Acts of Nikita the wonderworker. Part of 1. Khrushchev and Kazakhstan

90
What kind of epithets and nicknames did not bestow the Soviet people on Nikita Khrushchev, who unexpectedly for many succeeded Joseph Stalin himself as the country's leader. “Nikita the Wonderworker” in this row is perhaps the most affectionate, even complimentary. Many of his wonders, like the "Queen of the Fields" of corn, flights into space or the superbomb ("fucking mother"), are still remembered, and most have forgotten. Not so long ago, they recalled the Crimea, generously donated to Khrushchev lads from Ukraine, but they hardly know that a completely different kind of generosity could greatly cut down the borders of Kazakhstan - the second largest republic after Russia in terms of territory.

24 January 1959 was held an extraordinary closed joint meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Board of Ministers of the USSR. On it, Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, shortly before that, at the end of March 1958, who replaced Marshal N.А. Bulganin as the head of the Council of Ministers said that “the borders between many republics and regions are irrational.” “Some have huge territories and some are“ buried ”within narrow borders. We need to quickly correct these disproportions: we have already begun this work, but it is slowly moving ". Soon they began to draft a corresponding resolution of the Central Committee of the Party and the Union Council of Ministers.



Acts of Nikita the wonderworker. Part of 1. Khrushchev and Kazakhstan


But it all began not only and not so much with the transfer of the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR at the beginning of 1954. In the middle - the second half of the 1950-s, the Lipetsk region was established, which was carved out of the territories of the Tambov, Voronezh, Oryol and Ryazan regions. Then the Kalmyk ASSR was recreated, which was immediately transferred to a number of contiguous districts of the Rostov and Stalingrad regions, the Stavropol region and the Volga port of Burunny in the Astrakhan region, which, from 1961, has the “national” name Tsagan-Amman.

A little later, a number of areas of the Smolensk, Bryansk and Kaliningrad regions were transferred with the same surprising generosity to neighboring Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania. Finally, the main fuel and energy base of the Moscow Coal Basin and, we emphasize, of the entire non-chernozem region of the Russian Federation - then still the Stalinogorsk District of the Moscow Region was transferred to the Tula Region.

But there were much larger projects. And everything had to start, in fact, from Kazakhstan - it was this republic that Khrushchev considered too large in territory. Khrushchev not once admired the grain successes of Kazakhstan, achieved in the first virgin years. The republic received high awards, and Khrushchev, in his speeches, regularly called for learning from Kazakhstani virgin landsmen.

But over time, Nikita Sergeevich began to fear many other things, and not only the already formed "anti-party group" headed by Molotov, and a little later - the colossal authority of Marshal Zhukov. The fears of the first secretary of the Central Committee grew stronger in relation to the same Kazakhstan. And the talk in this case was not at all about nationalism, the logic was completely different - they say, the virgin records too much strengthened the authority of the leadership of the Kazakhstan SSR.

Kazakhstan by that time not only became the main grain base of the USSR, and the Kazakh SSR was not only the largest territorial union republic after the RSFSR. It was in Kazakhstan that such strategically important objects as the Baikonur cosmodrome and the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site were located. And all these factors in the aggregate, according to Khrushchev, could have prompted the Kazakh authorities to try to change something in the top Soviet leadership. For example, we could talk about the "de-Ukrainianization" of the party Central Committee after Stalin’s departure.

Although in reality there was not even a hint of such attempts, Khrushchev decided to “obkranat” Kazakhstan territorially in advance. The fact that Kazakhstan is “too big in its territory”, Nikita Sergeevich managed to complain in February of 1959 in private conversation with the then head of Azerbaijan, Dashdemir Mustafayev.

However, even in the fall of 1956, Moscow decided to transfer to Uzbekistan an extensive Bostandyk district of about 420 thousand hectares. It was one of the most fertile areas in the south-east of Kazakhstan, but the government of the republic preferred only to "gently" dispute this decision. It seems that Kazakhstan decided to avoid radical personnel decisions by Khrushchev, who, as is known, did not stay with this. But in 1965, half of this territory, on the orders of the new leadership of the USSR after Khrushchev, was returned to Kazakhstan.

In September, 1960, Khrushchev invited the then Kazakh leaders to Moscow - the secretary of the republican Central Committee of the party, Dinmukhamed Kunayev, and the head of the Council of Ministers, Zhumabek Tashenev. He told them that along with the creation in the same year of the “Tselinny Krai” as part of all North Kazakhstan regions, it would be necessary to think about transferring a number of other territories to Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

Say, such a large territory of Kazakhstan, although under the "Tselinny Krai" left almost a third of it, significantly slows down its socio-economic development. The “virgin land”, which existed from December 1960 until October 1965, inclusive, was only formally part of Kazakhstan, but in fact was subordinate to the leadership of not even the RSFSR, but the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

D. Kunaev, together with Z. Tashenev, as might have been expected, came out strongly against. But Kunaev was removed from his post only in 1962, and after Khrushchev’s resignation, he again headed the Kazakhstani Communist Party. Kunaev, thus, received a kind of calculation from Brezhnev and his colleagues for the unequivocal support of the plot against Khrushchev. Dinmukhamed Kunaev remained the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan up to the 1986 year, when almost all those who had once “shot” Khrushchev had already gone into another world.

Zhumabek Tashenev was removed from the central governing bodies of the republic earlier - already in 1961, but he was not destined to return to high positions after the resignation of Khrushchev. Historians from Kazakhstan are convinced that the Kremlin was very afraid of the politically influential tandem Kunaev-Tashenev.

In this regard, characteristic information of the national portal on stories Kazakhstan's "Altynord" from 14 July 2014 G.: "At that time Khruschev was obsessed with the obsession to cut off land in the north, south and west from Kazakhstan and distribute them to its neighbors. Five northern grain regions were to go to Russia, Mangyshlak oil fields to Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan, cotton areas - Uzbekistan.


