      Does anyone believe that the Poles made friends with us of their own free will? Are there still such boobies?
      ...Oh yeah! The GB forced ... Even so ... And why on the USSR’s border is a state with a pro-Western orientation .. By the way, after the collapse of the USSR, the Poles were the first to accept NATO .. ​​There would still be a huge Russian threat to Poland from the territory ... of the Kaliningrad region .. And now Poles talk about the Russian threat, kiss and don’t climb into friends ... That is, do you think that Russia will attack Poland, the Baltic states today or tomorrow ..?
      Stalin did not object to the war, proclaiming class theory ... how much was said about the victory with little blood on foreign territory
      .
      ..Do not make excuses for Churchill and Hitler, the same anti-communist berry field ... And do not distort Stalin .. "If tomorrow is war, if the enemy attacks" ... The strategy is simple, the enemy attacks, it is crushed in border battles, and then with little blood and on foreign territory .. and there was no secret .. they shot films about it, wrote books ..
      What, are there any doubts about the truth of Mr. Churchill’s statements now? Perhaps there were millions of communists in Eastern Europe? Where did they come from. They, these parties, were created by the NKVD from careerists and their agents, as well as the totalitarian governments of these countries. With the most severe suppression of all dissent.

      I have doubts. The IPC was formed as a result of the split of the left wing from the Italian Socialist Party (ISP) at the congress in Livorno on January 21, 1921 and was called the Communist Party of Italy. The birthday of the French Communist Party is considered December 29, 1920, when it gathered in the city of Tours XVIII congress of the SFIO, at which the vast majority (3/4) of delegates voted to join the Comintern. The prominent majority became known as the French section of the Communist International, and in 1921 it took the name of the Communist Party of France. Among them were not only figures representing the left, internationalist wing of the party Paul Vayan-Couturier, Boris Suvarin, Henri Gilbo, Fernand Lorio, but also Marcel Cachen and General Secretary of the Siberian Federal District Louis Froissard, who recently defended social-chauvinist positions, but changed their minds after visiting Soviet Russia. Louis Froissart apparently recruited the OGPU. The Communist Workers Party of Poland was founded on December 16, 1918 as a result of the unification of the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania SDKPiL - founded in July 1893 and the Polish Socialist Party - the left-leaning It was founded in Vienna in 1906. Here the tsar’s gendarmes probably tried .. There was no Cheka yet. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia was created on May 14-16, 1921 at the constituent congress in Prague as the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Party (left) as a result of the unification of Czech and Hungarian , Slovak and Transcarpathian-Ukrainian (International Socialist Party of Subcarpathian Rus and "M arxist left of Slovakia and Transcarpathian Ukraine ”) of communist groups and organizations. The organizational base of the newly created party was the left majority of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Party. At the Unity Congress held on October 30 - November 4, 1921, the party included the German and Polish communist organizations operating in Czechoslovakia, and the party’s charter was also adopted. Soon, several small left-wing socialist parties joined its composition, for example, the Independent Socialist Workers Party, founded by former anarchists expelled from the Czechoslovak Socialist Party ... Do not continue to google further .. and robbery ..
      There were no communists at all. Stalin urged them to return to the territory of the Reich at the beginning of the war and start a workers' uprising, after which the Gestapo interrupted them all. The Gestapo knew her job tightly
      ... I will not write much simple examples .. In December 1940, in the north of France, in the German occupation zone, Communist partisans blew up a power plant and derailed the German echelon. In 1934, the IKP entered into a unity pact with COI. Many Italian communists participated in the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939. The Communist Party with the Socialists and Christian Democrats was the organizer of the Italian Resistance Movement, and their partisan detachments, the Garibald brigades, played a key role in the armed struggle against the Nazis, including in the April Uprising of 1945. In 1944, the party left the underground in the liberated territories and soon became the largest political party in the country over the year, the number of its members increased from 500 thousand to 1,7 million people and during 1947-1948. participated in the formation of the government. In the 1948 parliamentary election, the IKP teamed up with the COI in the People's Democratic Front. Over the next years, the party received significant electoral success, supporting the center-left governments at different times, although it was never part of the government.
      Now these are dwarf parties. You can’t argue against the law
      ..It’s not arguing against treason, the Soviet revisionists-N.S. Khrushchev, M.S. Gorbachev ..
      In some countries there were Soviet contingents, in others there were numerous agents, in these states subsequently
      either anti-communist uprisings took place or bourgeois governments immediately came to power
      ..A popular uprising in Greece 1946-1949 led by the Communists who helped to suppress? .. Is not the British troops ..? And by the way, American troops are still in Europe .. Probably for the sake of peace on Earth.
      Complete nonsense. You can allow 50 parties to power, provided that they are all communist. GB there are rules.... By 1950, Poland had a three-party system, in which, in addition to the PUWP (communists and socialists), the United Peasants' Party also acted - it represented the interests of the individual peasantry and the Social Democratic Party - represented the interests of the intelligentsia ... The Romanian Communist Party was formed in 1948 by the unification of the Communist Party of Romania and the Social Democratic Party of Romania, there were the National Peasants' Party representing the interests of large landowners and the National Liberal Party, the party of the big and middle bourgeoisie, until 1950 November 11, 1945, the Popular Front of Yugoslavia won the elections in Yugoslavia, in which In addition to the communists, the following parties were included: Women's Anti-Fascist Front, Agrarian Party, United Syndicate of Workers and Vicars, Yugoslav Republican Democratic Party, People's Peasant Party, Independent Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party of Yugoslavia, Socialist Party of Yugoslavia, United The First Union of Anti-Fascist Youth of Yugoslavia, Croatian Peasant Party. On May 19, 1949, the National Independence Front won the elections in Hungary, which included the following parties - the Hungarian Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Party of Small Farmers, the Civil Democratic Party, the Bourgeois Democratic party.By the way, in some "democratic" countries, there is still a two-party system .. And the rest of the parties are simply not allowed to the elections and direct elections are not everywhere .. The same GB rules ..
      1. veteran66
        veteran66 8 January 2017 12: 12
        +2
        Quote: parusnik
        There is no arguing against betrayal, Soviet revisionists-N.S. Khrushchev, M.S. Gorbachev ..

