Military Review

Acts of Nikita the wonderworker. Part of 3. Khrushchev and the "non-aligned"

59
It all began with the debunking of the "personality cult" of Stalin. This idea of ​​Khrushchev, designed primarily to whitewash him and his closest associates, immediately scared away those who were not going to give up this legacy, no matter how scary it was. They were the first to leave their own - the Communists, followed by those who had little to do with Moscow.


Acts of Nikita the wonderworker. Part of 3. Khrushchev and the "non-aligned"


Today, few people remember that it was the West that was the first to support the Non-Aligned Movement - a project launched by the Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito at that time. The idea was to protect the young postcolonial countries from the influence not so much of the United States and NATO, as the USSR and its allies.



Soon, in November 1959, US President John F. Kennedy went on a short “rest” to the shores of Croatian Istria - on the Brioni Islands, directly to the residence of Marshal Tito, after which Yugoslavia, together with India and Indonesia, initiated the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement in the status of a multilateral interstate structure .

By that time, Khrushchev, even having officially apologized to Yugoslavia for “Stalin’s excesses” in relation to the country and personally its leader, I. B. Tito, could not involve her in the pro-Soviet socialist camp. At the same time, the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia still participated in the NATO-sponsored Balkan Security Pact, and together with NATO members Greece and Turkey.

Khrushchev and Brezhnev, it seemed to them, were able to establish a very friendly personal relationship with Tito, but that did not help either.


Khrushchev courted Marshal Tito as best he could - together while hunting in Belovezhskaya Pushcha

Belgrade has not joined the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) or the Warsaw Pact. In addition, the marshal regularly stubbornly refused Moscow in its requests to temporarily provide the USSR and the Warsaw Pact naval bases in Split, Bar or Zadar. This happened during the Suez (1956) and Caribbean (1962) crises, as well as during the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars.

Yugoslavia went even further when it condemned the invasion of Soviet and Allied forces in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and Afghanistan (1979). They did not hesitate to provoke military excesses on the border with Bulgaria from Belgrade, accusing it of preserving the “Great Bulgarian” claims to Yugoslav Macedonia.

It went so far that the leadership of the FNRY did not in the least embarrass the maintenance of diplomatic relations and tight economic ties with the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea-Cambodia. Finally, Tito personally defended the need to maintain something like a “cold peace” with the Pinochet regime in Chile because he did not want to break the treaty with the United States. It was concluded in 1951 year and was called very characteristic: “On mutual security provision”.

Meanwhile, the Belgrade Intergovernmental Meeting of Yugoslavia, India, Egypt, Indonesia and Ghana in September 1961 announced the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement. Over the next 25 years, the overwhelming majority of developing countries joined it, including many countries that had just ceased to be colonies. Many decisions made within the framework of the Movement were not easy to implement for obvious reasons. But financially, at the expense of special concessional loans from states or financial structures of the West, many developing countries often received substantial financial assistance.



Officially, Yugoslavia, India and Egypt were the leading actors in the relief, to which the United States and European countries turned their face immediately after the death of Gamal Abdel Nasser. At the same time, those countries that in some periods were in confrontation with the USSR, the PRC and their allies — for example, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, the Ivory Coast, the Dominican Republic, Thailand, the Philippines and Oman — were especially favored.

In fact, the organization of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961 was provoked by the Soviet leader Khrushchev. At that time, the party publications of the USSR actively, even aggressively criticized the new “revisionist” program of the Union of Communists of Yugoslavia. And Khrushchev, who was clearly dissatisfied with Belgrade’s refusals from the CMEA and the Warsaw Pact, ordered that the Stalin anti-Yugoslav thesis 1948 of the year be included in the CPSU Program, approved by the 22nd CPSU Congress.

Recall that this clause of the CPSU program read: “Revisionists actually play the role of peddlers of bourgeois reformist ideology in the communist movement. Revisionists deny historical the need for a socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist party, undermine the foundations of proletarian internationalism, slide into nationalism. The ideology of revisionism found the fullest embodiment in the Program of the Union of Communists of Yugoslavia. ”

It is noteworthy that the Yugoslav Communists updated the program in 1958, that is, 10 years after the “Stalinist” thesis, but this did not bother Khrushchev.

The creation of the Non-Aligned Movement was largely due to the two-faced position that Khrushchev occupied at the beginning of the 60-s with regard to Patrice Lumumba. It was one of the most authoritative political figures of Africa, the first president of the former Belgian Congo - the main pan-African raw materials "box" and the largest geographically African country.

In September 1960, in view of the intervention of NATO countries in the Congo, P. Lumumba asked the USSR to send Soviet military advisers and military-technical assistance to the country. However, Moscow delayed with an answer, which soon led to a coup in Kinshasa. Patrice Lumumba was arrested by foreign mercenaries and shot on 17 on January 1961. Subsequently, they tried to somehow play this “puncture” in Soviet culture, gave the name Lumumba to the University of Friendship of Peoples, created him an image of a hero, including in a movie, but the story, in contrast from the movie, you can’t twist it back.



