The murder of Kirov as a pretext for political terror
Sergey Mironovich Kirov (real name - Kostrikov) was born in the family of a forester in Urzhum of the Vyatka province (15) 27 in March 1886 of the year. Sergey was raised by his grandmother, since he lost his parents in early childhood, and after her death at the age of 7 years he was transferred to an orphanage.
Kirov (Kostrikov) Sergei Mironovich is one of the most famous and popular party leaders of the Soviet Union of the first half of the twentieth century. His party and political activities are devoted to many historical research carried out both in the Soviet period and in recent years. In memory of Kirov, a huge number of monuments were erected in the USSR, squares, streets, settlements were named after him, there were even state awards. If Kirov's early childhood has been partially investigated and available for study, then there are very different versions of death today. Sergei Mironovich belonged to those mysterious personalities whose life remained hidden for the inhabitants, therefore reliable information about his fate is often intertwined with frank fiction and political overtones.
Sergey 27 was born in March in 1886 in a large family and was orphaned early. Biography of Kirov in Soviet times was described by Golubeva A.G. with the active assistance of Samartsev, falsely posing as a close childhood friend Sergei Kostrikov. After the book came out to the publisher, letters from Urzhumovtsy about its unreliability fell down. Details that were vividly described in the pages of the story were completely at odds with the realities, and the characteristics of the main characters were extremely idealized. For example, when describing a family, the author indicated that they lived exclusively on labor income, which, to put it mildly, was a mistake. Kostrikova's mother traded in the tavern, and on the farmstead of their rented house the carts, which arrived at the bazaar, constantly stopped, for which the parents of Sergei Mironovich took a considerable fee. Sergey’s father went missing on a business trip, and his mother died a little later.
In the work Golubeva describes that the house Kostrikov belonged on the right of ownership - this is also not true. The dwelling was removable, so the orphaned children had to leave it. Kostrikov's two sisters remained to live with their grandmother, and Seryozha had to be given to the city shelter. The author was mistaken in the description of the house itself. It was a dilapidated house not blackened by the sun and time. A two-storey four-family mansion, sheathed with a yoke - this is how the residential building in which the Kostrikov family lived was described by one of the local residents.
The Soviet biographers were silent about the fact that the ardent atheist Kirov graduated from the parochial school, in all Soviet sources, it is simply called parish. Further education of him and other pupils of the orphanage was funded partly from the budget of the theater group Urzhumovsky. Children could attend his performances for free, maybe that's why Kirov so respected this kind of art.
Soviet historians characterize Sergei Kostrikov as a diligent student, this is confirmed by numerous diplomas and journal entries in the school and the city college. Most likely, Sergey was really well trained, because after graduating from college, an orphan at the expense of the zemstvo sent to Kazan. In the city, he goes to study at a lower engineering school of technology, receiving more than a modest scholarship, Sergey Mironovich is forced to earn money. After an excellent graduation, he worked as a draftsman in the City Administration and at the same time received an education at the institute.
Kirov was involved in political activity in the 1904 year, and a year later he was arrested and imprisoned for maintaining a revolutionary press organ. In fact, Kirov, by the revolutionary pseudonym Serge, was in charge of an illegal printing house. The reason for the arrest was the acquisition and attempt to transport a modern printing press. Illegal printing house, which, according to Kirov himself, he was in charge of, consisted of only a few typewriters, and a couple of old installations. One and a half years of imprisonment finally strengthened Serge in revolutionary views, he began to actively fight for the ideals of freedom and democracy. Until the 1917 year, Kostrikov, according to Soviet history, fully supported Lenin, but a detailed study of his articles confirms the opposite. Sergei Mironovich for a long time rushed about in political directions. He more supported the Mensheviks and even showed sympathy for the interim government, but it was not profitable for the Bolsheviks to publish such information about a brilliant party leader. Most likely, Serge took the side of the Bolsheviks no earlier than 1918-1919 of the year.