        Strange, the parties are Italian and French, and they were driven up because of betrayal by their leaders of the USSR. Where is the connection? If they are so popular, what does the USSR have to do with it? That is, the USSR was, they fed and bred, and the USSR collapsed and that’s all? Why didn’t their people support it? were they not needed?
      2. Hapfri
        Hapfri 8 January 2017 15: 15
        +2
        and the total losses of Great Britain in World War II amounted to 450 people.
        Yes, human losses were small, but material ones were huge, the treasury was empty, and war required money. In England, for a long time there was a card system.
        .And the territory of Great Britain was occupied by Germany, most of it.

        Really?
        ..Even if so..And why on the USSR border is a state with a pro-Western orientation ..

        I just pointed out the apparent inconsistencies of some parts of the text with the real state of things.
        .. The strategy is simple, the enemy attacks, it is smashed in border battles, and then with little blood and on foreign territory ..

        Strategies, as further developments showed, were fundamentally wrong
        .The birthday of the French Communist Party is considered December 29, 1920, ....
        The IKP was formed as a result of the split of the left wing from the Italian Socialist Party (ISP) at the congress in Livorno on January 21, 1921 ... The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia was created on May 14-16, 1921 at the constituent congress in Prague ....
        The Comintern created its cells around the world. VKP was just a part of a huge network. There were schools and all kinds of training courses for underground workers around the world. Actually what is the contradiction to what I said? That these parties existed and were created before the war? Yes, there were, existed on Soviet money. Nowhere but Germany did they use influence. But in Germany, and then in the controlled territories, Hitler simply destroyed the Communists. They were almost gone by the 45th.
        ..In December 1940, in the north of France, in the German occupation zone, Communist partisans blew up a power station and derailed the German train.

        In December, there was simply no way for this to happen. For the Communist Party of France was subordinate to the Comintern, the Executive Committee of the Comintern was in Moscow, and Moscow and Berlin had a Pact. The explosives, of course, was English, like all the guerrillas of Western Europe, originally from Intelligence Services.
        During the year, the number of its members increased from 500 thousand to 1,7 million people and during 1947-1948. participated in the formation of the government.