The Belgian historian and political scientist Lüde de Witte is convinced that “the USSR imitated confrontation with the West in the Congo was indifferent to the fate of Lumumba and other left-wing nationalists of the Congo. The Kremlin did not want to unconditionally support Lumumba, for it would not agree to a "replacement" of the Belgian concessions by the Soviet. But the defeat of the Congolese anti-Western movement was a crushing blow to the geopolitical and ideological positions of the USSR, but not to conservative bureaucrats from the Kremlin, deprived of a vision. Since they treated Lumumba and his supporters as junk, opportunistic things. ”

The split of the international communist movement at the turn of the 50-60-s of the last century was no less crushing blow for Moscow. As the leader of the anti-fascist resistance, the long-term leader of the Communist Party of Greece, Nikos Zachariadis, noted, “Tito’s domestic and foreign policy proved the validity of the Stalinist position regarding Titov’s revisionism, therefore the overwhelming majority of the Communist Parties did not follow the Titoans. But the indiscriminate criticism, and then Stalin's defamation by the majority of his own comrades, led by Khrushchev, which in addition was not coordinated with foreign socialist countries and Communist parties, split the international communist movement. National liberation organizations were also ideologically disarmed and postcolonial countries were discouraged. ”



The consequences of such a policy, according to N. Zachariadis, were able to shake the foundations of socialism and the ruling communist parties themselves in the USSR and other socialist countries. Therefore, “public criticism of the Khrushchev anti-Stalinist line from China, Albania and a growing number of foreign communist parties, on the one hand, is correct, but on the other, it is beneficial to the imperialists, colonizers and revisionists.” Is it any wonder that the Kremlin will not forgive such a Zachariadis? Under pressure from Khrushchev in April 1956, he was dismissed from his post as head of the Communist Party of Greece and soon exiled to Surgut. There he remained in the Brezhnev period, committed suicide in 1973 there too ...

In the course of the protracted controversy of the Central Committee of the CPSU with the Central Committee of the Communist Parties of China and Albania, Mao Zedong predicted Khrushchev as early as 1962: "You started by discrediting Stalin and ending the work by destroying the CPSU and the USSR." And so it happened ... The head of the then Council of Ministers of Albania, Mehmet Shehu, announced in May 1961 about the formation, together with China, of a bloc of communist parties that reject anti-Stalinism. Khrushchev reported this at the XXII Congress of the CPSU in an offensive manner: "... what Sheha recently blurted out about a bloc of anti-Soviet communist parties shows that Albania is working on 30 silver coins from the imperialists."

2 March 1964 was the first meeting of 50 leaders of foreign communist parties in the Albanian capital Tirana, which broke ties with the CPSU after the anti-Stalin XX and XXII CPSU congresses. The meeting participants immediately reoriented to the PRC and Albania. It is significant that by 1979, the number of such communist parties exceeded 60. That is, the split of the world communist and national liberation movements, provoked by those congresses, continued to worsen. And this, of course, weakened the geopolitical position of the USSR, which was used to the full in the West. It is characteristic that the majority of pro-Chinese communist parties still exist today, unlike the “post-Stalinist” ones that were created at the suggestion of Moscow, but by the end of Gorbachev's “perestroika” together, with a few exceptions, went into oblivion.

In the middle of the 60s, despite the fact that Khrushchev had already been dismissed from all posts, the situation “reached” the break in Soviet-Albanian relations, the attempted coup in Albania, as well as the scandalous recall of Soviet specialists from the PRC. And then, as you know, there were military conflicts on the Soviet-Chinese border near Damanskiy Island and on Zhalanashkol Lake. In the meantime, meetings of the Stalinist-Maoist communist parties and national liberation movements have been held regularly in China or Albania, once every two to three years. Twice, on the eve of the 90 anniversary and the 100 anniversary of the birth of Stalin, these meetings were held in the southern Albanian city of Stalin, which they renamed “Kuchova” twice historically.

In the Marxist forums, there was usually no stone unturned in the condemnation of Moscow’s anti-Stalinist policy, but critics also got to Belgrade. And in the documents of these forums it was repeatedly stated directly or indirectly that the policies of Khrushchev and his “followers” ​​were coordinated with the imperialists, being aimed at a gradual rebirth and then the destruction of socialism and the communist parties, and not only in the USSR.

It is well known that since the end of the 80-s, Beijing has been pursuing a “super-cautious” policy for a number of economic and geopolitical reasons in relation to foreign Stalin-Maoist communist parties and national liberation movements. Thus, the latest official information on a similar meeting described above is dated as early as April 1992. Prepared by Deng Xiaoping and Kim Il Sung, it took place in Korean Pyongyang. The final document of the forum, based on Kim Il Sung’s speech there, aims at “the inevitability of the restoration of genuine socialism in countries where he suffered a temporary defeat as a result of the rebirth of 1950’s - the middle of 1960’s party-state structures”.

