Megaprojects of Stalin, which Khrushchev buried

Megaprojects of Stalin, which Khrushchev buried
Portrait of I.V. Stalin. Artist B. Karpov


The red emperor. After the death of Joseph Stalin, several ambitious projects were completed that could turn the USSR-Russia into an advanced civilization that overtook the whole world for many generations. Projects that could create a “golden age” society and forever bury predatory Western capitalism, a consumption and extermination society that kills people and nature, as well as bring great economic benefits to the country, contribute to its spatial development, development of the outskirts and strengthen security.

The death of the Golden Age society


Stalin created a civilization and a society of the future, a society of the "golden age" ("What kind of society did Stalin create?") A society of knowledge, service and creation. At the center of this society was the creator, creator, teacher, constructor and engineer. It was a civilization based on social justice and an ethics of conscience (the "code matrix" of Russian civilization, the basis of "Russianness"). Civilization, an alternative to the predatory Western world, parasitic capitalism, a society of consumption and self-destruction (society of the "golden calf").

Soviet (Russian) civilization was directed toward the future, towards the stars. She was eager for the "beautiful far away." Stalin created a national, healthy elite from the best representatives of the people: heroes of war and labor, labor aristocracy, scientific and technical intelligentsia, Stalin falcon pilots, military officers and generals, professors and teachers, doctors and engineers, scientists and designers. Hence such great attention to the development of science, technology, education, culture and art. The creation of a whole system of palaces of science, houses of creativity, art and music schools, stadiums and sports clubs, etc. The Soviet leader was not afraid of smart and educated people. On the contrary, under Stalin, the children of peasants and workers became marshals and generals, professors and doctors, pilots and captains, researchers of the atom, the oceans, space. Any person, regardless of origin, affluence, place of residence, could fully reveal his creative, intellectual and physical potential.

Hence, such a breakthrough of the USSR, even after the departure of the great leader. If Stalin lived another generation, either he or his successors would have continued his course, had not been afraid of the creative impulse and intellectual development of the people, and this process would have become irreversible. A large estate of the working people would come to power (hence the leader’s desire to limit the power of the party, to transfer more power to the Soviets), strengthened and gained strength, pushing from his midst both new excellent managers and philosopher-priests who understand the laws of the universe and are able to preserve spiritual health of the people.

In the West, they saw all this and were terribly afraid of the Soviet project, which could become dominant on the planet. They closely watched every step of Moscow. To destroy the Soviet project and Russian civilization of the future, Hitler was nourished and armed, they gave him almost all of Europe. The Nazis were to destroy the first sprouts of the Russian "Golden Age". But the power of the Russians was not to crush. The Union won the terrible war and became even stronger, tempered in fire and blood.

Then the owners of the West made a bet on the remnants of the “fifth column”, the hidden Trotskyist and anti-Stalinist Khrushchev. The Red Emperor was able to eliminate and brought to power the destroyer Khrushchev. And he perfectly coped with his role, arranged de-Stalinization and "perestroika-1." Khrushchev found support in the party nomenclature, which did not want to give up power and warm places, to follow the path of transfer of control to the people and the cosmopolitan, pro-Western intelligentsia. He could not finish the work that he had begun. The Soviet elite was not yet completely affected by decay, did not want collapse, and Khrushchev was neutralized. However, she did not return to the Stalinist course. This became the foundation of the civilizational and state disaster of 1985-1993. Now the West could calmly wait for the last representatives of the Stalinist guard to leave, and full degenerates would come to power, who would destroy, sell Soviet civilization and the Soviet (Russian) people.

The destruction of the ocean fleet


Under the red emperor, the "imperial" armed forces of the USSR-Russia were recreated, the best traditions of the empire were restored. The best army in the world was created and hardened in battle, defeating the Nazi "European Union" and stopping the new (third) world war, which the owners of London and Washington planned to unleash.