In Uzbekistan, they were not shy in thanking Khrushchev. Third left - Communist Party ideologist Mikhail Suslov

At a meeting of the party’s collective property of the Kazakh SSR in Akmolinsk, which later became Akmola, Khrushchev said: “There is one urgent question about the land area in the republic. With Comrade Kunaev and the heads of the regions (which? - Note of the author), we have already exchanged views on this matter: they support our proposal. "

The latter was frank, very characteristic of the Khrushchev style of leadership, falsification. At the same time, Comrade Khrushchev warned: "If it comes to that, we can make a decision without your consent." But a few delegates voted for the proposed Khrushchev at this event: the overwhelming majority chose to abstain.

And in the spring of 1961 in the barracks of the military camp in the Akmola region "a large republican meeting was held, mainly on the same issues. Without giving anyone a word, Khrushchev attacked Kunaev. What did he not say in his address!" But again to no avail.

Finally, in 1962, Moscow started talking about the transfer of the Mangyshlak Peninsula (this is almost 25% of the territory of Kazakhstan) now to Azerbaijan. The idea was filed from Baku, and the rationale was that Mangyshlak had long been engaged in the oil industry. The leadership of Kazakhstan instructed Shahmardan Yesenov, the republican minister of geology, to “fight back”.


The whole region of Mangyshlak was planned to be transferred to Turkmenistan or divided between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. In the south, almost 45% of the territory of the Chimkent region was transferred to Uzbekistan (half of the transferred territory was returned to Uzbekistan in the middle of 60's). Finally, 4 of the North Kazakhstan virgin areas in 1960 were proclaimed by the Virgin Land: it was planned to announce it under joint management - the condominium of Kazakhstan and the RSFSR

At a joint meeting of the Presidium of the Supreme Council and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, the Kazakh minister was able to prove that Kazakhstan can successfully solve not only agricultural, but also industrial tasks. And made those present agree that there are qualified specialists, material resources, and extensive experience in the industrial development of mineral deposits in the republic.


Under Khrushchev, Aleksey Nikolayevich Kosygin headed the Russian Council of Ministers; under Brezhnev, he was already an ally

After a stormy discussion, Alexey Kosygin himself unexpectedly stood on the side of the Kazakh minister. Nobody decided to go against the authoritative chairman of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR, and as a result the project did not take place. Soon, Khrushchev was dismissed (October 1964), and, as is known, not the leading workers of Kazakhstan, but the closest associates of Nikita Sergeevich did it ...



It is also quite characteristic that it was precisely in those years that territorial claims against Kazakhstan began to be made in China, which were first identified in some regional Chinese media in 1963. It is good that the Chinese leadership managed to temper their appetites in time, and did not recall these claims during a period of serious aggravation of relations with the USSR after only a few years.

As for the draft of a joint resolution of the Central Committee of the Party and the Union Council of Ministers on territorial innovations within the USSR, it was prepared with reference to all the same Khrushchev "ideas." They primarily concerned the territories of Kazakhstan and a number of its neighbors. But since those plans did not succeed, the Kremlin obviously decided to hold onto the final version of that document.

We have already noted that the Kazakhstan project, along with the Crimea presented to Ukraine, was by no means the only global national-territorial project of Khrushchev. His innovations were held in Kazakhstan, it would seem, only the first run-in, on the eve of much more significant ethno-territorial redistribution. If even only a little of what was once proposed by Khrushchev was put into practice, this could directly threaten the entire Union of the USSR with a growing aggravation of interethnic relations.

It is possible that the collapse of the Union could have happened much earlier. Judging by a number of signs, Khrushchev and his "team" still could not understand this, but this did not prevent them from continuing with the implementation of their dubious projects. It seems that Brezhnev, together with his comrades, quite well understood from what "perspective" they were saving a great power.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. +16
    11 February 2019 06: 22
    Mangyshlak is a quarter of the territory of Kazakhstan? What a fright. However, it was not only for this that this "maize" should have been put up against the wall along with the Bandera supporters amnestied by him.
    1. +2
      11 February 2019 08: 32
      Well, if you count with the adjacent territory, geographically very similar to that.
    2. +6
      11 February 2019 11: 31
      Quote: 210ox
      However, and not only for this "maize"

      By the way, regarding corn, its value as silage was in the USSR until the 90s and it was successfully sown, and the fact that, to please Khrushchev, at the initial stage, it was planted almost beyond the Arctic Circle is local wine, as they say, " fool prays to God, he will break his forehead. "
    3. 0
      12 February 2019 12: 40
      Bandera was first amnestied under Stalin. You did not know about this?
      1. +2
        12 February 2019 14: 57
        Quote: Sergej1972
        Bandera was first amnestied under Stalin.

        Where did you get this nonsense? belay Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, September 17 1955 of the year. "On the amnesty of Soviet citizens who collaborated with the occupiers during the Great Patriotic War in 1941-1945"
  4. +12
    11 February 2019 07: 32
    There will never be forgiveness for Khrushchev’s Crimea, northern Kazakhstan could well be Russian,
    and in general the territory of the RSFSR already AFTER the formation of the USSR, from 1922 to 1954 was reduced by 4 million km2. (on 20%)
    1. +1
      12 February 2019 12: 41
      I agree a lot. But it is necessary to write "in general" and not "in general".)
      1. 0
        13 February 2019 11: 13
        Quote: Sergej1972
        But it is necessary to write "in general" and not "in general".

        Yes. I wanted to write "in general", at the last moment I wrote "in general". The result is a "hybrid". Yes
  5. +10
    11 February 2019 07: 46
    Quotes from the article:

    Republic received high awards, and Khrushchev in his speeches regularly called for learning from Kazakhstan virgin lands.

    And in this case it was not about nationalism at all, the logic was completely different - they say, virgin records strengthened authority too much leadership of the Kazakhstan SSR.