At the beginning of November 2017, a conference was held in Beijing with the participation of representatives of the CPC, as well as almost forty foreign Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations dedicated to the 100 anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. About Khrushchev on it, judging by the published materials, not a word was said.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Acts of Nikita the wonderworker. Part of 2. Khrushchev and Kiev, the mother of Russian cities
Acts of Nikita the wonderworker. Part of 1. Khrushchev and Kazakhstan
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Destiny
    Destiny 1 March 2019 06: 05
    +7
    Khrushchev, even formally apologizing to Yugoslavia for the "Stalin excesses"
    This is where all this "Akhedzhakism" has gone - we apologize to everyone, do not understand all forgiveness and repentance for what we are asking you do not understand from anyone. Enough, we don’t owe anything to anyone. We all owe it, at least for the Great Patriotic War, when the whole world was saved at such a terrible cost ..
    1. Felix Beinarovich
      Felix Beinarovich 1 March 2019 11: 26
      +6
      I would like to remind you that the Serbs are practically the only people in Europe who fought with German fascism until the last bullet and a drop of blood. The warrior was not even bold, but desperate in a complete hostile environment.
      1. polar fox
        polar fox 1 March 2019 12: 38
        +1
        Quote: Felix Beinarovich
        that the Serbs are practically the only people in Europe who fought with German fascism until the last bullet and a drop of blood.

        forgot about the Albanians. and the Greeks.
      2. Felix Beinarovich
        Felix Beinarovich 1 March 2019 12: 39
        +3
        And what are the cons? Am I mistaken in something?
      3. podymych
        1 March 2019 13: 08
        +7
        Serbs are a miserable nation. The Croats who had been converted into Catholics of Serbs, Bosniaks, Serbs, who were forced to go to Islam under threat of execution, were torn off from them, in principle - and the Macedonians, who are fools themselves - would figure out themselves who they are - almost Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians or where, most recently, Montenegrin Montenegrins ... Also Kosovo at the same gate. Horror.
        Yes, and because Tito did not work out anything good, because he is not a Serb ...
        This is how we, the Russians, allowed us to be led along with the co-religionists. Right on Bismarck. Horror even more terrible
  2. Comrade
    Comrade 1 March 2019 06: 13
    12
    Khrushchev is the forerunner of Gorbachev. The first Union began to bring down, the second finished. Burn in hell both!
    1. atos_kin
      atos_kin 1 March 2019 12: 24
      +5
      Quote: Comrade
      Burn in hell both!

      One still receives awards at large.
    2. Alber
      Alber 1 March 2019 14: 42
      0
      Quote: Comrade
      Khrushchev is the forerunner of Gorbachev. The first Union began to bring down, the second finished. Burn in hell both!

      A two-faced type, "hopak dancer", popoliz for the time being. And then he showed his sneaky character ...
      By the way, the real name of the Zionist Khrushchev is Perlmutter.
      Hence the bestial cruelty, (thousands of executed according to his lists) as his fellow tribesmen of the crosses (baptized Jews) - Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych
  3. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 1 March 2019 06: 42
    12
    November 1959, US President John F. Kennedy went on a short “vacation” to the shores of Croatian Istria

    Are the authors so ignorant that they don’t know the date of John Kennedy’s election as US president? In 1959, he was just a senator from Massachusetts and few people expected that he would become president in two years.
    1. podymych
      1 March 2019 13: 13
      +5
      We admit our mistake. He came to Brioni not in 59, but in 61 ... Sorry, great.
      1. Decimam
        Decimam 1 March 2019 14: 08
        +4
        Kennedy did not go to Yugoslavia at all, neither in 1959 nor in 1961. Nixon in 1970 was the first US president to visit Yugoslavia.
      2. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 1 March 2019 22: 21
        +3
        You have a mistake and about Tito’s attitude to the events in Hungary in 1956. After all, there is a lot of literature on the topic, you could read it. Anikeev, Gibian, Stykalin, Eden, Zhelitsky wrote on this topic. Tito generally supported the power action of the USSR; disagreements with Khrushchev were tactical in nature. Plus, the Yugoslavs were dissatisfied with our, to be honest, dodgy deception about the fate of Nadia and some of his supporters who took refuge in the Yugoslav embassy. Our representatives gave guarantees of personal safety Nadia. But when he left the Yugoslav embassy with his comrades-in-arms, he was immediately detained, taken to Romania, and after a while returned to Hungary, where they were shot after the trial.
        The article does not reflect in any way the fact that the Non-Aligned Movement in the Soviet press under both Khrushchev and Brezhnev was characterized very positively. Not reflected is the fact that Cuba played a prominent role in the Movement, and Castro was considered one of its leaders.
  4. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 1 March 2019 06: 46
    +2
    Today, few people remember that the West was the first to support the Non-Aligned Movement - a project put forward by the Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito at that time.

    The authors seem to know nothing at all, for example, that Stalin declared Tito a fascist and Yugoslavia was not included in the circle of "friends" of the USSR. Therefore, the actions of Khrushchev had no influence on the organization of the non-aligned countries. Whether he denounced Stalin or praised him, it does not matter for this fact.
    1. podymych
      1 March 2019 14: 14
      +1
      The stretch on your part is terrible - Khrushchev tried with all his might to win over to his side both Tito and all the non-aligned. And all his fault is that he acted clumsily, rudely. And FOR EXAMPLE, excuse me, it is written together. If not difficult - correct
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 2 March 2019 03: 29
        -1
        Quote: podymych
        If it does not, correct

        Already does not work, thanks for the comment.
        Quote: podymych
        Khrushchev tried by all means to win over Tito, and then all the non-aligned.