His affiliation with other revolutionary forces confirms the absence of compromising evidence on him in the state archives. Apparently, before the Stalin period and at its beginning, he did not yet have that political weight that he gained after, he was simply not feared. Many articles are devoted to the party career, many of them cite evidence of Kirov’s participation in atrocities and political crimes. Stalin's favorite was suddenly killed, followed by a massacre of the unwanted.
The death of Sergei Mironovich caused many questions and versions. Some believed that the murder was timely and beneficial for Joseph Vissarionovich, others gossiped that banal jealousy could be the motive for the crime. For a long time, documents from the criminal case were kept in secrecy, so there is reason to believe that the authorities wanted to conceal its circumstances and details.
Soviet newspapers reported on the assassination of Kirov on the first day of December 1934, according to the official version, he fell victim to conspirators, enemies of Soviet power. The conclusion that there are white spots in the murder of Sergei Mironovich can be made after reading the first lines of the protocol of interrogation of Nikolayev, who was recognized as a murderer. The cause of the crime, he calls isolation from the party, the lack of moral support and other abstract things that could hardly become the real reasons for the murder. There is a conclusion in the case that mentions signs of degeneration in the killer, but it is hardly possible to trust this document. For a long period of time, Nikolaev was in leadership positions in Komsomol organizations, as well as in the party apparatus. A person who was quarrelsome could have been appointed to such a position once, but in the case of Nikolayev there is a systematic nature of such appointments. The only thing that does not make sense to deny his irascibility.
The brevity of the protocol of interrogation of Draula is also surprising, the version of her husband’s jealousy and her relationship with the victim was apparently ignored by the investigation. Perhaps this behavior was dictated by the reluctance of the party leadership to know the truth. If on December 3 Nikolaev claimed that he had planned the murder personally, then in ten days his testimony had changed a lot. Now the offender claimed that he was performing the task of a group of Zinovievists who demanded decisive action from him. In this embodiment, the death of Kirov was very helpful, as it allowed to carry out a sweep among unwanted party leaders and influential figures.
Trotsky expressed his opinion in response to questions posed to him by telephone. Lev Davydovich believed that the statement of Nikolaev about his belonging to the Zinovievists was given under duress and meant practically nothing. The fact is that most of the leaders and members of the Leningrad party were “repentant” Zinovievists, therefore such information could not serve as evidence of opposition. He calls Zinoviev and Kamenev defectors, but openly calls the accusation against them and his supporters absurd. According to Trotsky, the motive for the murder is political, and the reason lies in the contradictions of the party elite. Nikolaev became only an instrument, and Kirov a target capable of justifying the subsequent reprisal.
A special role in this story was played by Matilda Draule. A beautiful, educated woman, was able to turn the head not only to Kirov, she, most likely. became his mistress, as a hot-tempered husband was intentionally notified. Although it could be that the jealous man was given false information about the connection between his wife and Kirov. Thus, the murder of Kirov is only the result of skillful manipulation.
The point of view expressed by Lev Davydovich, despite his opposition to the Stalinist power, is independent. Trotsky had no interest either to accuse Stalinism or to justify the convicts in the case. In addition, he expressed his position on the phone and only, then his opinion was recorded, besides, the terror deployed under the cover of the investigation was correctly predicted.
The confirmation of the point of view expressed by Lev Davydovich can be found not only in subsequent, but also in previous events. The Soviet press informed citizens about the end of the interclass struggle and the triumph of the revolution, socialism was proclaimed in the country, but the pathos statements were far from reality. The state developed an economic crisis, there was an acute shortage of food, the money depreciated, and the people began to grumble. The development of the unlimited power of Stalin was significantly hampered by the deserved Bolsheviks, who could be eliminated only legally. The killing of the people's favorite of Kirov was the means to start a “legal” massacre. The right hand of Joseph Vissarionovich, he was an ideal candidate for the conspirators, the difficulty was only in the fact that the conspiracy itself did not exist.
Recently, the press appeared excerpts from the diaries of the killer, allegedly refuting the version of the involvement of Stalin and his supporters to the crime. Journalists publish them as irrefutable evidence, but if you think about it, the direct killer most likely did not understand that they were being manipulated. The true version of it, he simply could not articulate during the investigation. Even his contemporaries characterize Nikolayev as a person with hypertrophied self-conceit, and admitting that his wife had disgraced him would have been too heavy a blow to his pride. Although this is only one of the versions.