        They took part, only they did not carry out any radical transformations, either in France, or in Italy, or in Greece.
        , Soviet revisionists-N.S. Khrushchev, M.S. Gorbachev ..

        What are you calling them so. They were communists. Moreover. Enjoyed unquestioned authority in the party
        ... By 1950, Poland had a three-party system in which, in addition to the PUWP (communists and socialists), the United Peasant Party — representing the interests of the sole peasantry and the Social Democratic Party — represented the interests of the intelligentsia ..

        Really anti-Soviet demonstrations, rallies, processions were held ... no?
        Here, in Russia, we have trade unions. I never heard that they said something across the central government. But called beautifully.
        The Romanian Communist Party was formed in 1948 by combining the Communist Party of Romania and the Social Democratic Party of Romania, there were a National Peasant Party representing the interests of large landowners and a National Liberal Party-party of the large and middle bourgeoisie, until 1950.

        That is, Romania is a beacon of democracy. It was not then that they trampled upon their king, having taken away the Order of Victory from him? Interestingly, did they have an independent press?
        In the elections in Hungary, the National Independence Front won, which included the following parties - the Hungarian Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Small Rural Party, the Civil Democratic Party, and the Bourgeois Democratic Party.

        What a set of beautiful titles. So what? Were there free elections? Or the "bourgeois", as usual, were put up against the wall.
        By the way, in some "democratic" countries, there is still a two-party system .. And the rest of the parties are simply not allowed to elections and direct elections are not everywhere .. The same GB rules ..

        Yes here. In one such country, a progressive Negro-Democrat ceded the presidency to a white conservative without shooting, political killings of riots and coups, and there are just 2 parties. And imagine everyone says that there our GB contributed
      3. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 8 January 2017 15: 45
        +3
        "... Don't make excuses for Churchill and Hitler, the same anti-communist berry field" ///

        Uh ... you distort. Anti-Communists (British and Americans)
        also fought with the Nazis, like the Communists. The Nazis proved to be a mortal threat to both the Communists and the anti-communists.
        But Churchill, we note, did not conclude agreements with Hitler, and despised the "peacemaker" Chamberlain, just like the "butcher" Hitler. And Hitler was publicly insulted in official speeches when England was left to fight the Nazis one-on-one in 1940.
        1. Evver
          8 January 2017 18: 35
          0
          But Churchill, we note, did not conclude agreements with Hitler, and despised the "peacemaker" Chamberlain, just like the "butcher" Hitler. And Hitler was publicly insulted in official speeches when England was left to fight the Nazis one-on-one in 1940.

          For this, Churchill can and should be respected, of course!
          About one-on-one ... well, yes, it was so-called. Battle of Britain (in the air).
          And for a ground invasion of England, Hitler needed to cross the English Channel.
          Carrying out such a global landing, of course, required the involvement of considerable funds, both financial / material and human ...
          Why didn't Hitler do this? After all, almost all of Europe was under it, and, apart from Great Britain, there were no serious opponents ... Military considerations, political motives?
          But on the USSR a year later, Aloizych flooded so that little seemed to anyone ...
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 8 January 2017 19: 20
            +3
            Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses in the "Battle of England", fleet (surface)
            was locked in the North Sea by English. In such conditions, the landing is doomed
            to fail.
            And the ground forces (including the Panzervaffe) were at the peak of strength and energy.
            And where else to move them? - to the East...
          2. veteran66
            veteran66 9 January 2017 15: 31
            +1
            Quote: Ever
            Why did Hitler not do this?

            because there was
            Quote: Ever
            Battle of Britain (in the air).