        And what does his fight against "Stalinism" have to do with it? The non-aligned never entered the communist camp. The last thing the local kings wanted was the dictatorship of Moscow, money, yes, but not influence. Their position is "from whom to get more."
    2. victor50
      victor50 1 March 2019 14: 52
      +2
      Quote: Puncher
      Khrushchev did not influence the organization of non-aligned countries

      I did not deal with this issue, so I apologize if I make a mistake. But memories from the time of school, early youth: in the news, the Non-Aligned Movement was constantly mentioned in a positive context. One got the impression that the USSR was at hand, was used very actively for our purposes. India was far from its last roles there. And then you can’t imagine a better relationship with her! With the current can not be compared.
  5. korochyn
    korochyn 1 March 2019 06: 47
    15 th
    It’s time to introduce a diagnosis - brain Stalinism.
    1. Nekarmadlen
      Nekarmadlen 1 March 2019 11: 50
      11 th
      Stalinism is some kind of clinic ... A gracious gentleman came in place of a cruel one, and lackeys are dissatisfied)) Under Stalin, we were constantly flogged, under Khrushchev they stopped, that’s all collapsed ...
      1. atos_kin
        atos_kin 1 March 2019 12: 35
        +4
        Quote: Nekarmadlen
        Under Stalin, we were constantly flogged, under Khrushchev they stopped

        You are mistaken, dear. Under Comrade Stalin, the people (except for you) developed freely, and no one was allowed to flog them. Under Khrushchev they began to deceive, under Brezhnev they put them to sleep, and when he wakes up, the National Guard with the "Cossacks" will flog him.
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 1 March 2019 19: 51
          +4
          Quite right, if under Joseph the Terrible they planted and shot nomenclature and dissidents, then under Khrushchev Kukuruznom there was already a shooting of people in Novocherkassk.
        2. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 1 March 2019 19: 53
          +1
          He is not mistaken, they (the enemies of the USSR) indeed under Stalin were constantly flogged, but apparently too few.
          1. Major_Vortex
            Major_Vortex 1 March 2019 21: 57
            +2
            Quote: Aviator_
            He is not mistaken, they (the enemies of the USSR) really under Stalin were constantly flogged, but apparently too few

            Not only enemies under Stalin were flogged, for the sake of justice. But Khrushchev did not like the people, unlike Stalin - this is a fact. Khrushchev blabbed, and in the management of the USSR was not far off and the Soviet economy began to seriously crack at his seams. He also did the wrong thing with Stalin. It was necessary to eliminate the consequences of repression and excesses, to restore the living conditions of people, and not to fight the late Generalissimo who rebuilt the USSR from the ashes and defeated Hitlerism. Khrushchev is Gorbachev’s forerunner. Gorbachev is even more comical person. Khrushchev against Gorbachev's background is nothing. But the real villain and criminal is Yeltsin with his team of annihilators.
            1. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 1 March 2019 22: 20
              +2
              Quite right. In the 50s, Khrushch himself created most of the conflicts (Poland, Hungary) with his XX Congress. Why did you withdraw troops from Austria in 1955? If our troops remained in Austria, the scale of the Hungarian events of 1956 would be much smaller, if at all. A wave of "humanitarian aid" to the unfinished Hungarian fascists then went across the Austro-Hungarian border. Well at least the army was at its best then.
              1. Major_Vortex
                Major_Vortex 1 March 2019 22: 29
                +5
                After the death of Stalin, the USSR gradually surrendered. Deferment was given by Brezhnev. If Gorbachev had come after Khrushchev, then the USSR would have been destroyed a couple of decades earlier. You can’t fight with heroes, or rather with the memory of heroes. Like it or not, and those who drown against Stalin only play into the hands of the enemies of Russia - history has shown it. Stalin is the largest and most significant figure in Russian politics of the 20th century. Nobody has surpassed him yet. But many tried to sink. But they lost even to the dead.
  6. Sergey Sadchikov
    Sergey Sadchikov 1 March 2019 06: 53
    +3
    I wonder if Tito is "tossing and turning" in his coffin, seeing what has become of his country because of his wisest policy of not joining !!
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 1 March 2019 22: 24
      0
      For that time, politics was quite normal. After all, what you said about Tito can be said about Stalin. For 30 years he led the country, and Malenkov, one of his closest associates, a few days after the death of the leader began to talk about the fight against the cult of personality.
    2. alatanas
      alatanas 5 March 2019 11: 52
      0
      his country

      The last "mini - empire" in Europe, under the dominance of the Serbs, would itself eventually collapse. There, contradictions have been held by force since the days of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
  7. wooja
    wooja 1 March 2019 07: 20
    +1
    interesting material, the fluctuations of the party line ..., Khrushchev-- the mess demon ...., and the saddest thing was they clapped their hands, did Stalin really frighten them all like that?
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 1 March 2019 08: 01
      +1
      Quote: wooja
      Did Stalin really frighten them all?

      Not. After the war, the Trotskyists again prevailed in the party; they were the majority in it. They celebrated this joyful event in the 1952 year by renaming the name of the party from the CPSU (B.) To the CPSU, thereby showing the whole bourgeois World — we, our own, bourgeois, and our citizens, that the CPSU is no longer interested in the problems of the majority — it disappeared from the abbreviation letter (b).

