Military Review

Scored Names

55
The main sovparteyateli became the victims of the Khrushchev repressions. Those who disagreed with the head of the USSR, primarily regarding the Stalinist heritage and the break with China, were removed from their posts, expelled from the CPSU, exiled.


What is characteristic is that after the resignation of Khrushchev, organized by his creatures, the disgraced figures were not restored to their previous posts. It seems that the Brezhnev entourage was also wary of reputable party members, believing that they would come to the fore again.

The Last of the Mohicans

One of the most prominent among those who fell into Khrushchev's disfavor is Nuritdin Mukhitdinov. A native of the village near Tashkent, he was secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Council of the Council of Nationalities of the USSR Supreme Soviet; earlier - the head of the Council of Ministers and the head of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan. And before these posts he headed the Tashkent Regional Committee.

Mukhitdinov noted in 80-x that his relationship with Khrushchev and his entourage deteriorated from 1957 year as their destructive acts in domestic and foreign policy. He himself preferred to abstain from voting in the Central Committee in support of the relevant decisions. It did not go unnoticed.

Mukhitdinov asked Khrushchev to send him to an international meeting of the communist parties in Bucharest (1960 in June) to try to settle differences with the communist parties of China, Albania and other countries on the issue of Stalin. But the first secretary drove himself, made offensive attacks on Beijing and Tirana. In Bucharest, Khrushchev advised Romanian communists to think carefully and take into account not only Moscow’s position, but Tito’s position on this issue before supporting China and Albania. All this aggravated the split in the world communist and national liberation movement.

In November - mid-December 1961, Mukhitdinov was deprived of all his posts and was soon expelled from the CPSU Central Committee. He paid for a categorical rejection of the speech proposed by Khrushchev at the XXII Party Congress in support of the removal of Stalin’s sarcophagus from the Mausoleum. Mukhitdinov replied: “The peoples and communists of Central Asia will not accept this decision badly, since we have to disturb the peace of the deceased is considered a great sin. And then, how much can you humiliate Stalin and the Stalin period? This is our common история - the history of struggle, mistakes, but most importantly - the victories of universal importance. We take into account the position of China on this issue. "

Scored NamesNuritdin Akramovich Mukhitdinov - holder of many military orders and medals, participated in the liberation campaign of the Red Army in Western Ukraine in September 1939, in the defense of Rostov-on-Don and Stalingrad. In the city on the Volga was seriously wounded. In 1943-m received the rank of colonel. But these merits were “forgotten” by the Khrushchev leadership. At the end of 1962, Mukhitdinov was removed from the Central Committee and appointed deputy chairman of the Tsentrosoyuz Board. It was essentially a cruel humiliation for an authoritative figure. But he withstood the blow and, moreover, achieved the implementation of his proposals to increase the role of consumer cooperation in providing food and small agricultural supplies to remote areas of the Union republics. For which, after the resignation of Khrushchev, he was awarded the Order of the Badge of Honor on the eve of November 7 1965.

Later Mukhitdinova raised. In 1966 – 1968, he was the first deputy chairman of the State Committee for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries at the Council of Ministers of the USSR, and from 1968 to 1977 - the ambassador to Syria. Hafez Asad, in meetings with Soviet government delegations in Damascus and Moscow, has always noted extraordinary erudition, diplomatic talent and high culture of Mukhitdinov. The ambassador refused to evacuate Damascus during the autumn war of 1973 with Israel, moreover, he went to the front line. According to the author, in 1973 – 1975, Mukhitdinov was a mediator in the negotiations on the normalization of Damascus relations with Baghdad. And with 1974, Iraq began to provide military technical assistance to Syria.

The political weight of Mukhitdinov was close to the previous level, it was supported by Kosygin, the head of the USSR Council of Ministers. But the aging Brezhnev and other members of the politburo did not want the return of Stalin's nominees for their previous roles. In 1977, Mukhitdinov was again lowered, appointing him deputy chairman of the board of the USSR Chamber of Commerce and Industry. 11 March 1985, two days before Chernenko’s funeral, the veteran was awarded the Order of the Patriotic War of the 2 degree and, since April of the same year, retired at the union level. In December, 1987, at the insistence of the leadership of the Uzbek SSR, Mukhitdinov was awarded the Order of the October Revolution. And then he moved to Tashkent, where his thorny path to heights and opals began. Mukhitdinov worked as an adviser to the government of the Uzbek SSR, then headed the Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments. He died in Tashkent at the end of August 2008, rightfully called "the last of the Stalinist Mohicans." Mukhitdinov survived all his comrades who had undergone repressions from Khrushchev.

The staunch economist

One of those with whom Khrushchev dealt a hard blow was Dmitry Shepilov, an outstanding Soviet politician and economist. In 1957, he was officially named as an adherent to the anti-Party group of Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich. The word "who joined" perpetuated the name of Shepilov in folk art.

In 1926, at the age of 21, he graduated with honors from the Law Faculty of Moscow State University. Lomonosov and the agricultural and economic faculty of the Institute of Red Professors. Since the end of 20-x published articles on intra-and inter-sectoral planning, inter-regional economic relations in Eastern Siberia and the Urals, defending the need for the development of processing industries in the field, calling to take into account the local economic potential. These problems, we note, are still relevant. Shepilov also suggested analyzing the importing needs of neighboring countries in order to cover them, if possible, by producing necessary goods in the border regions of the Soviet Union. The latter was taken into account when providing economic assistance to Afghanistan, Iran, China, Mongolia, Tuva in 30 – 50-ies, as well as for the development of Soviet trade with Poland and the Baltic states in the pre-war period. And today, an increasing volume of goods imported by the ex-USSR republics from Russia is produced in the regions of the Russian Federation neighboring these countries.