            and the Battle of the Atlantic, Aloysych’s teeth were broken, so he popped to the east.
  19. den-protector
    den-protector 7 January 2017 15: 33
    +9
    Golden words, nothing to add. But Churchill is an obvious enemy and a temporary ally. And how many hidden enemies we have in our country, working for "partners" and being agents of their influence. Since 1953, and especially since 1991, tons of mud have been spilled on this man. But to this day we live largely due to the industrial and cultural heritage created under him, and not in spite of it, as all opportunists like Mikhalkov, Svanidze, Solzhenitsyn, Radzinsky and other former communists and Komsomol members, and now critics, assert directly or indirectly Soviet totalitarian regime.
  20. Vitalson
    Vitalson 7 January 2017 17: 49
    +4
    the drunk and the walking snuffbox this churchill. Eternally, these islanders built us tricks. Sometimes it even pity that Spain did not conquer them at one time.
    1. Gerard Roussillon
      Gerard Roussillon 8 January 2017 18: 26
      0
      . . Sometimes it even pity that Spain did not conquer them at one time.

      would refuse Lend Lisa and all things
  21. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 7 January 2017 19: 12
    +2
    Not in the eyebrow, but in the eye!
  22. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 7 January 2017 19: 27
    +5
    STALIN - ETERNAL GLORY!
  23. Spnsr
    Spnsr 7 January 2017 21: 53
    +1
    the story is marking time!
    no matter what lessons life presents, but history repeats itself!
  24. alatanas
    alatanas 7 January 2017 23: 04
    +6
    Stalin was a worthy leader of the state of the USSR in those days and answered as it should. What do you dislike about his answer?
  25. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 8 January 2017 12: 14
    +3
    Complete technical speech by W. Churchill
    Winston Churchill, Fulton, Missouri, March 5, 1946
    http://www.losal.org/cms/lib7/CA01000497/Centrici
    ty / Domain / 340 / Churchills_Iron_Curtain_Speech _-_ Fu
    ll_Text.pdf

    The newspaper Pravda did not cite the text of Churchill's speech, but only Stalin's answer.
    Meanwhile, Churchill spoke warmly about Russia and Stalin in this speech:

    I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant
    Russian people and for my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin.
    There is deep sympathy and goodwill in Britain - and I doubt not
    here also - towards the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to
    persevere through many differences and rebuffs in establishing
    lasting friendship. We understand the Russian need to be secure
    on her western frontiers by the removal of all possibility of German
    aggression. We welcome Russia to her rightful place among the
    leading nations of the world. We welcome her flag upon the seas.
    1. Evver
      8 January 2017 13: 58
      +2
      Let's, then - in Russian:
      http://www.coldwar.ru/churchill/fulton.php

      Well, and the fragment that you gave:

      On the picture of the world, so recently illuminated by the victory of the Allies, the shadow fell. No one knows what Soviet Russia and its international communist organization intend to do in the near future and what the limits, if any, are to their expansionist and converting tendencies. I deeply admire and honor the valiant Russian people and my wartime comrade Marshal Stalin. In England - I have no doubt that here, too, - they have deep sympathy and goodwill to all the peoples of Russia and the determination to overcome numerous disagreements and breakdowns in the name of establishing lasting friendship. We understand that Russia needs to ensure the security of its western borders against the possible resumption of German aggression. We are glad to see it in its rightful place among the leading world powers. We welcome her flag on the seas. And above all, we welcome the constant, frequent and growing ties between the Russian and our peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. However, I consider it my duty to present you some facts - I am sure that you want me to tell you the facts as they are presented to me - about the current situation in Europe.
      1. veteran66
        veteran66 9 January 2017 16: 45
        +1
        Quote: Ever
        No one knows what Soviet Russia and its international communist organization intend to do in the near future and what are the limits, if any, of their expansionist and reversal tendencies.

        So what's wrong? In all countries that moved to the Soviet zone of influence, political regimes changed, and then their territory of influence expanded (North-South Korea, North-South Vietnam, Africa) Churchill was right. In the zone of occupation of the USA and Great Britain, monarchies remained monarchies, republics - republics. Or isn’t it?
  26. Oilpartizan
    Oilpartizan 8 January 2017 14: 08
    +2
    ".. The Germans invaded the USSR through Finland, Poland, Romania, Hungary. The Germans could invade through these countries because in these countries then there were governments hostile to the Soviet Union..."