      In one of his last speeches, Stalin, perfectly understanding what is happening in our country, directly appeals to the party organizations of other countries to raise the banner of the struggle for workers' rights: "There is no one else to raise it":

      1. Nestorych
        Nestorych 1 March 2019 10: 30
        +1
        Well, what Trotskyists ?! Ordinary hedonists, who formed the course at the XXII Congress on "goulash-socialism".)))
  8. Lamatinets
    Lamatinets 1 March 2019 07: 30
    +1
    How did all this non-joining end everyone remembers?
    1. Cheslav Tsursky
      Cheslav Tsursky 1 March 2019 12: 35
      +3
      Hello Igor. Well, the point here is probably that the truth is always the same, but the look at it of different peoples may differ depending on their own history and mental characteristics. Here, most of the criticism of the "father of nations" is perceived with terrible hysteria. But that doesn't change the truth? The guy above quite correctly said that the Serbs are practically the only European people who fought against fascism in complete enemy environment to the last cartridge and to the last drop of blood. Why did it happen? I will try to be dry and thesis.
      Stalin pursued a policy of appeasement of Hitler. One way to conclude treaties with states that, in the opinion of the Soviets, would push Germany to reckon with the USSR. Moreover, they would not have been openly hostile to Hitler. It concerned Yugoslavia. In March 1941, a revolution took place in Yugoslavia. The military removed the pro-German leadership. The U-turn towards the USSR became obvious. Yugoslavia became the only enemy of Germany in the Balkans. Perceiving the USSR as sincere allies and brothers, the Yugoslav leadership immediately proposed the introduction (April 3, 1941) into the country of the contingent of Soviet troops. In Belgrade, there was no doubt about Hitler's imminent attack. And ... On April 5, an agreement on friendship and non-aggression was signed that did not provide for military assistance! Stalin was convinced that Germany greatly appreciated relations with the USSR ... However, on April 6, the Luftwaffe bombed Yugoslavia. This made an impression on the Stalinist environment not much less than subsequently on June 22 of that year. It is impossible to describe otherwise than spitting in the face. And what was the reaction then? Stalin canceled the banquet on the friendship treaty with Yugoslavia, and the Soviet leadership did not even dare to condemn the aggression of fascist Germany against the people of Yugoslavia, the exiled pro-fascist government! And that's not all. After the defeat of Yugoslavia on May 8, 1941, Deputy People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR A.Ya. Vyshinsky said that he did not see any further possibility of continuing to work in the USSR, what mission do you think? Yugoslav of course. To understand all this, I don’t know what to call; read how Goebbels laughed at the leadership of the USSR. And what do you think Belgrade was offended by ?! All this including and his diary is published. The West did not pursue a policy of appeasement. The West led its game in fact Hitler financing. But what politics of the great father of nations led to we learned on June 22, 1941. This is the enormous loss of the first year of the Red Army personnel, including
      1. Lamatinets
        Lamatinets 1 March 2019 13: 34
        +3
        I dare to recall that in 1941 the USSR was surrounded by such countries "not hostile" As occupied Norway, Finland, conditionally neutral Sweden, captured Poland, not hostile Rumvnia and Bulgaria, not at all hostile Hungary, working in the sweat of the Czech Republic, hostile neutral Turkey. vacillating Iran, absolutely unclear China, and in 1939, Stalin was forced to look not at the mythical Slavic brotherhood but at the realities, and in reality we were in the anus.
        1. Cheslav Tsursky
          Cheslav Tsursky 1 March 2019 14: 00
          +3
          Quote: Lamatinets
          I dare to remind

          Did I deny it? I have outlined one of the meanings of the Yugoslav position. Until 1941, relations between the USSR and Germany were generally very ambiguous. Is not it so? The beginning of the war, catastrophic for the USSR, was entirely on Stalin's conscience. The Slavic brotherhood, as you put it, in general, could not be considered by internationalists. By the way, in this case, internationalism is an even greater myth! Stalin thought that the war in Europe for Germany would be protracted because the French army was considered quite decent. And I was wrong. In 1941, Stalin could not have planned to attack Germany. These are just echoes of Hitler's propaganda. Stalin ignored the abundant information about the beginning of the war for two reasons. He believed that Germany would attack the USSR before England was defeated. And finally, Stalin strongly believed in German punctuality and absolutely did not believe in such disrespect of the Germans for the USSR! The Barbarossa plan planned to end the war in 3 months! Stalin believed that the war would not begin until 1942. These mistakes almost became fatal and led to colossal casualties and practically the loss of the Red Army personnel. The 3rd Reich itself was created by the West as an instrument of strike against the USSR. Having such allies as we had in the first and second world wars, enemies are not necessary!
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 1 March 2019 18: 05
            +2
            Quote: Cheslav Czursky
            Stalin ignored numerous information about the outbreak of war for two reasons. He believed that Germany would attack the USSR before the defeat of England.

            In fact, Stalin believed so precisely on the basis of the very numerous information.
            Our intelligence regularly reported on the imminent attack of Germany - and also regularly canceled these predictions. But regular reports that Germany would not fight on two fronts and that before the war with the USSR ended the war with Britain were not refuted. As well as information that before the start of the war Germany will put forward claims on the diplomatic line.
            Quote: Cheslav Czursky
            And finally, Stalin strongly believed in German punctuality and absolutely did not believe in such disrespect of the Germans for the USSR! The Barbarossa plan planned to end the war in 3 months!

            Say thanks to Canaris. Actually, the "Barbarossa" plan to the extent that they had intelligence information, the Germans just carried out - the main forces of the border districts were surrounded or defeated. After that, the Germans were surprised to find that the Red Army they had reconnoitered did not end there - and behind the second echelon of border districts there were previously advanced forces of the internal districts. And instead of an easy walk to the "three capitals", interrupted by the defeat of the few reserves transferred from the depths of the country and mobilized formations, they will have to continue to fight in the depths of the USSR in full. But their plan was not designed for this - and in the first place, supply fell.
          2. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 2 March 2019 07: 03
            +1
            Quote: Cheslav Czursky
            And finally, Stalin strongly believed in German punctuality and absolutely did not believe in such disrespect for the Germans in the USSR!