Since 1934, Shepilov has been working at the Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, receiving the title of professor. C 1935-th - in the department of science of the Central Committee of the party. From 1938 to June 1941 - Scientific Secretary of the Institute of Economics of the USSR AS.

As Professor Shepilov had a reservation, but in the first days of the war he enrolled as a volunteer in the Moscow militia. In the five years of the army, there is a phenomenal way from a private to a major general and political department chief of the 4 Guards Army. Receives many combat awards.

Stalin was able to appreciate those who were not afraid to defend their opinions and, like Zhukov, “endured a look.” Dmitry Trofimovich was one of those. In 1946 – 1947, Shepilov is the editor of the propaganda department of the Pravda newspaper, from 1952 is the chief editor of the country's first newspaper. In 1953, he was elected a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The economic discussions of 1949 – 1950 and 1951 – 1952 initiated by Stalin were prepared and held with the participation of Shepilov, who was one of the leaders of the organizing committees of these forums.

Their most important task was to identify ways to gradually reform the planning and management system. In particular, proposals were made to “untie” the ruble from the dollar, reduce the number of mandatory targets, expand the financial and economic independence of enterprises, and facilitate their foreign trade activities. And even limit the intervention of party committees in the economy.

The innovations of that time in Soviet economic practice became the prototype of the well-known "Kosygin" reforms of the 60-s. But in the spring of 1953, these undertakings were curtailed. According to analysts, the nomenclature has prevented the development of economic and management reforms, fearing for their posts and “food and property welfare.”

Chinese researcher Ma Hong noted: “Since Stalin, in his latest book, The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, 1952, indicated that he had no objection to Shepilov’s remarks on the draft textbook on political economy, it was expected that Shepilov would become the actual leader of Soviet economic policy and would oversee economic science in the USSR. But later he began to object increasingly to the new leadership of the country. Criticizing, for example, the methods of developing virgin lands, the sale to collective farms of machine-tractor stations, which turned the first into chronic debtors of the state; widespread maize planting, pricing policies, monetary reform of the year 1961.

Later, Shepilov spoke out against increasing the export of Soviet raw materials, fearing that the USSR would thereby become a resource colony of the West. He believed that objective criticism and correction of the mistakes of the “personality cult” should not be replaced by Stalin’s indiscriminate defamation, because it only demoralizes Soviet society and leads to a split between the socialist countries and the Communist parties. Forecasts, alas, were justified.

Shepilov expounded his opinion in detail at the plenum of the Central Committee of the party in June 1957, accusing Khrushchev of establishing his own "personality cult." And in fact, he supported Molotov, Malenkov, Bulganin, other members of the Presidium of the Central Committee, who spoke for the resignation of the first secretary. But they were clearly late with his shift, for he managed to win the support of the majority of the members of the Central Committee, whose membership since March 1953 has been updated by more than 70 percent.

The consequences of political defeat were not long in coming. Shepilov held important posts: Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, candidate member of the Presidium of the Central Committee and Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was relieved of all party and government posts. In July 1957, he was appointed Director of the Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of the Kirghiz SSR. But soon, having recollected themselves, they lowered them to the deputy director.

Under the leadership of Shepilov, the Institute developed a long-term inter-sectoral balance for all the republics of Central Asia. The document noted that the distortions in the regional economy, which began at the end of the 50-ies, and its focus on primary industries (especially cotton growing) will lead to increased subsidies from the center, increased socio-political, interethnic tensions, and further political consequences. The region’s exit from the control of the leadership of the USSR and all-Union structures is likely. The danger of anti-scientific, harmful methods of using waters and fish resources of both Lake Balkhash, the Aral Sea, and the rivers flowing into these basins (Ili, Syrdarya, Amudarya) was noted. These forecasts also came true.

It seems that these studies were the last straw that broke the patience of the “Khrushchev upper circles”. In 1959, Shepilov was deprived of the title of corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, removed from his post as deputy director of the Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of Kyrgyzstan, and in April 1962 was expelled from the party.

Then followed nearly two decades of actual oblivion. Although, according to some data, members of the Brezhnev politburo Kosygin, Katushev, Mazurov, Masherov, Kulakov proposed to return Shepilov at least in economics, for example, to the post of director of a scientific research institute under the Academy of Sciences, Council of Ministers or the USSR State Planning Committee. But the publication of some of his economic works in China, Yugoslavia and Romania alarmed the conservative wing of the leadership of the USSR. Shepilov was reinstated in the party only in March of 1976, and, with the rank of corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, after another 15 years, in March of 1991.

The authority and professionalism of the economist feared both in the leadership of the country and in ideological and scientific-economic circles close to the Kremlin. Therefore, after being restored to the CPSU, he was not returned to either the Central Committee or other leading structures. From the autumn of 1960 to the autumn of 1982, he worked only as an archeographer at the Main Archival Administration of the Union Council of Ministers.

Even after being restored to the party, Shepilova was denied publication in Soviet economic journals. His requests for a meeting with Brezhnev, Kosygin, Baibakov, ministers of the government of the USSR and union republics were rejected. It is known that Shepilov sent Chernenko and Gorbachev his views on reforming the Soviet economic and managerial system, based on economic discussions of the end of 40-x, the beginning of 50-x and Kosygin reforms. But the first one didn’t have time to get into these proposals, and the authorities didn’t care about the Shepilov initiatives.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/34734
55 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. Basil50
    Basil50 22 January 2017 06: 42
    +17
    Until now, in that * foam * that honors itself * as the elite * and from which the ministries and the state apparatus are formed, the cloven-headed Khrushchev is * an icon *. The coup d'état that was carried out after the murder AND IN STALIN allowed to create * noblemen * from the close ones who then moved * the crap itself *.
    Against the background of the real accomplishments of the SOVIET PEOPLE under AND IN STALIN, the damping of economic growth caused, from * a little mind * and inability to really build, a desire to outrun predecessors. Of course, any dissent was either destroyed or * disappeared *.
    1. Cat
      Cat 22 January 2017 07: 55
      +6
      It remains only to agree! All this reminds a fight of piglets at Kalgushka with bran!
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 22 January 2017 10: 09
      +2
      Quote: Vasily50
      from * a small mind * and inability to really build, a desire to defame predecessors. Of course, any dissent was either destroyed or * disappeared *.