    This is the most striking passage in this interview, designed to justify the Stalinist policy of enslaving Europe on the bones of the Germans and their own people.
    The state of Poland did not exist by 1941, and only the one in Berlin, which together with the Kremlin divided Poland into exactly half the USSR, could be called a hostile government.
    On July 23, 1941, "Stalin's falcons" bombed Finnish cities, and the Red Army carried out a full-scale invasion of Finland (for the third time since 1939), and not vice versa. The Finns really "gave in the teeth" to the Reds and returned all their lands, conquered by the USSR in 1939 and 1940, but they did not go beyond the "old" border and remained neutral throughout the war. If the Kremlin had a collective governing body of the country, and not the inflamed brain of a mustachioed maniac, Finland would be, if not an ally against Germany, then at least the savior of Leningrad from starvation of its inhabitants.
    Before the war, the USSR "squeezed" Bessarabia and Bukovina from Romania, creating on the "new border" the largest pre-war KVO, including with mountain - rifle units. Not otherwise in order to continue the "spin".
    About Hungary, which neither by 1939 nor by 1941 a common border with the USSR did not have a common border at all "interesting girls are dancing."
    1. Evver
      8 January 2017 16: 06
      +1
      About Hungary, which neither by 1939 nor by 1941 a common border with the USSR did not have a common border at all "interesting girls are dancing."

      You forget that as a result of the partition of Czechoslovakia (its actual liquidation) by conspiracy with the Germans, the Hungarians chopped off a large piece of Subcarpathian Rus, which was an integral part of Czechoslovakia, and thus ensured a direct access to the borders of the USSR. From where, in fact, they invaded within "Barbarossa" in the amount of about 40 people.
      So IV, in general, was not mistaken ...
      1. Oilpartizan
        Oilpartizan 10 January 2017 09: 03
        0
        Let's start with the fact that after the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the so-called. "Subcarpathian Rus", inhabited for some reason mainly by Hungarians, declared its independence and as an independent state joined Hungary.
        There is no need to explain this "trick with the ears" to the Russians - they already had the same experience of liberating Poland from the Poles and then the Baltic countries from the Germans.
        By the way, the Kremlin has not yet been excluded because of the attack on Finland from the League of Nations in it supported Hungary's claims to the territories of Romanian Transylvania in its usual manner, driving a wedge between the allies along the "axis".
        Hungary entered the 2 MV only on June 27, 1941, only after the Soviet air bombardment of the city of Kosice, when the Wehrmacht was already standing near Minsk.
        The fact that the Stalinist falcons provocatively bombed the first cities of the non-warring allies of Germany I wrote above.
        Since 1939, Horthy has been delaying the moment Hungary entered the war, on the side of Germany, realizing. that it is not in his interests
        In August 1941, in conditions of severe border defeats and the loss of Soviet Belarus and half of Ukraine, the USSR attacked Iran and occupied it in half with England.
        So Stalin least of all resembles Vanga, and given his policy in the Balkans, the pre-war seizures of Western Ukraine, Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia, unrealized plans to eliminate the Bulgarian Tsar and the implemented plans for a military putsch in Serbia in no way characterize him as a "peace-loving pupsik."
        1. Gerard Roussillon
          Gerard Roussillon 10 January 2017 11: 14
          +1
          In August 1941, in conditions of severe border defeats and the loss of Soviet Belarus and half of Ukraine, the USSR attacked Iran and occupied it in half with England.

          There was already a military necessity. Iranian oil, the way of supplying the USSR with weapons and strategic materials, maintaining Turkey’s neutrality, withdrawing Iran from the sphere of German interests, ensuring the safety of oil Azerbaijan ....
          Hungary entered the 2 MV only on June 27, 1941, only after the Soviet air bombardment of the city of Kosice, when the Wehrmacht was already standing near Minsk.