To create a full-fledged armed forces, Stalin planned to create a large, ocean fleet. Even the Russian sovereign Peter the Great noted: “sovereigns of the sea fleet those who don’t have tokmo have one hand, but those who have a fleet both have! ” Such a fleet was needed by the Soviet Union in order to withstand the aggressive intentions of the leaders of the Western world - Great Britain and the USA, who were great sea powers. Given the increased power of Soviet industry, advances in science and technology, successes in the development of the economy of the USSR, this was a completely feasible plan. Such a fleet began to be built even before the Great Patriotic War - the "Ten-Year Plan for the Construction of Navy Ships" (1938-1947). Solved this problem, the People's Commissar of the Navy Nikolai Kuznetsov.

It is generally accepted that under Stalin, the role of aircraft carriers in the modern war was underestimated, but this is not so. In the 30s in the USSR there were several projects for the construction of aircraft carriers. The presence of such ships in the fleet was recognized as necessary for the formation of balanced formations. The need for air cover for ships at sea was also not in doubt. Carriers were supposed to be part of the Pacific and Northern Fleets. Before the Great Patriotic War, they prepared a project for a small aircraft carrier (air group - 30 aircraft). However, the war suspended these plans, including the construction of aircraft carriers. During the war, I had to focus on the small fleet - destroyers, submarines, submarine hunters, minesweepers, torpedo boats, armored boats, etc. This was facilitated by the theater of operations - the closed Black and Baltic Seas, large rivers of Europe.

Soon after the end of the Great War and successes in the process of restoring the country's national economy, these plans returned. Kuznetsov presented to Stalin "The Ten-Year Program of Military Shipbuilding for 1946-1955." The admiral was a strong supporter of aircraft carriers. In 1944–1945 the commission, led by Vice Admiral Chernyshev, studied the experience of the war, including the use of aircraft carriers. The People's Commissar of the Navy Kuznetsov proposed building six large and small aircraft carriers each. However, Stalin reduced the number of aircraft carriers to two small ones for the Northern Fleet. It is believed that the Soviet leader underestimated the role in the war at the maritime theater. This is not entirely true. The construction of the fleet is a very complex issue in terms of organization, financial and material costs associated with long-term planning. Stalin was a thorough man and could not make decisions without first clarifying all the circumstances surrounding the issue. At the time, the command of the Soviet fleet did not have a unified view of aircraft carriers. Shipbuilding was delayed in development by 5–10 years, and aircraft carriers underwent a number of changes after the war. Their displacement increased, artillery and electronic weapons intensified, and jet-powered jet aircraft appeared. Therefore, in order to build new aircraft-carrying ships, it was necessary to eliminate the backlog in shipbuilding. There was no specialized design organization for the design of aircraft carriers. Thus, the head of the Red Empire made a decision based on the real capabilities of industry and the navy.

Since 1953, a pre-draft project for a light aircraft carrier with an aircraft group of 40 aircraft has been under development (project 85). In total, it was planned to build 9 such ships. However, all these plans to create a large fleet, including aircraft carriers, were not destined to come true. After Khrushchev came to power, who had a negative attitude to the development of conventional forces, all these plans were buried. The policy on large ships has changed radically. Kuznetsov in 1955 fell into disgrace. The question of the construction of aircraft carriers returned only under Brezhnev. Projects of heavy surface ships, such as heavy cruisers of the Stalingrad type (project 82) were also buried, a series of project 68 bis cruisers (according to NATO classification - Sverdlov class) were not completed, the ships under construction were decommissioned. Kuznetsov fought for the fleet even after Stalin left. So, in 1954, the Navy Commander-in-Chief initiated the development of an air defense cruiser (project 84), but he was soon hacked as well.

Khrushchev focused on creating a nuclear missile fleet. The priority was nuclear submarines and marine missile aviation coast-based. Large surface ships were considered auxiliary weaponsand aircraft carriers - "weapons of aggression." Khrushchev believed that the submarine fleet can solve all the problems, large surface ships are not needed at all, and aircraft carriers in the conditions of the development of missile weapons are “dead”. That is, the fleet now only partially developed. Thus, Khrushchev for a considerable time disrupted the creation of a full-fledged ocean fleet of the USSR.