      Dissenting everything was destroyed and disappeared, mainly under Comrade Stalin. yes
      А
      Quote: Vasily50
      the cephalopod Khrushchev
      (this rude phrase has grounds, but one should not forget that "Nikyta" was a comrade-in-arms of the leader of the peoples, grew up with him, and he did not tolerate too much "head assholes"), only removed from office.
      1. Diana Ilyina
        Diana Ilyina 22 January 2017 10: 51
        +25
        Alekseev Today, 10:09 ↑ New
        Dissenting everything was destroyed and disappeared, mainly under Comrade Stalin. yes
        Firstly, under Comrade Stalin, they were removed from power, and some from life, obvious enemies of the people! And this is not a metaphor, this is reality. If Stalin hadn’t removed Trotsky, we wouldn’t have corresponded with you now. At best, Russia would have left horns and legs; in the worst, neither the USSR nor Russia would exist now.
        Secondly, under Stalin, the country was raised from ruins in one five-year period, and under Khrushchev there was a shortage of bread and grocery cards that were canceled under Stalin. It was Khrushchev who stood at the origins of the collapse of the USSR. It was under him that partocracy was born.
        I have already said many times that it is Khrushchev who is the traitor, Judas and the bloodthirsty creature that plunged the USSR in half-life.
        (this rude phrase has grounds, but one should not forget that "Nikyta" was a comrade-in-arms of the leader of the peoples, grew up with him, and he did not tolerate too much "head assholes"), only removed from office.
        This phrase is very soft, for such a reptile like Khrushchev. It still remains a mystery to me how neither Joseph Vissarionovich nor Lavrenty Pavlovich strangled this abomination in the bud ?!
        1. creak
          creak 22 January 2017 12: 10
          +2
          Quote: Diana Ilyina
          and under Khrushchev there was a shortage of bread and grocery cards, which were abolished under Stalin.

          No need to go too far and hang all the dogs on Khrushchev (I say this is not in his defense, he has enough of his sins) - and so, under Khrushchev there were no cards. I remember this time very well - I had to wander around the garrisons where my father served ... Abundance did not come after Khrushchev left - I am not talking about Moscow and the capitals of the Union republics, which were supplied with the first category ....
          I know this not from other people's words and I remember well the already forgotten words deficit and blat ...
          Do not put a shadow on the fence in your righteous anger - for example, I remember how happy people were when moving from communal apartments to their small but separate apartments ... Large-scale housing construction began precisely under Khrushchev ...
          He was a typical representative of his era - as indeed his other comrades-in-arms, who would praise him while he was in power, and then hang them with Brezhnev’s orders ...
          And partocracy did not originate under Khrushchev, but long before it ....
          1. Diana Ilyina
            Diana Ilyina 22 January 2017 13: 58
            +18
            ranger Today, 12:10 ↑
            No need to go too far and hang all the dogs on Khrushchev (I say this is not in his defense, he has enough of his sins) - and so, under Khrushchev there were no cards.
            What are you saying ?! My mother probably came up with everything and the line for bread to the store where she stood from twelve in the morning, so that she could also get to school in the morning. And food cards and a total deficit, which under Stalin was not! You can give as many arguments as you like, only my parents are alive, thank God and they still remember how it was under Khrushchev. Yes, and Novocherkassk from my house some 90 kilometers away and my relatives there well remember the demonstration that this assassin *** shot ok ...!
          2. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 22 January 2017 14: 29
            +5
            All dogs are not hung up on Khrushchev corn, but cards in the 1964 year and the shooting of a popular speech in Novocherkassk in the 1962 year were all with him. A medical fact, as one literary hero said.
        2. captain
          captain 22 January 2017 13: 12
          +8
          I read comments such as Diana Ilyina and marvel. Khrushchev is an enemy, Gorbachev is a traitor ... What kind of party is this, where traitors and enemies were in the lead? What kind of party is this where the kids of leaders and their closest assistants have flown abroad? And where did the gold go when the Soviet Union collapsed? He was also slammed by guardians for the people. Oh my God, who ruled us .... Whom this party raised, look at the modern leaders of our Russia, as a rule, all were either party and state figures or children, grandchildren of the former leaders of the CPSU or ideologists of the CPSU,
          1. Diana Ilyina
            Diana Ilyina 22 January 2017 13: 30
            +22
            Captain Today, 13: 12 ↑
            I read comments such as Diana Ilyina and marvel.
            Oh, my, and where did your beloved White Guards go with their kids and with the gold of the Russian Empire ?! Didn’t they settle in England for an hour ?! And types like Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and others, it is more yours than ours. Ours is Stalin, and yours is the whole liberal-anti-Soviet scum, including Khrushchev and others like him ...! So then cover your mouth, not respected ...!
            1. captain
              captain 22 January 2017 13: 58
              +4
              Oh, I love the communists, for their theory about a glass of water, comrade Kollontai, author. This is about the fact that you can and should sleep with everyone. Both in life and in politics you act.
              "And types like Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and others are more yours than ours." it’s better not to say how quickly you disowned your idols, your general secretaries, all the same. As they were foaming at the mouth, they remained. By the way, the gold was taken from Kolchak, the Hungarians were taking it by the internationalists, under the command of Mate Zalka. But where your idols dumped him is unknown.
            2. Cat man null
              Cat man null 22 January 2017 13: 59
              +6
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              Ours is Stalin, and yours is the whole liberal-anti-Soviet scum, including Khrushchev and others like him ...