    The whole Khrushchev’s idea of ​​developing virgin land was realized in order to destroy the grain economy of the whole country, the entire USSR... Of course, people were told from high tribunes, but in the central press in Pravda and Izvestia they wrote and broadcast on central radio-TV throughout the country that virgin lands were rising in order to guarantee the country with bread. However, after the completion of the very expensive work on Khrushchev's development of virgin lands, in particular in Kazakhstan in 1960, the guaranteed provision of the country with bread did not work. And already in 1963, the USSR was forced to buy grain abroad from the states and Canada, and for gold. Thus, thanks to the Khrushchev scam, namely a scam, and not an adventure, The Soviet Union began to invest money, its gold in the agriculture of the USA and Canada.
    Therefore, the leadership of Kazakhstan could not strengthen its authority, especially strengthen too due to "virgin records". The population basically saw these exaggerated "virgin records", inwardly bitterly chuckled, smirked, but was silent.
    The author writes “The Republic has received high awards”, it would be more correct to write that leadership of the republic received awards and these awards were actually received from Khrushchev’s hands, with Khrushchev’s approval for his loyalty to the Khrushchev’s undertaking, because together with Khrushchev destroyed the grain economy of the whole country.
    1. +15
      11 February 2019 08: 34
      Khrushchev Kukuruzny rejected the reasonable Stalinist plan for transforming nature, when funds were invested in the reclamation of the Non-Black Earth region. And virgin soil only in the first year yielded a record crop (which had nowhere to store - it was stored in stadiums, then dry winds began, taking out the entire fertile layer. They returned to the non-chernozem zone and reclamation only in the middle of the 70, when there were no more able-bodied people left there. Khrushchev is the main grave digger of the USSR.
      1. BAI
        +5
        11 February 2019 10: 47
        Land reclamation of the Non-Black Earth Region led to the shallowing of rivers (including the Volga) with all the ensuing consequences.
        1. +2
          11 February 2019 22: 11
          The use of natural resources should be comprehensive, as it was envisaged in the early 50s. The shallowing of European rivers in our country is a consequence of deforestation. It was extremely necessary to transfer part of the flow of the northern rivers to water the arid lands in the steppe zone of the Orenburg region and Kazakhstan. Liberal cries of various village writers and other "fighters for nature" have done their dirty work. They were afraid, it’s not clear why, but the whole of Karaganda is fully supplied from the Irtysh, in fact, this is an element of turning the northern rivers, which they managed to do. And the Aral could have been saved, but now there are small puddles.
      2. +4
        11 February 2019 11: 21
        Quote: Aviator_
        Khrushchev Kukuruzny rejected the reasonable Stalinist plan for transforming nature, when funds were invested in the reclamation of the Non-Black Earth region. And virgin soil only in the first year yielded a record crop (which had nowhere to store - it was stored in stadiums, then dry winds began, taking out the entire fertile layer. They returned to the non-chernozem zone and reclamation only in the middle of the 70, when there were no more able-bodied people left there. Khrushchev is the main grave digger of the USSR.

        And it should be remembered that Gorbachev also put forward slogans, supposedly to improve the situation !!!!! The most important ---- "More socialism" "Under similar slogans and destroyed socialism!
        It’s good that this cycle has appeared! It’s somehow harder for me to find about grunts than about labeled ones!
        Because, "to ask the right question, you need to know most of the answer"
      3. +5
        11 February 2019 20: 25
        Quote: Aviator_
        Khrushchev is the main grave digger of the USSR.

        That's right. It is a pity that no one after him dared to go for radical reforms - they simply tried to preserve what is. And it, thanks to Khrushchev, was already just slowly being destroyed.
        So the Union has "slept through".
        1. +5
          11 February 2019 22: 04
          That's right. Brezhnev behaved like a cat Leopold, trying to live in harmony with parasites. He had the opportunity to rehabilitate Joseph the Terrible with his program in 1969, the intelligentsia liberal even wrote a letter about the inadmissibility of such a step. Nevertheless, stagnation is fatal for the state, we have shown it to the whole world in our experience.
          1. +1
            14 February 2019 13: 44
            I forgot to write something early. In 1924, a short time after the Civil War, they began to publish the Murzilka magazine for the little ones. Later, magazines appeared for those older --- for example, Hedgehog and CHIZH. About the life of that time I read the digests Murzilka and the hedgehog --- now it is possible. They promoted literacy, a scientific worldview, work, technology, taught children socialization, creativity and discipline, duties, love for animals, caring for the smallest, and captured children with new trends. In particular, circles: air and ship modeling, young people, agriculture, local history. They tried to attract children to these circles. And where does Khrushchev ???
            1. +1
              14 February 2019 20: 55
              There was also the magazine "Young Naturalist" and "Young Technician". And Khrushchev really has nothing to do with it.
  6. +3
    11 February 2019 07: 56
    open the map of the Russian Empire in 1914 ... everything is clear and understandable.
  7. +14
    11 February 2019 08: 20
    "At a meeting of the party activists of the Kazakh SSR in Akmolinsk, which later became Akmola,".
    Akmolinsk first became Tselinograd, and only then Akmola and Astana.
    1. +2
      11 February 2019 10: 23
      Quote: kvs207
      "At a meeting of the party activists of the Kazakh SSR in Akmolinsk, which later became Akmola,".
      Akmolinsk first became Tselinograd, and only then Akmola and Astana.

      The city of Akmolinsk was founded in 1830 at first as a Cossack outpost according to the new management system developed by M. Speransky, the initial status is an order (Akmolinsky). An outpost was built on the shore of Ishim.
      1. +3
        11 February 2019 14: 13
        Akmolinsk first became Tselinograd, and only then Akmola and Astana.

        Akmola - that was the name of the Kazakhs on the area on which the Russian settlement was founded. Originally AKMOLA - White Grave (mazar of white clay). In the Russian pronunciation, Akmola became Akmola. Then Tselinograd and now Astana.

        And don’t mess around about the White Grave. Kazakhs, Turks did not have fairy tales that our grandfathers and fathers climb out of the graves with ghouls. The deceased were deeply respected, the cult of their ancestors - Aruah was not exposed to the fact that the ancestors could become bloodsuckers.
        1. 0
          11 February 2019 19: 18
          In the course - I lived in this city for 19 years.
    2. 0
      31 March 2019 12: 51
      Quote: kvs207
      Akmolinsk first became Tselinograd, and only then Akmola and Astana.