Kirov (Kostrikov) Sergei Mironovich is one of the most famous and popular party leaders of the Soviet Union of the first half of the twentieth century. His party and political activities are devoted to many historical research carried out both in the Soviet period and in recent years. In memory of Kirov, a huge number of monuments were erected in the USSR, squares, streets, settlements were named after him, there were even state awards. If Kirov's early childhood has been partially investigated and available for study, then there are very different versions of death today. Sergei Mironovich belonged to those mysterious personalities whose life remained hidden for the inhabitants, therefore reliable information about his fate is often intertwined with frank fiction and political overtones.
Sergey 27 was born in March in 1886 in a large family and was orphaned early. Biography of Kirov in Soviet times was described by Golubeva A.G. with the active assistance of Samartsev, falsely posing as a close childhood friend Sergei Kostrikov. After the book came out to the publisher, letters from Urzhumovtsy about its unreliability fell down. Details that were vividly described in the pages of the story were completely at odds with the realities, and the characteristics of the main characters were extremely idealized. For example, when describing a family, the author indicated that they lived exclusively on labor income, which, to put it mildly, was a mistake. Kostrikova's mother traded in the tavern, and on the farmstead of their rented house the carts, which arrived at the bazaar, constantly stopped, for which the parents of Sergei Mironovich took a considerable fee. Sergey’s father went missing on a business trip, and his mother died a little later.
In the work Golubeva describes that the house Kostrikov belonged on the right of ownership - this is also not true. The dwelling was removable, so the orphaned children had to leave it. Kostrikov's two sisters remained to live with their grandmother, and Seryozha had to be given to the city shelter. The author was mistaken in the description of the house itself. It was a dilapidated house not blackened by the sun and time. A two-storey four-family mansion, sheathed with a yoke - this is how the residential building in which the Kostrikov family lived was described by one of the local residents.
The Soviet biographers were silent about the fact that the ardent atheist Kirov graduated from the parochial school, in all Soviet sources, it is simply called parish. Further education of him and other pupils of the orphanage was funded partly from the budget of the theater group Urzhumovsky. Children could attend his performances for free, maybe that's why Kirov so respected this kind of art.
Soviet historians characterize Sergei Kostrikov as a diligent student, this is confirmed by numerous diplomas and journal entries in the school and the city college. Most likely, Sergey was really well trained, because after graduating from college, an orphan at the expense of the zemstvo sent to Kazan. In the city, he goes to study at a lower engineering school of technology, receiving more than a modest scholarship, Sergey Mironovich is forced to earn money. After an excellent graduation, he worked as a draftsman in the City Administration and at the same time received an education at the institute.
Kirov was involved in political activity in the 1904 year, and a year later he was arrested and imprisoned for maintaining a revolutionary press organ. In fact, Kirov, by the revolutionary pseudonym Serge, was in charge of an illegal printing house. The reason for the arrest was the acquisition and attempt to transport a modern printing press. Illegal printing house, which, according to Kirov himself, he was in charge of, consisted of only a few typewriters, and a couple of old installations. One and a half years of imprisonment finally strengthened Serge in revolutionary views, he began to actively fight for the ideals of freedom and democracy. Until the 1917 year, Kostrikov, according to Soviet history, fully supported Lenin, but a detailed study of his articles confirms the opposite. Sergei Mironovich for a long time rushed about in political directions. He more supported the Mensheviks and even showed sympathy for the interim government, but it was not profitable for the Bolsheviks to publish such information about a brilliant party leader. Most likely, Serge took the side of the Bolsheviks no earlier than 1918-1919 of the year.
His affiliation with other revolutionary forces confirms the absence of compromising evidence on him in the state archives. Apparently, before the Stalin period and at its beginning, he did not yet have that political weight that he gained after, he was simply not feared. Many articles are devoted to the party career, many of them cite evidence of Kirov’s participation in atrocities and political crimes. Stalin's favorite was suddenly killed, followed by a massacre of the unwanted.