              - Diana, you seem not to be small already, but still play in the Easter cakes
              - ours, yours ... white, black ... childhood in ... one place ... or two request
              - in life everything is mountain-a-aazdo more complicated. Interestingly, will you ever understand this?
              1. Diana Ilyina
                Diana Ilyina 22 January 2017 14: 32
                +15
                Cat Man Null Today, 13:59 ↑
                - Diana, you seem not to be small already, but still play in the Easter cakes
                - ours, yours ... white, black ... childhood in ... one place ... or two request
                - in life everything is mountain-a-aazdo more complicated. Interestingly, will you ever understand this?
                And then I do not know how it is in life ...! In this case, you fit in vain, I usually respect your comments and do not try to convince you, although sometimes I disagree with you. As for a certain Mr. captain, we are long-standing arch-ideological enemies and we should not get into our argument, because this is a long time and for a long time!
              2. Finches
                Finches 22 January 2017 15: 02
                +11
                Diana, Roman, I welcome you! hi

                Here I will defend Diana's position! She, as always, is emotional in expressing her attitude, but in this case, she correctly identified Khrushchev as a traitor - not by his actions in the field of economics or politics, but in the main thing that he did, the first to pull out the brick from the foundation of the Soviet state, what then led to the successive destruction of the country and a catastrophic ending - the USSR ceased to exist - this is the evolutionary "de-Stalinization" committed by it in 1956, which grew into a radical break with the past! I repeat, this is precisely what dealt a powerful blow to the foundation of the Soviet state. This was the first fundamental step towards the destruction of its legitimacy. The same process was started that led to the collapse of the Russian Empire in February 1917. Nikita, deprived the state of sanctity and severed the spiritual connection of the people, placing the blame on everyone - who built and defended the Soviet Union - that is, everything that came before Khrushchev is a profanation ! Do you understand? This led to a fall in the authority of the entire communist movement in all countries, a particularly significant blow was dealt to the countries of the socialist bloc! By the way, it was under Khrushchev that most of the churches were destroyed and here he caused damage, nullifying the reconciliation between the church and the state that happened during the Second World War, which also made a split in society! Here's Roman - black and white! No Khrushchevs will justify the person who first began to destroy his country - Khrushchev, a traitor and that's it!
                1. Diana Ilyina
                  Diana Ilyina 22 January 2017 15: 26
                  +14
                  Zyablitsov Today, 15: 02 ↑
                  Here I will defend the position of Diana!
                  Eugene hi Bravo !!! Not because you supported me, but because you developed my thesis about the corruption and crime of Khrushchev. That is exactly what it looked like, and as for my emotionality, well, for God's sake, I can’t calmly react to such things ...!
                  Regards, Diana! love
                  1. Finches
                    Finches 22 January 2017 15: 29
                    +3
                    Diana! love

                    A woman is forgiven much ... if not all! wink

                    I want to say that here I am far from being original and I will not even pretend to do so - such a formulation of the question is very well formulated and scientifically grounded, maximally disclosed with figures and facts in one of the works, respected by me, the theorist of science, sociologist, political scientist and publicist , a consistent supporter of the "Soviet project" "Kara-Murza Sergei Georgievich! hi
                    1. Diana Ilyina
                      Diana Ilyina 22 January 2017 16: 19
                      +13
                      Zyablitsov Today, 15: 29 ↑
                      Diana! love
                      A woman is forgiven much ... if not all! wink
                      Zhen, thank you so much! love But nevertheless, I believe that some individuals in VO do not have the right to consider a woman a "blonde" only on the grounds that she has her own judgment, different from their "authoritative" opinion ... What kind of discrimination do we have? , by gender, we don't seem to live in the Middle Ages ?!
                      1. Finches
                        Finches 22 January 2017 16: 45
                        +4
                        I, Diana, will tell you one small case from my service, I think that you will understand what I wanted to say ...! wink

                        Saturday. The troops have a traditional park and business day! 11 o'clock in the afternoon. Out of the blue, the head of the communications troops of the district arrived. The brigade commander calls me, the chief is in his office, at that moment I was acting as the commander of the military unit, which, unfortunately, was next to the brigade headquarters ... but not the point! The brigade commander, asks me, we had good, friendly relations: "Zhenya, do you have cognac?" "That's right! And a chocolate bar!" - I answer. "Bring it!"
                        In short, somewhere after the third glass, the brigade commander asks the chief: "Comrade Major-General, resolve the question - look: we are drinking here, officers are drinking in the offices, warrant officers in warehouses, and in the park, wouldn't it be better for us this time would you spend with your families? Why do we work on Saturdays? " The general's sacramental response: "Vitya, what do you want me to run at home with a vacuum cleaner!" laughing