          The Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe were on Hungarian territory. Hungary was an ally of Germany
      2. Oilpartizan
        Oilpartizan 10 January 2017 09: 04
        0
        Let's start with the fact that after the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the so-called. "Subcarpathian Rus", inhabited for some reason mainly by Hungarians, declared its independence and as an independent state joined Hungary.
        There is no need to explain this "trick with the ears" to the Russians - they already had the same experience of liberating Poland from the Poles and then the Baltic countries from the Germans.
        By the way, the Kremlin has not yet been excluded because of the attack on Finland from the League of Nations in it supported Hungary's claims to the territories of Romanian Transylvania in its usual manner, driving a wedge between the allies along the "axis".
        Hungary entered the 2 MV only on June 27, 1941, only after the Soviet air bombardment of the city of Kosice, when the Wehrmacht was already standing near Minsk.
        The fact that the Stalinist falcons provocatively bombed the first cities of the non-warring allies of Germany I wrote above.
        Since 1939, Horthy has been delaying the moment Hungary entered the war, on the side of Germany, realizing. that it is not in his interests
        In August 1941, in conditions of severe border defeats and the loss of Soviet Belarus and half of Ukraine, the USSR attacked Iran and occupied it in half with England.
        So Stalin least of all resembles Vanga, and given his policy in the Balkans, the pre-war seizures of Western Ukraine, Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia, unrealized plans to eliminate the Bulgarian Tsar and the implemented plans for a military putsch in Serbia in no way characterize him as a "peace-loving pupsik."
        1. Moskovit
          Moskovit 10 January 2017 09: 27
          +1
          If you carefully studied history, you probably would have recalled the accession of Hungary to the anti-Comodern pasta, the triple alliance, close cooperation with Germany, Jewish laws, a five-year plan for the transition of the economy to military tracks. No. You remember Kosice. As if this fact, moreover, disputed by the Soviet historiography, directly forced the peaceful Hungarians, together with the Germans, to strike at the USSR. And then still boiled in a Stalingrad boiler thousands of kilometers from home
        2. Moskovit
          Moskovit 10 January 2017 09: 34
          0
          If you carefully studied history, you probably would have recalled the accession of Hungary to the anti-Comodern pasta, the triple alliance, close cooperation with Germany, Jewish laws, a five-year plan for the transition of the economy to military tracks. No. You remember Kosice. As if this fact, moreover, disputed by the Soviet historiography, directly forced the peaceful Hungarians, together with the Germans, to strike at the USSR. And then still boiled in a Stalingrad boiler thousands of kilometers from home
    2. Moskovit
      Moskovit 10 January 2017 02: 00
      0
      You represent the pre-war situation in this way - there is such a democratic country, Germany, with democratic chancellor Hitler and countries offended by the USSR, Romania, Finland, Slovakia (just offended) like Hungary. More Italy. Would these countries, if the USSR had not offended them, wouldn’t they go to war? Not only that, and the Germans would not be allowed through? And Germany would have declared war. And Manerheim would save the Leningradites, and not a plaque, but a monument on the palace would stand 100 meters high.
      1. Oilpartizan
        Oilpartizan 10 January 2017 09: 18
        0
        Everyone was good.
        But even then and now the Kremlin considers the countries of Europe to be infantile dwarfs and some are simply "an ugly offspring of the Versailles Peace"
        No one in Europe (except Germany) occupied more territories of neighboring countries by June 1941 than the USSR.
        Germany did not need a war with the USSR.
        He would have to "master" over the next 10 years what he took from France, Holland, Belgium and England.
        There are only colonies of overseas rich in fossil and indigenous populations - for several populations of the Reich.
        And the climate is not an example of Russian.
        And what was there in the USSR that he needed?
        Collective farm huts with a wooden floor and "black stoves" with hungry children and their mothers in "kirzachs"?
        No, he was frightened by 160 Soviet divisions (by his underestimated erroneous calculations) standing on the border of the Reich and ready to go not only to Berlin, but also to the Atlantic coast.
        And they would.
        If he began to wait for this campaign, and not hit himself.
        1. Gerard Roussillon
          Gerard Roussillon 10 January 2017 11: 33
          +1
          No one in Europe (except Germany) occupied more territories of neighboring countries by June 1941 than the USSR.

          In addition to Germany, in Europe at that time no one was left. Is Sweden going to occupy?
          Germany did not need a war with the USSR

          But living space was necessary. This is part of the doctrine. Without war it was impossible to get it.
          He would have to "master" over the next 10 years what he took from France, Holland, Belgium and England.
          There are only colonies of overseas rich in fossil and indigenous populations - for several populations of the Reich.