      And finished as Nur Sultan
      1. -1
        April 7 2019 19: 00
        There is no limit to perfection)))
  8. -2
    11 February 2019 08: 29
    Since Gorbachev gave the enemies of the Communists freedom of speech and helped them capture the USSR, we have been living in their permanent Theater of the Absurd. With all my negative attitude towards Khrushchev, he did not give any Crimea to Ukraine. It was, as in ALL countries of the world - territorial division within the country. If the enemies of the Communists of the USSR had not been captured, it would have been completely unimportant to which of the Soviet republics Crimea belongs.
    1. +4
      11 February 2019 10: 13
      Quote: tatra
      With all my negative attitude towards Khrushchev, he did not give any Crimea to Ukraine. It was, as in ALL countries of the world - territorial division within the country.

      Oh how ?! This is a scum, as one communist used to say ... Don’t you tell me, Irina, why did the Communists need to cut and recreate all the republics and peoples of Russia at the expense of Russia and Russians ?! Is it such a normal international practice when the titular indigenous nation is spread rot for the sake of national suburbs ?! You can certainly draw a parallel between this disgrace and the current EU, when for example Germans in Germany are forced to share with Arabs ... But even there they have not thought of making Arabs from Germans, as we have from Russian Ukrainians! Although ... do you like it? That's right?
      1. -3
        11 February 2019 10: 41
        Enough nonsense. How the Romanovs divided Russia geographically as it was convenient for them, just like you, the enemies of the Communists, who dismembered not just the USSR, but de facto, centuries-old Russia, divided your anti-Soviet-Russophobic "independence" as you like, and the Communists had every right territorially to divide the USSR.
        And according to your logic, you, the enemies of the communists who seized Russia, had no right to change its territorial distribution.
        And your ideology after your capture of the USSR includes libelous accusations of some people for crimes, and justification of the crimes of others. The Russian enemies of the communists scream that it was Khrushchev's fault that the Crimea fell to the Ukrainian enemies of the communists, thereby automatically justifying those who dismembered the USSR and captured the republics of the USSR, and the Ukrainian enemies of the communists.
        1. +3
          11 February 2019 11: 36
          Quote: tatra
          Stop the delirium.

          And by what right did you take the fashion to talk to me like that ?! You will have to remind you that although you are a communist or a Bolshevik, as you please, you are a woman! Do not behave nicely. Firstly, you perfectly know how to dump everything in a heap! Reading you, you get the full impression that you divide people exclusively into communists, perhaps even non-partisan sympathizers and their enemies. Horror is easy! If at least in one of your comments you did not stigmatize the enemies of the Communists as a disgrace, then you begin to think purely in Christian terms if everything is fine with you? Although forgive the Church you hate no less if not more enemies of the Communists! In a country where, apart from the communists, there were no political forces or parties at all, some kind of mythical enemies suddenly appeared (i.e., practically the entire ruling communist elite must be understood). who took and captured the USSR ?! I, Ira, was never an honest communist and the USSR did not capture. At that time I was ml. lm and worked at the MUR. They tried to restore order with the comrades in the mess that your comrade communists made in the country! Why did the Bolsheviks rapturously share Russia and the Russian people, you never answered. I will do it for you - all these internationalists by nationality of the Russian people were very afraid! And they did it right because almost immediately across the country mass popular uprisings broke out. People i.e. the people who rebelled against you, you poisoned by gas, took civilians hostage and massively shot, starved and sent to camps! What's wrong? Crimea is all from the same series of dismemberment of Russia and the division of Russians. The truth must be looked into the eyes.
          1. -1
            11 February 2019 12: 46
            Boorish and senseless "footcloth". And since the enemies of the communists have such a manner, everyone who is automatically "accepted" as communists into the Communist Party, I solemnly accept you into the party. "United Russia ".
            And do not bother me anymore, enough money to earn on me.
            1. +1
              11 February 2019 14: 18
              ?!?!?!
              I have no more questions.
              Quote: tatra
              And do not bother me anymore, enough money to earn on me.

              Here it is, something from the category of obvious but incredible. Usually something diametrically opposite happens. But I really better go ...
            2. 0
              12 February 2019 12: 43
              It is your manner of communication that is rather boorish and shameless.
          2. -2
            12 February 2019 14: 45
            Did you serve in mourning and were not a communist? Perhaps, but they were definitely a Komsomol member.
            I am not judging you. So many years have passed. Enough to blame the uncle "from overseas" for our troubles, we ourselves, you, millions of others have admitted that now. And, of course, Trump is to blame.
    2. +3
      11 February 2019 20: 40
      Quote: tatra
      Since Gorbachev gave the enemies of the Communists freedom of speech and helped them capture the USSR, we have been living in their permanent Theater of the Absurd. With all my negative attitude towards Khrushchev, he did not give any Crimea to Ukraine. It was, as in ALL countries of the world - territorial division within the country. If the enemies of the Communists of the USSR had not been captured, it would have been completely unimportant to which of the Soviet republics Crimea belongs.