            Quote: Cheslav Czursky
            Stalin believed that the war would begin no earlier than 1942.

            Refuted by the real events of May-June 1941
            Another thing is that Stalin could have HOPE that the war could be pulled back as long as possible, that maybe Hess could not come to an agreement with the British (once the war continues), that Hitler would once again postpone the attack on the USSR, and there it was, by the fall winter ...

            The most important question: in light of "what the policy of the great father of nations led to, we learned already on June 22, 1941", what policy SHOULD Stalin pursue at that time? Remembering that he did not know what we know now?
  9. Olgovich
    Olgovich 1 March 2019 07: 45
    +3
    The simplest thought in the article never sounded:
    countries from the non-aligned movement simply had their own view and position on the same social camp and its ideas.
    They didn’t like much there and in no way depended on the art-art of Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Stalin
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 1 March 2019 08: 42
      +4
      Quote: Olgovich
      it in no way depended on the art-art of Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Stalin

      It was only under Stalin that the communist movement grew and expanded, and under Khrushchev-Brezhnevsky everything happened with an exact turn. And you all of them all in one heap ... Is this a misunderstanding of the issue or a deliberate withdrawal from the essence of the problem and equating the Bolshevik Stalin with the Trotskyists Khrushchev and Brezhev? However, this is not surprising; you constantly attribute the atrocities of the Trotskyists to the Bolsheviks.
      1. Felix Beinarovich
        Felix Beinarovich 1 March 2019 11: 40
        +1
        And what are your claims to Trotsky? It was a real Marxist - practitioner! And Stalin understood this and praised Trotsky for the time being, as the creator of the October Revolution. His fault before the Bolsheviks was only that he stood on the path of Stalin to power. Can you personally formulate the meaning of the expression Trotskyist?
        1. Boris55
          Boris55 1 March 2019 13: 03
          -1
          Quote: Felix Beinarovich
          ... can you formulate the meaning of the expression of the Trotskyist?

          Check out:

          "... Trotskyism is not at all one of the varieties of Marxism. A characteristic feature of Trotskyism in the communist movement operating in the twentieth century" under the hood "of Marxism was the complete deafness of the Trotskyists to the content of criticism expressed against him, combined with adherence to the principle of suppression in life declarations proclaimed by the Trotskyists, a system of silences, on the basis of which they actually act, united in the collective unconscious.

          This means that Trotskyism is a psychic phenomenon. Trotskyism, in a sincere personal manifestation of the well-being of its adherents, is characterized by a conflict between the individual consciousness and the unconscious, both individual and collective, generated by all Trotskyists in their totality. And in this conflict the collective unconscious of the Trotskyists viciously triumphs, suppressing the personal conscious well-intentionedness of each of them by the totality of their all.

          This is a feature of the psyche of those who have managed to become a Trotskyist, and not a feature of a particular ideology. The psychic type of “Trotskyist” can be accompanied by a variety of ideologies. It is for this reason - of a purely psychological nature - that equal relations with Trotskyism and the Trotskyists personally at the level of intellectual discussion, arguments and counterarguments are fruitless and dangerous. 6 for those who consider Trotskyism as one of the ideologies and do not see its real AML-ideological background, do not depending on the ideology that encircles it, which the psychotrocist can sincerely repeatedly change throughout his life.

          Intelligence, which is addressed in discussions in an effort to enlighten the interlocutor, or to identify with him the truth, on the basis of which it would be possible to overcome previous problems in relations with him, is only one component of the psyche as a whole. But the psyche as a whole (in the case of its Trotskyite type) does not allow the psycho-Trotskyist to process information intellectually, which is capable of changing the doctrine that is currently being worked out by that of many ideologically formed branches of Trotskyism, to which the psycho-Trotskyist psychologically belongs.

          This psychic trait, characteristic of many individuals, is a historically more ancient phenomenon than the historically real Marxist Trotskyism in the communist movement of the twentieth century. For this property of the psyche of individuals, there was no other word in the past besides the word "obsession." And in the era of the dominance of the materialistic worldview, for this phenomenon there were no words in the language that correspond to the essence of this type of mental impairment, which was called again, but not by its essence, but by the pseudonym of one of its most prominent representatives of Trotskyism in the 20th century communist movement.
          Trotskyism in its essence is a schizophrenic, aggressive, politically-active psyche that can hide behind any ideology, any sociological doctrine.

          Therefore, Marxism is originally an expression of mental Trotskyism. Marx and Engels were psychtrotskyists. Hitler was also a psychtrotskyist: about the identity of the attitude of Hitlerism and Marxism of the Trotskyist version to many phenomena of the life of society, see the work of the VP of the USSR "Look Back in Anger ...". At the end of the USSR, the dissidents were anti-communist psychtrotskyists. And now the majority of pro-bourgeois reform activists in Russia and their opponents from the ranks of various patriotic parties and all supposedly communist parties that are unable to abandon Marxism are also psychtrotskyists ... "
          VP of the USSR
          1. Felix Beinarovich
            Felix Beinarovich 1 March 2019 14: 13
            -1
            Quote: Boris55
            Check out:

            Very funny! Many thanks. And now, seriously? Those. all the Stalinists are true Leninists! All other Bolsheviks are not Stalinist Trotskyists?
            1. Boris55
              Boris55 1 March 2019 14: 33
              -1
              Quote: Felix Beinarovich
              And now, seriously? Those. all the Stalinists are true Leninists! All other Bolsheviks are not Stalinist Trotskyists?