It is interesting that the Americans partially supported the development of the surface fleet of the USSR. The United States in December 1959 put into operation the first strategic missile cruiser (nuclear submarine with ballistic missiles) "George Washington"). In response, the USSR began to build large anti-submarine ships (BOD). Also began to develop and build anti-submarine cruisers, helicopters of project 1123 "Condor", which served as the basis for future heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers. In the future, the Caribbean crisis showed the need for a strong ocean fleet, and large ships again began to be massively built.

Khrushchev’s “optimization” of the armed forces


Khrushchev “optimized” the army. Under Stalin, the army was planned to be brought to the states of peacetime - a reduction of 0,5 million people in three years (when the number of armed forces in March 1953 was 5,3 million people). Under Khrushchev, by January 1, 1956, about 1 million people had been reduced. In December 1956, 3,6 million posts remained in the Armed Forces. In January 1960, a decision was adopted (the law "On a New Significant Reduction in the Armed Forces of the USSR") to 1,3 million soldiers and officers, that is, more than a third of the total strength of the USSR Armed Forces. As a result, the Soviet armed forces were reduced by 2,5 times. It was a pogrom worse than the most terrible defeat in the war. Khrushchev smashed troops without war and more effective than any external enemy!

At the same time, experienced commanders and soldiers with unique combat experience were fired from the army. Pilots, tankers, artillerymen, infantrymen, etc. This was a powerful blow to the combat effectiveness of the Soviet Union (more details in the article on "VO" "How Khrushchev smashed the Soviet armed forces and law enforcement agencies").

Moreover, Khrushchev planned to inflict a mortal blow on the USSR Armed Forces. In February 1963, at a retreat of the Defense Council in Fili, he outlined his view on the country's future armed forces. Khrushchev planned to reduce the army to 0,5 million people needed to protect ballistic missiles. The rest of the army was to become a militia. In fact, Khrushchev wanted to implement the plans of the Trotskyists, who, even during the Civil War, wanted to create an army of a voluntary-militia (militia) type. Khrushchev, the hidden bearer of the ideas of Trotskyism, did not understand the significance of the "imperial" army and navy for Russia. He believed that a nuclear missile weapon was enough to deter the aggressor, and a manpower army could be put under the knife (like the fleet), enough police. On the other hand, Khrushchev cleaned up the Stalinist military elite, saw in it a threat to his power. The generals, like Zhukov, who had enormous authority, could have been replaced by the "maize".

At the same time, promising military programs not related to the development of nuclear missile weapons were cut. In particular, a powerful blow was inflicted on Soviet military aircraft. This enemy of the people demagogically argued that the country has good missiles, so you do not need to pay so much attention to the Air Force. Under Joseph Stalin, a lot of energy, effort, resources and time was spent on creating advanced aviation, various design bureaus, where excellent fighters, attack aircraft, bombers and the first strategic bombers were designed. Dozens of aircraft factories, domestic engine building, factories for smelting aircraft alloys, etc. were created. Under Khrushchev, aviation was badly damaged, hundreds of new aircraft were taken from military units and sent for scrapping.

Khrushchev also dealt a powerful blow to the prestige of the army. The press covered this pogrom from the “positive side”, to “cheers” (later this technique was repeated under Gorbachev and Yeltsin). Reported about the "joy" of soldiers and officers about the reduction, destruction of the latest technology. Obviously, this affected the morale of the army and Soviet society as a whole in the most negative way.

To be continued ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

161 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. WILL 30 January 2020 06: 09 New
    • 50
    • 20
    +30
    Maize spoiled a lot .... Earth him Glassy! Fleet, Artillery, Aviation ... How many Upscale personnel removed from the Army ... am1 million 200 thousand people were simply thrown into the street.
    The military education system - I almost ruined ... A TRAITOR AND A COWARD.
    1. Timeout 30 January 2020 06: 50 New
      • 29
      • 10
      +19
      Quote: ANIMAL
      The military education system - I almost ruined ... A TRAITOR AND A COWARD.