      You are right that in a strong and promising state, the internal borders are drawn as it is appropriate. But the problem is that Khrushch did everything to make the Union, while still a powerful state, become hopeless. As a result, whatever he did, he did exclusively to the detriment of the country. Stalin also did not shine with education, but shone with intelligence. And Khrushch lived by one instinct - to survive now and here. So we survived after it. Khrushchev did not have enough intelligence to understand that in reality it is still far from communism - he himself lived "under communism." So I confused the "rams".
      1. -2
        11 February 2019 20: 51
        Something BEFORE the "Liberator" of the anti-Soviet clique Gorbachev seized power in the USSR with the help of lies and hypocrisy, eternal for the enemies of the communists, no one in the world called the USSR a "hopeless state", to everyone it seemed indestructible like a rock. The enemies of the USSR on the territory of the USSR committed a monstrous crime against their country and people, they destroyed the USSR, while never intending to take on the slightest responsibility for the country and the people, never intending to do anything useful for the country and the people, but only TAKE away from your country and people. Therefore, even 27 years after their seizure of the USSR, they cowardly and cowardly dump on the Soviet communists the responsibility for IMPOSING the country and the people of their anti-Soviet power, beneficial only to the enemies of the communists of the System, their wretched raw-material-import-speculative economy.
    3. 0
      12 February 2019 12: 42
      Personally, in Soviet times, it was important for me that the Russian territories were part of the RSFSR.
      1. -1
        12 February 2019 14: 26
        And for me, a Russian, in Soviet times it was important that my centuries-old country should not be ruined into "independence" so that both Soviet and pre-revolutionary history and culture would not be taken away from my country and people. How did all this happen after Gorbachev gave freedom to the enemies of the communists.
  9. +1
    11 February 2019 08: 33
    Yes, then Khrushchev gave away our lands! But here to give the south of Kazakhstan to the Uzbeks !!! Well this would be a scary Cant !! 1
    1. 0
      11 February 2019 09: 36
      Why not give it back ?? Who are the Kazakhs ?? Honorary horse breeders who despised the activities of their ancestors ... They began to fill up in Russian cities, which were originally built, without taking into account such an influx of dung collectors ... And the Uzbeks are dekhkans who worked on the land for hundreds of years ...
      1. +7
        11 February 2019 13: 42
        Dung for home heating while firewood. And there was no firewood because the steppe is everywhere. Now in Kazakhstan, natural gas is everywhere, even in the fly village. And in Russia, natural firewood (not gas) in the 2019st century is still collected by the population. The law came out, read: In Russia, starting in XNUMX, it will be possible to freely collect logs for firewood

        Read the details on UNIAN: https://www.unian.net/russianworld/10067363-v-rossii-s-2019-goda-mozhno-budet-besprepyatstvenno-sobirat-valezhnik-na-drova.html
    2. +4
      11 February 2019 11: 40
      Quote: Lamatinets
      But here to give the south of Kazakhstan to the Uzbeks !!! Well this would be a scary Cant !! 1

      Who cares? Instead of a membrane, I would now teach lulah makhkhal.
      Your Russians couldn’t even name the mountain Verny peak, I had to go to the neighbors. The whole south of present-day Kazakhstan, including the territory where Alma-Ata was now conquered by Russia from the Kokand Khanate, something departed from China. Those. ended up in Russia without any connection with the Kazakh hundreds, however, not only the south.
  10. 0
    11 February 2019 09: 12
    Again all the dogs in Khrushchev, I am not his lawyer, but objectivity for the sake of the Russian border was built up to him precisely in historical Russia, Khrushchev simply continued this.
  11. +3
    11 February 2019 09: 37
    Quote from the article:
    But over time, Nikita Sergeevich began to fear many other things, and not only the already formed "anti-party group" headed by Molotov, but a little later - colossal authority of Marshal Zhukov.


    Zhukov and Khrushchev as siblings.
    Zhukov twice saved Khrushchev. This is what is known, i.e. published in the open press, and how many unknown cases when Zhukov rescued Khrushchev.
    Zhukov literally dragged Khrushchev to the country's top post with his teeth. Zhukov put all the country's air force on the ears that urgently to collect for the extraordinary plenum of the loyal and processed members of the Central Committee of the CPSU in order to defeat "anti-party group" headed by Molotov. Of course, the head of the KGB of the USSR, Khrushchev's henchman Serov, also helped Zhukov in the preliminary processing of members and candidates for membership in the Central Committee of the CPSU.
    Therefore, whether he, Khrushchev, are afraid-to be afraid of the "giant authority" of Zhukov.
    For Zhukov Khrushchev was like a stone wall.
  12. 0
    11 February 2019 09: 54
    Reading the now widespread "creations on a historical theme", created in the overwhelming majority of cases by people far from knowing and understanding the events they describe and placing at the head not an objective analysis of historical processes, but momentary conjunctural goals, I recall the phrase of the same Khrushchev, said at the plenum The Central Committee when "leaving": "Gathered and smeared with shit ... but I can't argue."
    The reform of the administrative-territorial division of the USSR was carried out within the framework of the reform of the system of management of the national economy and had no connection with the "fear" of Khrushchev, but was associated with the creation of industrial and rural areas.
    By the way, the authors, "relying", let's say correctly, on an article from "Industrial Karaganda" and describing the exploits of "Fearless Batyr" Tashenev in the field of the struggle for the territorial integrity of Kazakhstan against Khrushchev, kept silent about the fact that he was categorically against the transfer of the Virgin Land "directly center ", because I saw in this an" attempt "on" the historically formed territory of "Kazakhstan" and if this law is violated, then we have the right to appeal for justice to international human rights organizations, right? .. " He also put forward the thesis that it is necessary to get rid of the complex of “elder” and “younger” brothers, which was successfully done in 1991 by other people.
    So Khrushchev just strengthened the USSR.
    Those wishing to familiarize themselves with the source - http://inkaraganda.kz/articles/108697.
    1. -4
      11 February 2019 10: 05
      Quote: Decimam
      So Khrushchev just strengthened the USSR.

      You can provide dozens of facts, but Khrushchev will always remain the enemy in the eyes of the cheers-paariots because of the debunking of the personality cult.
      1. 0
        11 February 2019 11: 24
        Quote: RUSS
        in the eyes of cheers

        And where does the patriots?
        1. -3
          11 February 2019 13: 19
          Quote: Serg65
          Quote: RUSS
          in the eyes of cheers

          And where does the patriots?

          Hooray-patriots, despite the fact that they have the world, that the person in black and white, or absolute evil, or light.
          1. +2
            11 February 2019 14: 52
            Quote: RUSS
            either absolute evil or a lamp

            Well, yes .... they don’t understand the colors of the rainbow, that's for sure!
      2. +9
        11 February 2019 11: 30
        Quote: RUSS
        Khrushchev will always remain the enemy in the eyes of the cheers-pairiot because of the debunking of the personality cult.