The death of Sergei Mironovich caused many questions and versions. Some believed that the murder was timely and beneficial for Joseph Vissarionovich, others gossiped that banal jealousy could be the motive for the crime. For a long time, documents from the criminal case were kept in secrecy, so there is reason to believe that the authorities wanted to conceal its circumstances and details.
Soviet newspapers reported on the assassination of Kirov on the first day of December 1934, according to the official version, he fell victim to conspirators, enemies of Soviet power. The conclusion that there are white spots in the murder of Sergei Mironovich can be made after reading the first lines of the protocol of interrogation of Nikolayev, who was recognized as a murderer. The cause of the crime, he calls isolation from the party, the lack of moral support and other abstract things that could hardly become the real reasons for the murder. There is a conclusion in the case that mentions signs of degeneration in the killer, but it is hardly possible to trust this document. For a long period of time, Nikolaev was in leadership positions in Komsomol organizations, as well as in the party apparatus. A person who was quarrelsome could have been appointed to such a position once, but in the case of Nikolayev there is a systematic nature of such appointments. The only thing that does not make sense to deny his irascibility.
The brevity of the protocol of interrogation of Draula is also surprising, the version of her husband’s jealousy and her relationship with the victim was apparently ignored by the investigation. Perhaps this behavior was dictated by the reluctance of the party leadership to know the truth. If on December 3 Nikolaev claimed that he had planned the murder personally, then in ten days his testimony had changed a lot. Now the offender claimed that he was performing the task of a group of Zinovievists who demanded decisive action from him. In this embodiment, the death of Kirov was very helpful, as it allowed to carry out a sweep among unwanted party leaders and influential figures.
Trotsky expressed his opinion in response to questions posed to him by telephone. Lev Davydovich believed that the statement of Nikolaev about his belonging to the Zinovievists was given under duress and meant practically nothing. The fact is that most of the leaders and members of the Leningrad party were “repentant” Zinovievists, therefore such information could not serve as evidence of opposition. He calls Zinoviev and Kamenev defectors, but openly calls the accusation against them and his supporters absurd. According to Trotsky, the motive for the murder is political, and the reason lies in the contradictions of the party elite. Nikolaev became only an instrument, and Kirov a target capable of justifying the subsequent reprisal.
A special role in this story was played by Matilda Draule. A beautiful, educated woman, was able to turn the head not only to Kirov, she, most likely. became his mistress, as a hot-tempered husband was intentionally notified. Although it could be that the jealous man was given false information about the connection between his wife and Kirov. Thus, the murder of Kirov is only the result of skillful manipulation.
The point of view expressed by Lev Davydovich, despite his opposition to the Stalinist power, is independent. Trotsky had no interest either to accuse Stalinism or to justify the convicts in the case. In addition, he expressed his position on the phone and only, then his opinion was recorded, besides, the terror deployed under the cover of the investigation was correctly predicted.
The confirmation of the point of view expressed by Lev Davydovich can be found not only in subsequent, but also in previous events. The Soviet press informed citizens about the end of the interclass struggle and the triumph of the revolution, socialism was proclaimed in the country, but the pathos statements were far from reality. The state developed an economic crisis, there was an acute shortage of food, the money depreciated, and the people began to grumble. The development of the unlimited power of Stalin was significantly hampered by the deserved Bolsheviks, who could be eliminated only legally. The killing of the people's favorite of Kirov was the means to start a “legal” massacre. The right hand of Joseph Vissarionovich, he was an ideal candidate for the conspirators, the difficulty was only in the fact that the conspiracy itself did not exist.
Recently, the press appeared excerpts from the diaries of the killer, allegedly refuting the version of the involvement of Stalin and his supporters to the crime. Journalists publish them as irrefutable evidence, but if you think about it, the direct killer most likely did not understand that they were being manipulated. The true version of it, he simply could not articulate during the investigation. Even his contemporaries characterize Nikolayev as a person with hypertrophied self-conceit, and admitting that his wife had disgraced him would have been too heavy a blow to his pride. Although this is only one of the versions.
Information