      And he had worthy followers, on a more global scale ...
      1. Lexus 30 January 2020 07: 54 New
        • 20
        • 7
        +13
        Yes, if only for the modern “nouveau riches” they would have destroyed and plundered that legacy for thirty years. And they are already "trying" to wear. Or maybe the collapse of the Great Soviet Union would not have happened. request
      2. Sergey Olegovich 30 January 2020 12: 32 New
        • 22
        • 2
        +20
        Quote: Timeout
        And he had worthy followers on a more global scale.

        Are you talking about the humpback with boris? These yes, still those followers. We have done so many things that our grandchildren will still have to rake.
        1. Greenwood 31 January 2020 16: 09 New
          • 6
          • 5
          +1
          Quote: Sergey Olegovich
          Are you talking about the humpback with boris?
          About them dear and about their own followers from the cooperative "Lake" and the Sobchak administration. We won’t call names, everyone knows them anyway.
        2. Observer2014 31 January 2020 18: 42 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: Sergey Olegovich
          Quote: Timeout
          And he had worthy followers on a more global scale.

          Are you talking about humpback with Boris? These yes, still those followers. We have done so many things that it is possible to rake even our grandchildren.

          The question is on your forehead. Putin is the successor of the ideas of Yeltsin or Stalmna?
          1. Sergey Olegovich 31 January 2020 22: 41 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Observer2014
            Putin is the successor of the ideas of Yeltsin or Stalmna?

            I don’t know, did not think. But not Stalin for sure. Yeltsin's follower? The same is likely not. He probably has something of his own. And what do you think?
    2. Military Builder 30 January 2020 07: 10 New
      • 26
      • 12
      +14
      How many Upscale personnel removed from the Army ... am1 million 200 thousand people were simply thrown into the street.
      The military education system - I almost ruined ... A TRAITOR AND A COWARD.

      Serdyukov (I don’t think behind Putin and Medvedev) brought the work of the "great reformer" to the end
    3. Aaron Zawi 30 January 2020 07: 26 New
      • 40
      • 38
      +2
      Quote: ANIMAL
      Maize spoiled a lot .... Earth him Glassy! Fleet, Artillery, Aviation ... How many Upscale personnel removed from the Army ... am1 million 200 thousand people were simply thrown into the street.
      The military education system - I almost ruined ... A TRAITOR AND A COWARD.

      T / e Khrushchev at which the nuclear triad was created, which is still the basis for the defense of the Russian Federation was an agent of the West? It’s difficult, like everyone else.
      1. WILL 30 January 2020 07: 31 New
        • 52
        • 23
        +29
        No need to ascribe Khrushchev to what he did not do! The foundations of the Nuclear Triad were laid by Stalin, directly the atomic project was led by Beria! Tests of the finished device were made in 1949. Khrushchev - came to everything ready ...
        Aron did not expect such "knowledge" from you ...
        1. Aaron Zawi 30 January 2020 07: 39 New
          • 31
          • 37
          -6
          Quote: ANIMAL
          No need to ascribe Khrushchev to what he did not do! The foundations of the Nuclear Triad were laid by Stalin, directly the atomic project was led by Beria! Tests of the finished device were made in 1949. Khrushchev - came to everything ready ...
          Aron did not expect such "knowledge" from you ...