        Lies. It will take a long time to list the "achievements" of the bald maize. Suffice it to say about the collapse of the ruble more than twice. Everything else, such as catching up with America in the production of meat, children's pranks.
        1. -8
          11 February 2019 11: 33
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          Lies. It will take a long time to list the "achievements" of the bald maize. Suffice it to say about the collapse of the ruble more than twice. Everything else, such as catching up with America in the production of meat, children's pranks.

          The peak of economic growth in the USSR was precisely under Khrushchev.
          1. +6
            11 February 2019 11: 34
            Quote: RUSS
            The peak of economic growth in the USSR was precisely under Khrushchev.

            Because of this, did Novocherkassk workers enter the square?
            1. +4
              11 February 2019 12: 05
              Quote: Mordvin 3
              Because of this, did Novocherkassk workers enter the square?

              They didn’t just leave, but the Novocherkassk workers were shot.
              From the report of the Prosecutor General of the USSR Trubin NA:
              As a result of the use of weapons for self-defense by military personnel of internal troops on June 2 in the square and near the city police department 22 rioters were killed and 39 rioters injured. Still 2 people killed in the evening of June 2 under unclear circumstances.

              A similar shooting was in Kazakhstan in Temir-tau in 1959.
              Also metallurgists and builders because of Khrushchev's "peak of economic growth in the USSR" came out to the square and were shot. According to official figures, 11 workers were immediately killed in the square, 5 later died in hospitals from gunshot wounds, how many were injured in official sources are not indicated.
              1. 0
                11 February 2019 12: 09
                I remember that Komsomol conducted an investigation into the execution in Novocherkassk. They came to the conclusion that they fired from two machine guns.
          2. -4
            11 February 2019 12: 37
            By the beginning of the 60s, the USSR turned into a powerful industrial-agrarian power. Production of capital goods accounted for 75% of the total industrial output. The growth rate of national income amounted to 10%. The structure of the economy has changed. The petrochemical industry, electric power, electrical engineering and the production of artificial materials appeared. In 1957, the world's first artificial satellite (October 4, 1957) was launched into low Earth orbit, and on April 12, 1961. -spaceship "Vostok", which was piloted by Yu.A. Gagarin, circled the globe. This event made a stunning impression on the world and was evidence of the high level of scientific and technological development of the USSR.
            1. 0
              12 February 2019 17: 58
              You can write as much as you like about the achievements of the USSR after Stalin. But, alas, the site has two points of view. 1st Nikolai II, 2nd I.V. Stalin. Everything that is before, between, and after.
              And not to convince that the whole country moved from barracks to apartments, and with whom was Gagarin, and how many children's clubs / sports clubs / camp sites were.
              Personally, I believe that neither Khrushchev, nor Brezhnev, nor Gorbachev wanted the collapse of the USSR. Just "any cook, if you teach" Not taught ... alas.
              However, under Khrushchev and Brezhnev it was quite good. And who knows what the USSR could represent now? Purely hypothetically (c);)
              1. +1
                13 February 2019 12: 49
                Quote: Grim Reaper
                ...... And not to convince that the whole country moved from barracks to apartments, and with whom was Gagarin, and how many children’s circles / sports clubs / camp sites were. ........
                Already in the 30s of the last century, construction of both residential and public buildings was taking place in Leningrad. After the Second World War, construction was resumed. Residential buildings, both in our city and in others, were built according to different projects. I just have the opportunity to compare it all in St. Petersburg. Houses "Khrushchev" ----- the result of these different projects in order to settle as many residents as possible. After all, how many houses were destroyed during the Second World War. Construction of the Khrushchevs -----. Just coincided with the appearance of Khrushchev. By the way ---- then there were "Brezhnevkas", where they tried to correct the shortcomings of "Khrushchev"
                So is the "children's circles". Soviet Power worked immediately on raising children.
          3. +6
            11 February 2019 20: 51
            Quote: RUSS
            Quote: Mordvin 3
            Lies. It will take a long time to list the "achievements" of the bald maize. Suffice it to say about the collapse of the ruble more than twice. Everything else, such as catching up with America in the production of meat, children's pranks.

            The peak of economic growth in the USSR was precisely under Khrushchev.

            It’s like Judah Eltsin - under him, the Sverdlovsk Region achieved a peak in economic growth. But nothing, that all that Judas bragged about was the merit of his predecessor, Ryabov?
            So with Judas Khrushchem - he rested on the laurels of Stalin. Yes, we are still still largely alive with his backlogs. And under Khrushchev, when they began to buy wheat in the West - a sign of economic growth? Do not tell with your ignorance.
            1. -7
              11 February 2019 21: 07
              Quote: Doliva63
              Do not tell with your ignorance.

              The fact that the peak of the economic growth of the USSR was under Khrushchev is not my conclusion, but of Soviet economists and contemporaries, then under Brezhnev the sunset of the USSR began.
              1. +2
                14 February 2019 19: 23
                Quote: RUSS
                Quote: Doliva63
                Do not tell with your ignorance.

                The fact that the peak of the economic growth of the USSR was under Khrushchev is not my conclusion, but of Soviet economists and contemporaries, then under Brezhnev the sunset of the USSR began.

                Only Khrushchev has something to do with it? Stupidly rested on other people's laurels, and it sounded from you as if it were his merit. Under Brezhnev, an already visible sunset began, laid by the brainless Khrushchev. These are the evidence.
  13. BAI
    +5
    11 February 2019 10: 42
    Somewhere around 2 volumes of Khrushchev, from the complete works. There are quite sound thoughts. Personality is not unique.
    1. +4
      11 February 2019 11: 09
      Quote: BAI
      Personality is not unique.