                        An example is not entirely correct for your statement, but the general idea is present in it! hi
                2. Stanislas
                  Stanislas 24 January 2017 10: 21
                  0
                  Quote: Finches
                  Nikita, deprived the state of holiness
                  Khrushchev affirmed the concept of the "Holy State" by denying the cult (and at the same time the responsibility) of the person at the head of the state, and transferring the substance of "holiness" to a specific small group. In other words, Khrushchev returned the form of a socialist cult to the pattern that emerged after Lenin's death, when Trotsky was the gray cardinal. After the victory over the Trotskyists, Stalin returned the cult of personality, but not in his own favor, but as the cult of Lenin's personality. He himself was cultivated by his henchmen as a living continuer of Lenin's work. Stalin, it must be said, objected, but sluggishly, since he did not dare to completely leave the country without a cult: the personality, most fully, from the point of view of the communists, realizing the objective laws of the historical process, is the materialist cult in its full manifestation (party , the state is already abstractions that become "saints" or "sinful" depending on the living material people of whom they are composed). The collective (un) responsibility of the Presidium since 1952 has led to the collapse of the country.
          2. tihiy
            tihiy 22 January 2017 14: 25
            +6
            Quote: captain
            I read comments such as Diana Ilyina and marvel. Khrushchev is an enemy, Gorbachev is a traitor ... What kind of party is this, where traitors and enemies were in the lead? What kind of party is this where the kids of leaders and their closest assistants have flown abroad? And where did the gold go when the Soviet Union collapsed? He was also slammed by guardians for the people. Oh my God, who ruled us .... Whom this party raised, look at the modern leaders of our Russia, as a rule, all were either party and state figures or children, grandchildren of the former leaders of the CPSU or ideologists of the CPSU,


            Is the current one better?
            Yes, much worse, since they allowed the destruction of industry
            1. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid 23 January 2017 00: 10
              +2
              "" Allowed "" ----- this is putting it mildly. Contributed to the destruction !!!!! Deliberately created conditions for devastation !!!!!!
          3. Ivanov17
            Ivanov17 22 January 2017 16: 03
            +6
            Such is the party. 3 million communists died at the front, raising soldiers to attack. A coward and a scoundrel at the front will not apply for admission to the party. After Stalin's death, the Gorbachevs, Yeltsins, Yakovlevs, Shevardnadzes "rushed" to the party under Khrushchev. From the camps left the Khrushchev amnesty "victims of Stalinism" Solzhenitsyn, Varlama Shalamov, E. Ginzubrgi, L. Razgon, Likhachev and others. The Aksenovs, Rybakovs rushed to describe the "horrors of Stalinism". Burbulisov, Shokhin, Chubais, Berezovsky.
            And "United Russia" is a natural result.
            Quote: captain
            I read comments such as Diana Ilyina and marvel. Khrushchev is an enemy, Gorbachev is a traitor ... What kind of party is this, where traitors and enemies were in the lead? What kind of party is this where the kids of leaders and their closest assistants have flown abroad? And where did the gold go when the Soviet Union collapsed? He was also slammed by guardians for the people. Oh my God, who ruled us .... Whom this party raised, look at the modern leaders of our Russia, as a rule, all were either party and state figures or children, grandchildren of the former leaders of the CPSU or ideologists of the CPSU,
            1. creak
              creak 22 January 2017 19: 04
              +3
              Quote: ivanov17
              After Stalin's death, the Yeltsins, Yakovlevs, Shevardnadze "rushed" to the party under Khrushchev.

              As you famously all under one comb ....
              And this is nothing that, for example, Yakovlev "rushed" to the party back in 1944 under Stalin. For your information, Yakovlev fought in the Marine Corps Brigade on the Volkhov Front, was seriously wounded and demobilized from injury ...
              After all, he also raised the Marines to the attack - the ends do not converge in your theory - this does not fit into the usual black-and-white scheme ...
              1. Ivanov17
                Ivanov17 23 January 2017 10: 23
                +1
                Vlasov, too, and his generals raised the soldiers to attack. 30 million passed through their greatcoats. USSR citizens.
                Quote: ranger
                Quote: ivanov17
                After Stalin's death, the Yeltsins, Yakovlevs, Shevardnadze "rushed" to the party under Khrushchev.

                As you famously all under one comb ....
                And this is nothing that, for example, Yakovlev "rushed" to the party back in 1944 under Stalin. For your information, Yakovlev fought in the Marine Corps Brigade on the Volkhov Front, was seriously wounded and demobilized from injury ...
                After all, he also raised the Marines to the attack - the ends do not converge in your theory - this does not fit into the usual black-and-white scheme ...
            2. captain
              captain 24 January 2017 15: 31
              +1
              Dear ivanov17, platoon commanders raised the attack, ask those who fought in the infantry companies, they will tell you. By the way, during the war years, 600 thousand platoon commanders were lost. irrecoverable losses. I draw your attention to the figure. And political workers of all categories (from the political officer of the company to the PMC of the front) -93 thousand. man. The rifle companies had 3 rifle platoons and a machine gun platoon, that is, 4 officers (commander) and one political worker. That is, the political workers of the company link should have killed at least 150 thousand, and there were 93 thousand of them killed in all, of all categories. Information from General Beloborodov's book "Military personnel during the Great Patriotic War", Frunze was on duty at the academy. There is also the book "Vanka Company", the author commanded a rifle company throughout the war, was wounded five times, he writes interestingly who raised the attack, how they ate, how they lived in the trenches. It is not necessary to judge everything by cinema, this is not always true, and it is not worth judging by fiction, as a rule, it is politicized.
          4. MrK
            MrK 23 January 2017 12: 08
            +2
            Quote: captain
            Khrushchev is an enemy, Gorbachev is a traitor ... What kind of party is this, where traitors and enemies were in the lead? What kind of party is this where the kids of leaders and their closest assistants have flown abroad? And where did the gold go when the Soviet Union collapsed?