          Khrushchev came to power in 54. For 10 years, the USSR missile shield was created under him. By the way, conventional troops continued to develop. It’s ridiculous to argue with the facts.
          1. WILL 30 January 2020 07: 41 New
            • 36
            • 23
            +13
            Aron, read the article! You have facts - sucked out of your finger ... I still found the Navy (from Khrushchev's time) so they would not have a dialogue with you, but would have switched to physical violence ... laughing
            1. Vasily Ponomarev 30 January 2020 07: 58 New
              • 8
              • 25
              -17
              yes, it’s straight from the article you can see right away if, but not so, and so on. but someone draws conclusions from it where the world is heading
            2. Krasnodar 30 January 2020 08: 43 New
              • 17
              • 5
              +12
              Hi! hi
              Che I remember from the stories, Khrushchev cut down the cannon component of the fleet’s artillery power in favor of missile weapons. The Americans didn’t abandon the barrel artillery, because at that level of missile development, guns were much more accurate and cheaper. On the other hand, in the late 60s, an Egyptian Navy missile boat, without leaving the port water area, destroyed the Israeli destroyer Ahi Eilat with a missile shot, which forced many countries around the world to take a closer look at this type of firepower.
              1. God save the king 30 January 2020 17: 01 New
                • 8
                • 8
                0
                The Americans didn’t abandon the barrel artillery
                Americans built the last cannon ship back in the 40s. Laying the Stalinist artillery super-cruisers in the 50s was utter madness.
                1. Krasnodar 30 January 2020 17: 02 New
                  • 10
                  • 2
                  +8
                  And on later projects, the barrel artillery was not installed? )))
                  1. God save the king 30 January 2020 18: 59 New
                    • 10
                    • 16
                    -6
                    The barrel artillery is still put on warships, and under Khrushchev the guns from the ships did not disappear at all. However, since the late 40s no one considered artillery the main striking force of the fleet ... no one but Stalin and some other elderly senile romantics.
                    From the point of view of the interests of the army and navy, Nikita Sergeyevich simply has nothing to blame.
            3. smaug78 30 January 2020 09: 03 New
              • 9
              • 16
              -7
              And the rocketeers filled your face laughing
            4. LiSiCyn 30 January 2020 09: 24 New
              • 13
              • 9
              +4
              Khrushchev was smart enough not to go too far ... Otherwise, he would have left his post much earlier.
            5. maidan.izrailovich 31 January 2020 05: 11 New
              • 4
              • 7
              -3
              ANIMAL (Alexey Alexandrovich)
              You have the facts - sucked from the finger ...

              I understand that Aron is from an unfriendly country. But truth is more expensive.
              And he is right.
              R-11FM (index 8A61FM) - first soviet liquid one-stage submarine ballistic missile (SLBM) of projects 611AB and 629. ... February 20 1959 years according to test results the rocket was Adopted.

              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0-11%D0%A4%D0%9C
              So the formation of the nuclear triad occurred during Khrushchev.
              ANIMAL (Alexey Alexandrovich)
              I still found the Navy (from the time of Khrushchev)

              You either listened to them poorly, or they told you something wrong.
              But it is generally known that Khrushchev was an ardent supporter of missiles.
              And I wanted the missiles to play a major role (like weapons). That's why the fleet was cut with him. For he believed that without rocket weapons ships are useless.
              Khrushchev certainly did a lot of shit. But it was with him that the air defense took on the form that we still know. The main strike force of air defense became rockets.
              1. Cyril G ... April 27 2020 19: 01 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                There are doubts about the validity of the accepted concept of low-mobility single-channel air defense systems. I'm talking about S-75/125
            6. RUSS 31 January 2020 08: 25 New
              • 5
              • 6
              -1
              Quote: ANIMAL
              Aron, read the article!

              And what is there in the article by Samsonov’s historical science fiction writer?
              1. voyaka uh 5 February 2020 01: 21 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                He is not a science fiction, but a follower of neo-Stalinism.
                Almost all of his articles are on this topic.
                Historically, Russia went through the stages of political rule:
                1) an absolute monarchy from the Middle Ages to 1905.
                2) a limited constitutional monarchy from 1905 to 1917.
                3) imperfect democracy February-October 1917.
                4) a totalitarian dictatorship from 1917 to 1953.
                5) moderate dictatorship from 1953 to 1991.
                6) imperfect democracy from 1991 to 2000
                7) authoritarian regime from 2000 until now.
                The next likely stage is imperfect democracy.
                Which, with luck, will develop into a perfect democracy.
                Things are not so bad fellow
          2. Krasnodar 30 January 2020 08: 54 New
            • 26
            • 9
            +17
            Quote: Aaron Zawi

            Khrushchev came to power in 54. For 10 years, the USSR missile shield was created under him. By the way, conventional troops continued to develop. It’s ridiculous to argue with the facts.