              Sorry, but you have a mess in your head.
              You first get acquainted with when and which parties became part of the CPSU (b), who had the majority in it and during what period. This is important because all decisions were taken by a majority vote. Until. hi
              1. Felix Beinarovich
                Felix Beinarovich 1 March 2019 15: 06
                -1
                When there is nothing to say in a case, they always turn to the individual. Till. hi
          2. victor50
            victor50 1 March 2019 16: 43
            +1
            Quote: Boris55
            does not allow the psycho-Trotskyist to process information intellectually, which is capable of changing the doctrine that is currently being worked out by that of the many ideologically formed branches of Trotskyism, to which the psycho-Trotskyist psychologically belongs.

            To the psychiatrist! Together with the author! But ... is unlikely to help! laughing
      2. victor50
        victor50 1 March 2019 16: 37
        -1
        Quote: Boris55
        and under Khrushchevsky-Brezhnevsky everything happened with an accuracy of a turn.

        You are ready to rig any facts according to your theory! request The Communist Party of France in the 60-70s is about 2 million people, Italy 500 thousand (at least I remember such numbers about schools and universities). Cuba did not happen under Stalin! In France, they seriously feared that the Communists would come to power through elections by no means in the 50s. Again - not quite a communist movement, but with elements clearly positive for the USSR - the victory of Salvador Allende in Chile (1973, if I'm not mistaken). And the refusal to support the International in 1943 also testifies to the expansion of the communist movement, or is it an indicator that the hopes for its expansion did not materialize, at least in that period (when its support was needed by the USSR)? I wonder what you want to achieve by distorting the facts? Okay, such actions can distort and distort the history ... But what do they give for the future? For the present? What is the use of them? request
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 1 March 2019 22: 32
          +1
          IKP 1 million 200 thousand, and FKP 500 thousand, that is, on the contrary, the Italian Communist Party was more numerous in comparison with the French.
          Allende was ousted just in 1973, September 11th. It should be noted that the Chilean socialists, whose leader was Allende, took a more radical position on many issues compared to the Chilean communists, very moderate.
          1. victor50
            victor50 2 March 2019 18: 52
            0
            Quote: Sergej1972
            IKP 1 million 200 thousand, and FKP 500 thousand,

            Thank you for the clarifications, for the others too.
  10. Decimam
    Decimam 1 March 2019 10: 11
    13
    It is interesting how an article by authors who do not know history is placed in the "History" section? Or are the authors deliberately "interpreting" this very story?
    Let's start with the Non-Aligned Movement. The authors should be reminded that its creation began long before Khrushchev headed the USSR, moreover, not at the initiative of Tito.
    The start was laid at the Asian-African Conference in Bandung on April 18-24, 1955, where 29 heads of state of the first post-colonial generation of leaders from two continents gathered to identify and evaluate world problems at that time and pursue a joint policy in international relations . And Tito was not there.
    This Conference promulgated the principles governing relations between large and small nations, known as the "Ten Bandung Principles". Such principles were adopted as the main goals and objectives of the non-aligned policy. Compliance with these principles became the main criterion for membership in the Non-Aligned Movement; this is what until the early 1990s was called "the quintessence of the movement."
    On the island of Brijuni in 1956, Nehru, Nasser and Tito signed the Brijuni Declaration, effectively creating the Non-Aligned Movement.
    Therefore, the senator from Massachusetts Kennedy in 1959 could not have any influence on the process, because he did not go anywhere.
    A little bit about Kennedy.
    On the eve of the first Conference of Heads of State and Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Belgrade in 1961, Tito met not J. Kennedy, J. Kennan, the new US ambassador to Yugoslavia, who knew the Serbo-Croatian language and Serbian history well, a famous diplomat.
    Then there are the same "fantasy" motives, such as "participated in the NATO-sponsored" Balkan Security Pact ", moreover, together with NATO members Greece and Turkey." The authors do not even suspect that by this time the "Balkan Pact" "rested in Bose."
    The authors do not even have a remote idea of ​​the Yugoslav-American relations of the "Khrushchev period", as well as of the foreign policy of Yugoslavia in general.
    But aplomb, yes, aplomb is present. True story is missing in the article.
    And in the Yugoslav resorts from the American establishment, Robert McNamara was resting.
    1. Dmitry Bolotsky
      Dmitry Bolotsky 1 March 2019 12: 29
      +5
      Victor, thanks! Your notes are much more interesting to read than, in fact, the article.
      1. Decimam
        Decimam 1 March 2019 14: 19
        +7
        To put it bluntly, the authors actually do not understand what they are writing about, demonstrating blatant ignorance.
        For example, let's take the maxim: "Yugoslavia went further when it condemned the invasion of Soviet troops and Allied forces in Hungary".
        Relations between Yugoslavia and Hungary and the role of Yugoslavia in the Hungarian events are generally a complex issue.
        As for the authors' assertion about "condemnation", with the beginning of the Hungarian events, Yugoslav troops were brought up to the border with Hungary. On the night of November 2 to 3, 1956 on the island. Brijuni in the Adriatic
        Tito, having accepted N. Khrushchev and G. Malenkov, agreed to the Soviet military action in order to bring to power a more reliable government (the Yugoslav nomination of Y. Kadar as the head of this government did not raise any objection from the Soviet side).
        Tito also expressed his readiness, having contacted Nagy, to persuade him to resign, which would facilitate the implementation of Soviet plans, the only one capable, in his opinion, of saving the "conquests of socialism" in Hungary. Here is a "precipitation".
  11. AK1972
    AK1972 1 March 2019 11: 26
    +1
    FPRY leadership