            With the coming to power of Khrushchev, everyone who wanted to quickly pursue a career went to the party. This is the first. The second one. Under him, the party nomenclature finally took shape as a class. And in the absence of opposition, the decay of the top of the party began. That's where all of you listed come from.
            And the third. About gold. From the book of Alexander Kurlyandchik "Damned" Soviet power ... on Proza.ru.
            The entire 1988th and the beginning of the 89th went off the assembly line, as decided by the Council of Ministers of the USSR (17 documents) - abolishing the state monopoly on foreign economic activity, prohibiting customs from detaining cargoes of cooperatives, allowing them to leave revenue behind the cordon, etc. ..
            The era of the State of Dismantling began.
            Cement and petroleum products, metal and cotton, lumber and mineral fertilizers, rubber and leather - all that the state sent to enterprises for processing and saturation of the domestic market went by trains abroad. They already then, long before the 92 year, were preparing for privatization. And, I believe, even then it was planned to issue vouchers not personal, but anonymized. So it was easier to become masters of a new life.
            In the first year of its existence, cooperatives exported a third of the consumer goods produced in our country from the USSR, and in the second year - as much. The domestic market collapsed. Government decisions on the purchase of imported products threw part of the gold reserves of the Soviet Union (in two years it was reduced by almost two thousand tons).
            1. captain
              captain 23 January 2017 16: 47
              +2
              Dear Mrark, so I write, with whom they robbed? Under the Communists (Gorbachev, Yakovlev, Shevarnadze and thousands smaller bosses). Who ruined my homeland? Communists (Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Kravchuk ..., all the heroes from the same party) Whose children have washed off and live happily ever after abroad? Children of Stalin, Khrushchev, Adropov, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, etc. And whose sons are Chubais, Gaidar, Medvedev and many other heroes of the collapse of my homeland? The ideologists of Marxism. So I say, what kind of party is this? Well, the children of the bosses of Great Britain, the USA, China, etc., do not run to us, and the children of our true guardians for the Russian people, for some reason run away. Why answer me? By the way, ask what environment our billionaires came from?
      2. MrK
        MrK 22 January 2017 11: 54
        +9
        Quote: Alekseev
        but do not forget that "Nikyta" was a comrade-in-arms of the leader of the peoples, grew up with him, and he did not tolerate too much "head assholes")


        The bloodiest in the Central Committee were Eikhe, Postyshev, Kosior, Khrushchev. But Khrushchev had support in the Central Committee Molotov. And to remove it was not so simple. In addition, he compensated for the lack of mind with hypertrophied cunning.
        Sometimes I start to doubt that Khrushchev is a man. For whatever you take, whatever you touch - in front of you, a complete impression, grimaces and dances a little demon, obsessed with the desire to break, destroy, spoil and spit everything that can only be reached.
        He closed more churches than all his predecessors and was a fool from the rostrum, promising to soon present the people with the “last priest” [37]. By the way, under Stalin, a network of churches during the 1941-1948 years. increased almost 8 times, which Stalin was accused of.
        He quarreled with China, depriving our country of the most profitable ally imaginable (there was no force in the world capable of resisting the two powers acting in a single alliance).
        He destroyed a mass of modern military equipment - if there are missiles, then why tanks, planes and ships? - and fired thousands of officers.
        He ruined agriculture, taking away farms and cattle from collective farmers.
        The number of livestock in the USSR was halved, especially the Slavic lands where pork and beef rather than lamb were the basis of the table. As a result, meat production declined. The next generation grew up already incapable of walking for cattle, and everyone fled to the cities, since there was no peasant farming left in the village.
        AFTER KHRUSHCHEVA MEAT DEFICIENCY IN RUSSIA BECAME ETERNAL.
        From the book of Alexander Kurlyandchik "Damned" Soviet power ... on Proza.ru
        1. tihiy
          tihiy 22 January 2017 14: 27
          +1
          Quote: mrark
          Khrushchev had the support of Molotov in the Central Committee. And to remove it was not so simple. In addition, he compensated for the lack of mind with hypertrophied cunning.


          Tricky? )))
          1. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 23 January 2017 00: 06
            +2
            He’s just returned home. In 1945, the Second World War ended. What kind of destruction and loss were known in the national economy. Nevertheless, in the 60s, +, -, factories and factories worked in Leningrad. Construction of the Khrushchev began. Now they are criticized, and in at that time it was a huge progress. Some of the houses were destroyed during the Second World War. And so the communal apartments started to start unloading. What huge housing estates were built. Moreover, the stalinkas were built. The good thing that happened during Khrushchev ----- everything was laid under Stalin. Why do I bring the 60s? These are the years that the older generation remembers well — relatives and acquaintances. There was growth in everything! And Khrushchev created deterioration in all directions, and after Stalin, whom everyone respected and feared ---- a figure appeared at the head, which they laughed at! And then other clowns, a hunchback with a wrong speech and a drunkard! And what was achieved in the 15 years after the destruction of the USSR? What a difference in the starting points! That's why I hate corn! ---- The destruction of the country has begun!
  2. kush62
    kush62 22 January 2017 07: 10
    +6
    I think the article should be called "Forgotten names", not "Forgotten names"
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 22 January 2017 12: 22
      +1
      Quote: kush62
      I think the article should be called "Forgotten names", not "Forgotten names"

      ... Yes, just Khrushch and those who were after him at the trough simply "scored" on the people mentioned.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 22 January 2017 07: 48
    +13
    That's why N. Khrushchev is loved in the West .. They took him to children in the United States .. Apparently there was something ...
    1. moskowit
      moskowit 22 January 2017 10: 14
      +5
      "Gorbachev and Khrushchev, twin brothers,
      who is more valuable to bourgeois America? ... "

      May Vladimir Vladimirovich forgive me for the free treatment of his immortal work ...
      1. Roman 11
        Roman 11 22 January 2017 13: 33
        0
        Quote: moskowit
        "Gorbachev and Khrushchev, twin brothers

        And among the twins there are strong differences ..... but these, do not spill water.
    2. creak
      creak 22 January 2017 10: 24
      +2
      Quote: parusnik
      That's why N. Khrushchev is loved in the West.. They gave it to children in the United States .. Apparently there was a reason ...