      Like any other! I do not understand the reaction of recent years to the activities of Khrushchev, accusing him of all mortal sins! And the critics "bashfully" forget the Caribbean crisis. Try to imagine Gorbachev in his place in those circumstances? Even Putin? Would you express concern !? Mistakes, apparently, he made! But it is not necessary to attribute everything done under him only to Stalin's legacy !! I believe that with his adventurous, at times, behavior, he saved the country more than once from troubles, from war, maybe even! If Putin behaved this way, there would be overwhelming enthusiasm right now !!
    2. +5
      11 February 2019 11: 25
      Quote: BAI
      2 of the volume of Khrushchev, from the complete works, are preserved somewhere

      laughing And this despite the fact that Khrushchev could not write from a word at all!
      1. BAI
        +3
        11 February 2019 13: 29
        Brezhnev was also a great writer.
  14. +2
    11 February 2019 10: 45
    Russia had to tear off the East and North of Kazakhstan in the early 90s, now it’s too late, Kazakhization is underway, the resettlement program from the south of Kazakhstan has been launched (the oralmans have become obnoxious), Kazakhs are more or less sane in space, they just don’t need a stupid Russian I, it won’t pass.
  15. -2
    11 February 2019 11: 43
    If Khrushchev returned to Russia the administratively northern regions that had been torn away from it - the same Uralsk, Guryev, Pavlodar, Petropavlovsk, then this would probably become one of his most useful deeds.
  16. +2
    11 February 2019 13: 02
    I read the article, read the comments. Most argue the criteria are either black or white, there are no other colors. Some Khrushchev are 100% bad, others 100% good. And think about comparing all the facts? It turns out like with all the leaders there was something bad, but it was good, another thing is that some had more pluses than minuses, while others had the opposite. Land transfer, redrawing the borders of the republics on such a scale is certainly utter stupidity. But Kazakhstan still uses developed, virgin lands, although most of them relate to the risky year of agriculture .Also, corn showed itself very well as shorter than cattle.
    1. +5
      11 February 2019 14: 45
      Quote: axiles100682
      But Kazakhstan still uses the developed, virgin lands, although most of them belong to the risky year of agriculture.

      Officially, less than half of the arable land sown under the USSR is sown in Kazakhstan.
      In the USSR, six centners were received per hectare on average, i.e. where two or three centners, and where even twelve to fifteen, and where nothing at all, immediately smelled.
      Mostly soils in Kazakhstan are heavy, clay, loam, a layer of chernozem 5-10 cm. So, farming is more than risky. Plowing is difficult, equipment must be powerful and it is necessary to plow a lot, since productivity is low, fuel and lubricants consumption is huge, equipment wear is large, but before everything was covered by the Union budget. Mainly due to Russia, clearly not due to Georgia or the Baltic states.
      Now farmers sow only areas where you can get at least 10-15 centners per hectare and then barely survive. They throw land, go into the city. Young people do not see any prospects in the countryside; right after the army they leave for the city. As long as there is enough bread, there are only 17 million people, less than in Moscow. They even sell it to Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan.
      1. +5
        11 February 2019 15: 03
        Well, you don’t tell me. I live in the zone of this very risky farming. And also come from the village. I know what why and how. They sow less because really completely unsuitable lands were transferred to pastures, some of which are also used for fodder crops for livestock and pastures. The lowest yield of 7-8 centners has always been and is. Usually a good year is a good year is bad. All the same plowed with the same T-4, DT-75, T-150 naturally MTZouh not much plow. From the village they’re not running because the crops are bad. They all buried in the village, the youth have nothing to do, and so they run.
        1. +3
          11 February 2019 15: 38
          Quote: axiles100682
          The lowest yield of 7-8 centners has always been and is.

          7-8 centners for Kazakhstan was not the lowest yield.
          He himself heard the first secretary Kolbin speaking on TV at a party activist in Aktyubinsk, where he said that even though the yield in the region is low, namely 1-2 centners, this bread needs to be removed.
          With such productivity, the farmer will not survive now than he will pay for bonded loans for fuel and lubricants. There is no support from the modern government, they are throwing the earth.
          5-6 centners is satisfactory in Soviet times, and 7-8 on average for Kazakhstan is already good, they could give the Hero to the first secretary of the regional committee. But unfortunately, not every year has happened. Once every five to ten years.
          1. +1
            11 February 2019 16: 15
            Perhaps it was a dry year in general. We had a very bad year 7-8 years ago. The harvest was 5-6 centners. Someone threw, someone mowed and closed the year at least at zeros. Because of the lack of harvest, the snack price of grain soared. In our area, the average yield was always 8-10 centners. Where lower yields were naturally abandoned and switched to livestock breeding, but this is to the south towards Zhezkazgan and Balkhash, there is generally soup turning into sandstones.
          2. +2
            11 February 2019 16: 33
            Peasant farms and their owners live, in principle, not badly and poorly poorly develop. Another thing is that due to poor infrastructure and lack of cultural and leisure facilities, people are trying to leave education more or less, plus the outflow of the Russian-speaking population to Russia. There is no one to work.
            1. +1
              12 February 2019 05: 22
              Quote: axiles100682
              due to underdeveloped infrastructure and lack of cultural and leisure facilities

              What are you speaking about.
              What infrastructure is there?
              Was at the beginning of the 2nd thousandth on the repair of railway railways. 69, distance Zharyk-Kyzylzhar, and there, next to the siding, they say there was a state farm-millionaire Bidaiksky. So there is almost complete collapse. Some branches of the state farm were abandoned and destroyed, herders' camps were abandoned and destroyed. Buildings are dismantled to foundations if made of bricks. Only the slag-filling walls are still standing. All the people huddled in the central estate. Half of the central estate was also dismantled, the mechanic workshop, mashyard, car park, poultry farm were dismantled and destroyed. The Germans left, the Russians left, I saw one family, they say there are 3-4 more. More than half of the Kazakhs also moved to the city. Those that remained, one tenth, graze their cattle on a pitiful patch of a huge steppe. I asked the locals why you torment the beast in the cramped conditions. So it turns out that all the land has been bought out, an unknown owner, it seems, lives in Almaty. Straight on Nekrasov NA from the "Forgotten Village":
              "I got into my carriage and went to St. Petersburg."