    Maybe SFRY?
    1. podymych
      1 March 2019 13: 18
      +2
      It FNRY, abbreviation SFRY appeared later ... in 1963 year
  12. Levon
    Levon 1 March 2019 11: 32
    0
    Levon.
    But how subtly, in a Jesuit way they try to "alter" the meaning of the most interesting material, finding fault with anything they like !! However, the tradition for "professionals" is old-time ...
    Non-Alignment is a US product, rightly developed back under Eisenhower-Kennedy. Tito was very helpful in ideology and in leaders. Soon after the death of IB Tito (May 1980), it, figuratively speaking, rested in a Bose. as an important factor in world geopolitics, by the second half of the 1980s. Firstly, NAM has lost its last charismatic leader. And secondly, the West no longer needed this Movement to contain the USSR and the PRC by that time: the Soviet Union had already begun to disintegrate, along with Yugoslavia, and the reformist course of Deng Xiaoping, which continues to this day, precludes active - at the Mao-Zedun level - China's national support liberation movements, post-colonial countries and radical foreign communist parties ...
    And the Kennedy clan was led to the "throne" for more than one year, so there is no need to demonstrate ignorance in a Jesuitical manner. It is very unprofitable for many to recognize the egregious - in fact, moderate role of Khrushchev and his last in the split of the communist movement, national movements and development. countries. Yes, Tito died before the death of the USSR, but it was he and his counterpart who won the confrontation with Moscow.
    Incidentally, only a few minigroups (and, as a rule, NOT in the Communist Parties) in some. countries supported Tito in polemics with Stalin. Unlike the position of very many Communist Parties, which rejected Khrushchev's provocative "anti-Stalinism" and its consequences.
    1. Decimam
      Decimam 1 March 2019 14: 20
      +5
      the meaning of interesting material
      But what is its meaning - in the complete ignorance of the authors in the subject?
    2. victor50
      victor50 1 March 2019 16: 57
      +2
      Quote: Levon
      And the Kennedy clan was led to the "throne" for more than one year, so there is no need to demonstrate ignorance in a Jesuitical manner.

      Well yes! Especially ... to bang in a couple of years !? laughing RenTV! wassat
      1. Levon
        Levon 2 March 2019 01: 05
        +1
        Levon
        Do you still don’t know how to bring to power, and then clean up for various reasons ??? It’s a pity, but it’s time ...
  13. rayruav
    rayruav 1 March 2019 19: 34
    -1
    it’s enough that this bastard, together with Tymoshenko, who started the Kharkov operation of 1942 after the disaster, was hiding under some kind of bridge naturally in the rear and could not be found, and I think that Stalin forgave them only because they were not captured
  14. Levon
    Levon 3 March 2019 00: 44
    0
    Levon
    Tito conducted a double-dealing policy in Hungary - right up to the delivery of weapons there and the transfer / evacuation of terrorists. And the USSR was forced to "praise" Dv.No-Alignment for many reasons. Not to understand this is stupidity or "playing along", just to try to "object" ...
  15. Begemot
    Begemot 7 May 2019 09: 20
    0
    The saddest thing is that the already recognized mistakes of Khrushchev are repeated by Medvedev and Putin, the former due to selfish interests, the latter - I don't know for what reason, maybe he has another HSP. I remember well, even though I was a kid, how I hated the queues for meat, in which I had to stand with my grandmother, so that I was given a vacation rate, although until some time there were no problems, and even my grandmother had a pig in the barn before Until Nikita Sergeich decided that large collective farms are capable of fully providing the entire country with CX products - he was mistaken, as Medvedev is wrong now, incited by the "agrarian lobby" who hawked Clicquot to Polovtsian dances on board a private plane. It is easy to destroy a private small producer, without even giving away your intentions, quite simple regulation in very lengthy formulations (for example, "On the classification of certain types of agricultural by-products as hazard class") and some taxes on greenhouses and toilets, and you still need to reduce all state services for technical supervision, veterinary medicine, seed stations, while increasing the requirements in these areas. Let the private traders suffer, for technical inspection - on a tractor - 100 km back and forth, for vaccinations and veterinarian certificates, too, 50-70 km is not a hook, to bring manure to a neighbor's garden beds - hire a special company with a license and then on the list. As recently as May 4, I bought a pork shoulder in marinade in a roasting package from our large manufacturer, which is well known to the World. The faithful baked and we, having tasted a piece, without a word, threw the whole piece to the dogs. The feeling that some kind of papier mache was soaked in meat broth with jelly-like soap. Utterly disgusting. This is what large agricultural holdings will feed us at the price of real meat. It has long been known that large agribusiness is created not to feed people, but to make a profit.