      And what from this?
      And for what, interestingly, they gave shelter to the United States and the citizenship of Stalin's daughter Svetlana? Apparently, it was also for what?
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 22 January 2017 10: 58
        +8
        So Svetlana, ... and the USSR somehow didn’t shit .. If one of her husbands remembers me, the American was American, after which she received citizenship ... In November 2012, it became known that the FBI had declassified the file of Svetlana Alliluyeva from the documents that the American intelligence services followed the life of Stalin’s daughter in the United States. And the Khrushchev family is still crap ... grandchildren are making anti-Russian statements .... In 1991, S. N. Khrushchev was invited to the USA to give lectures on the history of the Cold War , which specializes now. Remained for permanent residence in the USA, has been an American citizen of the year since 1999. So the American did not seem to be married
        1. creak
          creak 22 January 2017 11: 18
          +3
          There is no fundamental difference in the way of obtaining American citizenship - the unfortunate fact itself is important - the children of Soviet leaders leave for the United States, but for some reason not a single son of the American president moved to the USSR ....
          That's what is important, and not some statements by Khrushchev’s grandchildren who have long become Americans ....
          And Svetlana, in India, fled to the US Embassy in 1967 and asked for political asylum - for which the comrades who were supposed to keep an eye on her received the full program .... The scandal was serious - therefore, of course, for this unpredictable the lady was followed in the USA - what is so unusual about this ...
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 22 January 2017 13: 43
            +1
            [quote] [quote][quote] This is what is important, and not some statements by Khrushchev’s grandchildren who have long become Americans. [/ quote].. [[/ quote] / quote] ... Well, it turns out ... if he was born an American .. he should already hate Russia .. And especially. if he was born into a family of a Russian emigrant ...
      2. tihiy
        tihiy 22 January 2017 14: 29
        +1
        Quote: ranger
        And for what, interestingly, they gave shelter to the United States and the citizenship of Stalin's daughter Svetlana? Apparently, it was also for what?