          There were still England and America, and the war was just beginning. Nobody would give colonies to Hitler. The colonies were guarded by the British. For example, Americans easily occupied the territory of French North Africa. And Hitler was not asked.
          And what was there in the USSR that he needed?

          Raw materials, black soil, arable land. There are almost no minerals in Germany. Oil. In the USSR all this in abundance
          Collective farm huts with a wooden floor and "black stoves" with hungry children and their mothers in "kirzachs"?

          Another 10 modern enterprises producing Ford, automobiles, Curtis airplanes with Gnome-Ron, Ispano Suiza, Pratt and Whitney engines, these engines themselves, Vickers tanks, power plants with American turbines, a TV factory, there were a lot of things ...
          No, he was frightened by 160 Soviet divisions (by his underestimated erroneous calculations) standing on the border of the Reich and ready to go not only to Berlin, but also to the Atlantic coast.
          And they would.

          Would not get it.
          Not those were the divisions. They did not know either Kursk or Stalingrad
          1. Gerard Roussillon
            Gerard Roussillon 10 January 2017 11: 47
            0
            He would have to "master" in the next 10 years what he took from ... and England.
            By the way, what did he take from England?
        2. Moskovit
          Moskovit 10 January 2017 13: 17
          +1
          There was a sharp smell of rezun. The USSR took its land and tried to delay the inevitable war. Stalin did not want to fight Germany. There are no documents. No. Stalin is not Trotsky. The world fire was not going to inflate.
          1. Oilpartizan
            Oilpartizan 11 January 2017 21: 05
            0
            Write heresy.
            In 1938, turning to the government of Czechoslovakia with a proposal to protect it from the final occupation of Hitler by all his Red Army, Stalin was ready for war, and in the summer of 1941, I have 24 tanks, 000 aircraft, an innumerable number of artillery of various calibers, military bases from Lvov to Cape Hanko and all the border districts transformed into FRONTS (without military operations), where he gathered the entire cadre army with everything necessary - suddenly became sharply "not ready"?
            Yes, I was not ready to defend myself.
            Because according to the 1939 PU - "... The Red Army is the most advancing army in the world ..."
            And 3 million prisoners in the early days of the war - the most vivid example of the failure of the strategy.
            Hitler was the first to "ask for a smoke."
            1. Gerard Roussillon
              Gerard Roussillon 11 January 2017 22: 46
              0
              Yes, I was not ready to defend

              Yes, I’m not ready, and the whole further course of events confirms this.
              And 3 million prisoners in the early days of the war - the most vivid example of the failure of the strategy.

              This is not so much a failure in strategy as a mistake in training and education.
              , and in the summer of 1941, I have 24 tanks, 000 aircraft, innumerable artillery of various calibers

              In the memoirs of the German military, one can find descriptions of columns of abandoned equipment along roads, airfields, littered with aircraft that did not take off. Not cars fight. People are fighting
              Because according to the 1939 PU - "... The Red Army is the most advancing army in the world ..."

              Communists have always been originals. So they invented their own military science. Do you think they knew nothing about blitzkrieg? They all knew.
              But the generally accepted opinion among the red commanders was that the blitzkrieg could not be applied against the only state in the world of workers and peasants
  27. Gerard Roussillon
    Gerard Roussillon 8 January 2017 18: 23
    +2
    In Runet it is called "Trotskyism".
    Trotskyism is not NEP at all, but labor armies. North Korea is an example of the Trotskyist model
    1. JS20
      JS20 8 January 2017 19: 22
      +1
      Quote: Gerard Roussillon
      Trotskyism is not NEP at all, but labor armies.

      I do not argue. But everything that does not look like dzhugashviliism (it has an even better known name, "socialism"; not to be confused with "developed socialism"), everything in Runet is called the term "Trotskyism". This is such a universal trait for jugashvilists.
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 11 January 2017 13: 03
      0
      In China, elements of the Bukharin model, with its Chinese characteristics, are more likely. By the way, the Chinese Communists, who respected and relate to Stalin, nevertheless neither under Mao, nor now seriously took and did not take charges against Trotsky and especially Bukharin and Rykov for having links with the Gestapo, for espionage, etc.
      1. JS20
        JS20 11 January 2017 16: 56
        +1
        Quote: Sergej1972
        In China, elements of the Bukharin model, with its Chinese characteristics, are more likely.