            Boker Tov, Aron!
            Khrushchev reduced ground forces, about the triad:
            1) nuclear weapons - the work of foreign intelligence under the leadership of Beria
            2) The air component of the triad - Stalin expropriated the B-29
            for analog production in the USSR
            3) The ground component - the start of a missile project - Stalin
            4) Marine component - Khrushchev there did more harm than did good
          3. pmkemcity 30 January 2020 08: 56 New
            • 9
            • 3
            +6
            I, Molotov, Voroshilov and Kaganovich are sending you a small gift: a radio camera and a gramophone with records. I think that now your radio point will be put in order.
            Greetings to you from Molotov, Voroshilov and Kaganovich. I wish you all the best.

            I. STALIN
            A letter to pioneers and students of the village of Novaya Uda
          4. aybolyt678 31 January 2020 14: 31 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            Quote: Aaron Zawi
            when it was created missile shield of the USSR

            with him, then with him ... only it was the inertia of the Stalinist pace
      2. Alexander Suvorov 30 January 2020 08: 18 New
        • 37
        • 8
        +29
        Aron Zaawi (Aron)
        T / e Khrushchev at which the nuclear triad was created, which is still the basis for the defense of the Russian Federation was an agent of the West? It’s difficult, like everyone else.
        Aron, you seem to be the most adequate from Israel here, why write such nonsense? The nuclear triad was laid not at all under Khrushchev, but precisely under Joseph Vissarionovich. Let's remember who and why ordered to copy the “flying fortress”, who stood at the origins of the creation of nuclear weapons and in the end with whom the start of rocket science was laid? Is it all the merits of the crap? He came to everything ready and managed half of this ready to ruin. The country literally in two five-year periods has risen from complete devastation, moreover, The USSR was the first of the WWII member countries to abolish grocery cards !!! And this despite the fact that most of the infrastructure was destroyed. Under Stalin, the USSR found resources to restore not only itself, but also the countries of eastern Europe. The same Poland, which is now whining about some kind of reparation, owes the USSR billions, if not trillions. And at the same time, the USSR was developing rapidly. Already tired of repeating, but Stalin was the only leader in the world with whom prices were falling, not rising.
        And with the advent of the scum-scum, all this was curtailed and scammed, hunger and queues for bread began again in the country, this is what my parents perfectly remember. Vossing in Novocherkassk you know because of what?
        So really from whom from whom, but did not expect from you. Well, such a crap warrior or atalef would have written ... You disappointed me!
      3. Sergey Olegovich 30 January 2020 12: 37 New
        • 18
        • 2
        +16
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        T / e Khrushchev

        The foundations were laid by Stalin. All frames were put forward under Stalin. We can say that the space industry, its foundations, were laid under Stalin. And Khrushchev destroyed the fleet, artillery and aviation, because he seemed to see that the missiles were everything. He struck the USSR Armed Forces very powerful. And he did quite a lot in economics. You can describe everything for a long time.
        1. maidan.izrailovich 31 January 2020 13: 49 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          The foundations were laid by Stalin. All frames were put forward under Stalin .....
          And Khrushchev destroyed the fleet, artillery and aviation, because he seemed to see that the missiles were everything. The blow to the USSR Armed Forces he inflicted a very powerful ....