        Jews in America have always been given shelter.
        Don't you know who the Aliluyevs, Nadezhda and Svetlana are?
  4. V.ic
    V.ic 22 January 2017 09: 59
    +7
    Khrushchev the Lysokuzoruzny was in his soul and in his affairs a Trotskyist. The mighty USSR was like an eyesore to the Trotskyists.
  5. moskowit
    moskowit 22 January 2017 10: 26
    +5
    The portrait of Nuritdin Akramovich is placed in part of an article about Shepilov, which may cause some perplexity among the young reader ....
  6. moskowit
    moskowit 22 January 2017 10: 32
    +6
    The most remarkable person from the cohort of political figures "pushed" by Khrushchev is Ponomarenko Panteleimon Kondratyevich. The real successor of Stalin. An exceptionally decent and worthy person!
  7. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 22 January 2017 10: 47
    +6
    Good article. Minor flaw: the years of Shepilov's life (1905 - 1995) are not indicated. And "dear Leonid Ilyich" lived on the principle of Leopold the cat - "guys, let's live together!" (with the Khrushchevites). And that was impossible. Brezhnev had the opportunity to rehabilitate Stalin in 1969 (80 years), jubilee for Joseph the Terrible, but the local liberalism did not allow this, in the end we have what we have. Again, I did not know that in those days, how to get into the corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and fly out of there could be by the decision of the General Secretary.
  8. bober1982
    bober1982 22 January 2017 11: 02
    0
    The article noted folk art, in connection with the famous ...... and Shepilov who joined them, as one example: when vodka was divided into "three", the fourth drinking companion was called Shepilov.
  9. iouris
    iouris 22 January 2017 12: 27
    +3
    Thanks to the author: it is very important to know in order to understand how things really happen, given that all Khrushchevs are now in the USA.
  10. tezey
    tezey 22 January 2017 12: 44
    +5
    Khrushchev and his affairs have always been written and are written only badly or very badly. And there is a reason. Here is the last article about the names hammered under Khrushchev. Fair. But I note that no less than such slaughtered and sometimes literally, we know in the days of Stalin, Brezhnev and Gorbachev. Therefore, preferences or political struggle were an integral part of the system and often prevailing over science, economics, just common sense. Shambles, voluntarism, neglect of the laws of the economy led to stagnation of agriculture. The thoughtless policy of debunking I.V. Stalin led to a deep split in the communist movement and gave poisonous shoots in Hungary in 1956, quarreled the USSR with the allies of the PRC and Albania, and created a split within the country. It was an unprecedented gift to imperialism, putting actual meaning into their anti-communist propaganda. But there is something else in Khrushchev’s activities. It is impossible to consider his activity only in black. Nezrya Erns Unknown sculpted his monument half black, half white. Recall that under Khrushchev political prisoners were released from camps and prisons and 15 thousand were rehabilitated, repressive methods of governing the country were greatly reduced. There were no more sweeping arrests and mass repressions. The country's economy, especially high-tech industries, has developed rapidly, we would now like that. Power engineering, including the nuclear and backbone of the industry, radio electronics, engineering, gr
    Azhdan aircraft construction. Mass civil construction began, for the first time in the history of the country. Now you can criticize these same Khrushchevs, but then with the most severe lack of housing, this was a good way out. Science developed at an unprecedented pace and as a result, the first country went into space, a laser, a tokomak, world-class supersonic aviation, nuclear ships — all this was created under Khrushchev. We scold his fool for it. Khrushchev had a difficult relationship with cultural figures, but what films were shot then were classics, and poets, and prose, and music. Where are the masterpieces today. Here is the current Viking super masterpiece. Everyone is happy. Me not. For me it’s a merciless grayness, squalor. About the army especially. Who just did not scold Khrushchev about the collapse of the army and navy. He cut the cruisers and bombers, reduced the army for some reason, closed the program for creating new types of weapons. Correctly reduced. The army of 6,5 million in peacetime if there is no need for nuclear weapons. This is a weight on the country. These are huge expenses, but ordinary citizens need it was after war years to start living normally. The cruiser was cut correctly. The fleet needed a new generation of ships, nuclear submarines, missile weapons, and not yesterday. About weapons programs. There were projects in rocket science, aviation, etc. that were not implemented. As a rule, these projects required large investments, but their combat effectiveness was in doubt, or the technological level of the industry did not ensure their production. Khrushchev correctly assessed and gave the development of the main priorities for the development of armaments. Of course, many directions were begun under Stalin. This is the creation of ICBMs, nuclear submarines, tactical and cruise missiles for various purposes, supersonic aircraft, air defense missile systems, ATGM, helicopters. The army and navy were actively saturated with nuclear weapons. New design organizations were created and successfully worked, and new plants were built that created the latest weapons at that time, which made it possible to achieve nuclear parity with the United States in a short period by 1967. Under Khrushchev, people began to live more or less. I well remember how people began to buy televisions, refrigerators, cars, furniture. But in the fifties, the majority was only enough for food and some sort of clothing. So from my point of view, the Khrushchev era is ambiguous. There were failures and defeats, there was success and development. The main thing from all that has happened is to draw the right conclusions. And along with criticism and rejection of the negative, do not forget the good.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 22 January 2017 13: 02
      0
      You say everything correctly, good commentary, about the film "Viking" (everyone is happy, you are not), you got excited all the same. And under Khrushchev, they did not buy fridges, TVs and cars in large quantities, life was very poor. Well, everything is correct. why kick your past.
      1. tezey
        tezey 23 January 2017 20: 01
        0
        As for improving life in the early 60s, I did not write from the bulldozer. I well remember this time, although I was still a schoolboy. Cars of course were at units. But already there were. In the house where I lived there were four cars. Two Muscovites 403, Volga 21 and Muscovite 401. In this case, the Volga was owned not by the director of the department store, but by a turner. Somewhere by the year 62, televisions were in almost every apartment, there were fewer refrigerators. Yes, life was without luxury, but the improvements were visible. And about kicking your past, this is our national fun. In this regard, the Chinese looked at our experience and acted with Mao in a completely different way.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 24 January 2017 21: 12
          0
          As for the national fun, everything is right, so only we can. The improvements under Khrushchev were tangible, I agree, there were no cards, and the interruptions in bread were artificial (to cause discontent among people, and there was a reason to throw it off, which later happened) I remember it time as a child, I remember how my father brought bread from Moscow from business trips
    2. Vladimir65
      Vladimir65 22 January 2017 17: 12
      +2
      Khrushchev has no white side. Rehabilitation? The first rehabilitation was carried out by L.P. Beria, having freed several hundred thousand prisoners from the camps in 1939 and drastically reduced the repression. Khrushchev in 1953 released criminals, Vlasovites, Bandera and forest brothers from the camps, who were supposed to sit in the camps until 1970. Some political ones were also released, which is well shown in the film "Cold Summer of 1953". Khrushchev's other achievements are the result of Stalin's well-tuned economy, which he could not immediately destroy, and the laurels of the functioning of this economy went to the "corn man". If Khrushchev had not seized power, perhaps so many misfortunes would not have happened to our country and our country prospered.
      1. tezey
        tezey 23 January 2017 20: 25
        0
        As for the rehabilitation of political prisoners, you better read the documents. I do not at all plead with the achievements of the economy under Stalin and the fact that it was well tuned. It was so, there is no dispute. But in your opinion, Soviet industry and science did not develop under Khrushchev, but there was an inertia of development, and Khrushchev simply did not manage to ruin it all. You are very mistaken. There is such a science, called statistics. Read it for this period. There are simply facts that you will not die out. I understand that there are people who have any successes of the Soviet people across the throat and then it is necessary to ruin everything that has been done by the country. And who is the main villain, it is clear the one who led. And here we have Stalin, a bloody villain, Khrushchev, a corn mailer and a volunteer, Brezhnev a senile, the father of stagnation and corruption. This is what our enemies need. The whole history of the USSR, the history of socialism turns out to be worthless, flawed, and such a country is a horror for the whole world. In the West, their history is not so derogatory. And we are happy to kick ourselves about and without reason. It's time to come to your senses. Take into account mistakes and be proud of our achievements, and we had plenty of them under Stalin, and under Khrushchev, and under Brezhnev.
  11. pts-m
    pts-m 22 January 2017 13: 02
    0
    As people say ... all sorts of innovations pass the test of TIME ... But promising theories do not even reach discussion. What to do, such is life. As usual ... cheaper, more cheerful and forever ..., this is the driving force of communism. Although brazenly Saxons prefer to support the strategy ... avaricious pays twice ...
  12. Roman 11
    Roman 11 22 January 2017 13: 38
    0
    Quote: ranger
    but in the USSR, no offspring of the American president for some reason did not move ....

    There life is better!

    Humpback is also in no hurry to set sail there ... I wonder if his kids got over? ditched the alliance, go and give the descendants a modest hacienda in Texas.
  13. Kuzma_Abrikosov
    Kuzma_Abrikosov 22 January 2017 22: 18
    +1
    Evil Khrushchev repressed party members. And the good Stalin of Russian peasants.
  14. kalibr
    kalibr 24 January 2017 07: 46
    0
    Interesting article. But here's the question: Stalin knew how to appreciate those who were not afraid to defend their opinions and, like Zhukov, "stood their gaze." Did Khrushchev stand it too? And how was it rated? And Beria ... "Look for the big mengrel!" - he himself said at the end, but who did he mean? But he had someone ... In a word - don't hold the fire in your bosom, right?