        In China, everything is not easy. And extremely shaky. Sooner or later (sooner rather than later), PS will come into irreconcilable conflict with the level of software development. And there will be something. Options 2:
        1. A bourgeois revolution will take place in the country.
        2. The next "construction" of some "... ism" will take place in the country.
        The PRC is far from a "safe haven". At least in the future.
  28. Roman 11
    Roman 11 8 January 2017 19: 29
    +2
    Hooray, Stalinoids in ecstasy ..... Another note about their priest ...... just like the next lie about some incomprehensible 7 million .. It is pontific - the problems of the Indians do not concern the leader, or priest. Regarding Churchill, everything is true ..... but this simple person would also say why the earth icon once again flicker? So he had a cult of hoo.
  29. kalibr
    kalibr 9 January 2017 07: 54
    +1
    Quote: midshipman
    The chief designer of many AT&C has trained more than 100 doctors and candidates of sciences. Supervised 6 GU MCI USSR. Sachs Scientific secretary of one of the research institutes and the head of the department at the University.


    Wow ... It seems to be a smart person, not only in his field. And he thinks like a baby! A wise leader would not surround himself with careerists and insignificants and would not create a state system that would last only one generation after his death!
    1. Gerard Roussillon
      Gerard Roussillon 9 January 2017 09: 19
      +1
      Wow ... It seems to be a smart person, not only in his field. A reasoning like a baby

      Each bureaucrat evaluates the success of his existence by what funds are allocated for his activities. If the existence of this or that cell of the bureaucratic mechanism is generously paid, the bureaucrat will consider such a system just and progressive. The bureaucrat will be completely indifferent to the state of affairs in other sectors and future prospects. The main thing is reporting on his site at the moment. As they said in one film - "and for this other communists will be responsible." Do not confuse the great scientists and bureaucrats from pseudo-scientific organizations, which in the vastness of the USSR have multiplied in incredible numbers. IMHO
    2. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 11 January 2017 09: 59
      0
      Quote: kalibr
      A wise leader would not surround himself with careerists and insignificants and would not create a state system that would last only one generation after his death!

      Vyacheslav Olegovich, you are not a stupid person, but sometimes when you read you get the impression that you are reading an offended child.
    3. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 11 January 2017 13: 05
      0
      At the hardware meetings, Malenkov began talking about the fight against the personality cult just a week after Stalin's death.))
  30. Lexa-149
    Lexa-149 9 January 2017 11: 31
    +4
    Say what you like, but the "bloody tyrant" Iosif Vissarionovich was a wise man!
  31. Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi 11 January 2017 08: 25
    +1
    Interview with a Great Man! A real statesman! Many argue about the number of losses in the Second World War indicated by Stalin, but they correspond to losses among civilians in the occupied territories and in besieged Leningrad. Taking into account the number of deaths from illnesses, old age, accidents and declining birth rates is an attempt to level the professionalism and skill of the Soviet military, the country's leading apparatus and the Communist Party!
  32. Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 11 January 2017 13: 09
    0
    Was it really difficult for the editorial board of Pravda to indicate the name of its correspondent? I also recall the informational messages in Pravda and Izvestia of the second half of the 40s: "The other day a plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) took place." Was it impossible to indicate the exact date? Moreover, the Titovites at the same time were criticized for excessive closeness and secrecy in the activities of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, for the lack of internal party democracy.
  33. Chaos
    Chaos 12 June 2017 17: 31
    0
    Here !!! The policies of the USSR are clearly and clearly visible. Stalin spoke in a simple language understood by an ordinary person. Today, neither goals nor objectives are visible, the speech of the rulers of the ornate, it is not clear what awaits us tomorrow, there is no clear foreign policy, and domestic policy is also not clear. From all sides requisitions, tax legislation is stupid. Summer has begun, roads are being built again in the old fashioned way, as much as possible ....! If the turner behind the machine tool made a marriage, he is punished with the ruble, why are the government and the deputies not punished for their disgusting work.