              The school was still standing, local grandmothers taught. The director is relatively young, but a business guy, very much so.
              There are several farmers, men at the age of silent, gloomy. Yes, in principle, and have fun.
              1. 0
                12 February 2019 09: 16
                I was in these parts too. And I visited Zharyk and Kyzyl Zhar and you mentioned the state farm. All this has a place to be, and I don’t argue about it myself. I didn’t put it that simply. Neither underdevelopment, but degradation, collapsed. By the way, in the area indicated by you, sowing is generally empty. If only in the north of the Zhana-Arkinsky district. But let's say things are much better in the Nurinsky district. I personally saw peasant farms and villages where everyone kept and developed, even AN-2 in one farm there are. Osakarovsky district, too, peasant farms are not in poverty. Although of course the current salam to the level of the late union as to China on foot.
  17. +3
    11 February 2019 15: 50
    Yeah, this chmudilo heaped things up. Until now, his "genius" leadership of the country has come back to haunt us. But the main mistakes were made in the reorganization of the country's economy, and this very voluntarism led to the need to plow virgin lands, although this did not solve the issue, but only postponed its decision for several years. The result - constant purchases of grain abroad and after its "overthrow". Unfortunately, after Stalin, a statesman personality did not appear in the country's leadership. And it could not have appeared as a result of the adopted collective leadership of the country. and the secretary general was only a screen for the "theater" and a "doll" for the people. The result is the decay of the party, its disintegration and the subsequent petty-bourgeois counter-revolution in 91. hi
  18. -3
    11 February 2019 16: 26
    Quote: Cheslav Czursky
    Is it that such a normal international practice, when a titular indigenous nation is spreading for the sake of national suburbs ?!

    Internatsionalizm!
  19. +3
    11 February 2019 16: 50
    Five northern bread regions were supposed to move to Russia

    What would be right.
  20. -3
    11 February 2019 17: 14
    leave Nikita alone, you still can’t change anything, a vivid example of a true communist,
    1. 0
      11 February 2019 20: 39
      He is a Trotskyist
      1. 0
        11 February 2019 20: 43
        nothing more than a shortcut of who he was absolutely unimportant ...
    2. +1
      11 February 2019 20: 59
      Quote: wooja
      leave Nikita alone, you still can’t change anything, a vivid example of a true communist,

      Apparently, you were not once accepted into the party? Alcohol? Amoral? Mental retardation?
      1. -2
        11 February 2019 21: 04
        I am far from Marx, he was expelled for this ....
  21. 0
    11 February 2019 18: 03
    Glory to the Almighty, we survived! ...
    1. +1
      11 February 2019 18: 49
      Quote: Qazaq 1974
      Glory to the Almighty, we survived! ...

      Our anthem is an echo of those events. : hi : .
    2. 0
      11 February 2019 20: 57
      Quote: Qazaq 1974
      Glory to the Almighty, we survived! ...

      Well, now this is not a fact.
  22. +3
    11 February 2019 20: 38
    Nikita is still that miracle worker ... During life, how much blood he shed, and after death he still pours ...
  23. +2
    11 February 2019 23: 20
    The very first comments were deleted - apparently literally expressed on the occasion of the corn general secretary, far from all were given smile
  24. +2
    12 February 2019 00: 57
    No "good" deeds of Khrushchev can justify his main crime. Khrushchev's main fault lies in the retreat from socialism, which began with the struggle against the so-called “personality cult”.

    Khrushchev did not understand the Marxist truth that the development of society is determined by objective laws that do not depend on the will of the people, he believed in the power of party decisions and his petty-bourgeois peasant grip. By the way, this "phenomenon" was very correctly called voluntarism.

    I.V. Stalin was a Marxist, he understood that “Socialism is a science ... having ... general laws and one has only to move away from them, as the construction of socialism is doomed to inevitable failure". Back in 1928, he warned that Russia is a peasant country, there is a LITTLE BOURGEOIS ideology based on private property in it, he remembered Lenin's that the strength of capitalism lies “The power of small production ... and small production gives rise to capitalism and the bourgeoisie constantly, daily, hourly, spontaneously and on a massive scale.”

    Khrushchev and all subsequent general secretaries did not understand this, and with their actions they transferred the socialist economy to petty-bourgeois tracks. It all began with the liquidation of line ministries and the decentralization of the national economy management system (created by the economic councils).

    Another blow to socialism was the replacement of the obligatory supply of agricultural products with a procurement system. In 1956, the state machine-tractor stations (MTS) were transferred to cost accounting, and then completely eliminated, the equipment was sold to collective farms.

    In 1961, a new CPSU program was adopted, which proclaimed that "In communist construction it is necessary to make full use of commodity-money relations". The elements of the capitalist market were recognized as the most important for the socialist economy - cost accounting, money, price, cost, profit, trade, credit. These were the basis for the disastrous economic reform of 1965.

    The Khrushchevites also deformed the Soviet political system. They decided that “The dictatorship of the proletariat fulfilled its historical mission and, from the point of view of internal development, ceased to be necessary in the USSR ...” For the Khrushchevites, the state ceased to be a class category, they called it "the nationwide", and the CPSU "the party of the whole people." And this is a revision of Marxism and a betrayal of the interests of the working class.

    The result is obvious: the destruction of socialism, Soviet power and the Soviet Union ..
    1. +1
      15 February 2019 21: 53
      And essentially nothing to add
  25. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  26. 0
    12 February 2019 12: 39
    Lots of mistakes. Under Khrushchev, Kosygin was not the Presidential Council of the RSFSR, he did not hold this post for long under Stalin in the 40s. Quote: "A little later, a number of districts of the Smolensk, Bryansk and Kaliningrad regions were transferred with the same amazing generosity to neighboring Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania." Where does this data come from? I looked at the atlases of the USSR published in different years, there were no such changes.
    1. -1
      15 February 2019 21: 55
      Why check the source? The main source of information is three P: floor, finger ceiling ...
      So there’s no article
  27. 0
    22 February 2019 18: 53
    I am for the transfer of Tselina to the RSFSR !!! good And Azerbaijan? what From the Volga River to the River Ural of the RSFSR good (it would be necessary!) Uzbekistan - where Uzbeks live Yes ! South of Kazakhstan - where Kazakhs live - also Kazakhstan Yes . Stalin (Dzhugashvili) - Georgian Yes Khrushchev (Khrushchev?) - considered himself a Ukrainian wassat . Draw your own conclusions ...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"