          So nobody argues with this.
          Why does everyone ignore the facts?
          The marine component of the triad appeared precisely under Khrushchev. Nobody credits this to him. But a full triad appeared precisely with him.
        2. aybolyt678 31 January 2020 14: 35 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Sergey Olegovich
          And he did quite a lot in economics. You can describe everything for a long time.

          here he read recently, Parsheva, so he describes how Khrushchev ordered the construction of industrial, and not only buildings on a Western model, with almost no foundation and how it all collapsed with our seasonal fluctuations ..
      4. Looking for 30 January 2020 15: 42 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        And where did he go. In the 50s the Politburo still decided. But not the General Secretary. And since the Politburo made the decision on the USSR’s nuclear shield, the “Ukrainian” could grind his teeth. But he did it. After all, you can put a dog’s bowl in half a meter of the chain length and say, “I feed the dog. I don’t know why she doesn’t eat”.
      5. Llur 31 January 2020 01: 49 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        He was not an agent of the West, he was a mediocrity and an idiot.
      6. Xnumx vis 31 January 2020 09: 59 New
        • 3
        • 10
        -7
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        Quote: ANIMAL
        Maize spoiled a lot .... Earth him Glassy! Fleet, Artillery, Aviation ... How many Upscale personnel removed from the Army ... am1 million 200 thousand people were simply thrown into the street.
        The military education system - I almost ruined ... A TRAITOR AND A COWARD.

        T / e Khrushchev at which the nuclear triad was created, which is still the basis for the defense of the Russian Federation was an agent of the West? It’s difficult, like everyone else.

        Here is praise again The leader it’s coming ... Weeping right away with emotion .... I would have watched all these “cogs” sobbing if Stalin were in power ... I don’t understand right away whether people have dementia or, what else ...?
        1. Greenwood 31 January 2020 16: 12 New
          • 8
          • 2
          +6
          Quote: 30 vis
          how to cry all these "cogs"
          Whoever wept would be the members of the United Russia party who had not managed to escape from the country.
    4. Olgovich 30 January 2020 07: 41 New
      • 32
      • 25
      +7
      Quote: ANIMAL
      How many Upscale personnel removed from the Army

      He returned to the national economy high-class specialist engineers, technicians, and pilots, whom he sorely lacked in the postwar years.
      Of course, he did it rudely, chopping off his shoulder.

      He did the same with the military programs mentioned in the article.

      But, in general, he was forced to do so: in the country completely was not of for the maintenance of such a huge army and weapons.

      The people recently experienced the terrible deprivations of the Second World War, restoration, before that they lived in a wild tension: You can’t live all the time in a rush regime and "give!" . He deserved the direction of more funds for housing, food and social security.

      And it began before Khrushchev, immediately after death Stalin, on the basis of a letter from Beria dated March 21, 1953, megastructures were stopped for which there were no funds:

      Main Turkmen Canal
      Gravity channel Volga — Ural
      Ust-Donetsk port
      Railway Chum — Salekhard — Igarka, ship repair workshops, port and village in the Igarka region
      Railway Komsomolsk — Pobedino
      Tunnel passage under the Tatar Strait, etc.


      In accordance with a letter from L.P. Beria to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR G.M. Malenkov about transferring production and economic and construction organizations from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR to the jurisdiction of other ministries, a number of system-forming enterprises and construction sites of the USSR, which formerly belonged to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, were transferred from the Ministry of Internal Affairs Among them: Dalspetsstroy in Kolyma, the special department of Yeniseystroy, the General Directorate of Mining and Metallurgical Industry - to the Ministry of Metallurgical Industry, the Hydroproject Institute - to the Ministry of Power Plants and electric industry of the USSR. The Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Railways, the construction materials industry, the timber and paper industries, and the sea and river fleet also received industrial enterprises of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

      Enormous forces and means were reoriented in the first place. housing construction, which immediately affected the amount of housing being rented.

      For the first time in 20 years since the founding of collective farms, they have become cost-effective-im finally, for the first time in decades, procurement prices were raised. "Came Malenkov, ate pancakes!"

      And one more thing: Khrushchev liquidated the terrible anti-Russian freakUnion KFSSR: It’s scary to even imagine in what terrible situation Murmansk would be cut off by it from mainland Russia today ...
      1. Alexander Suvorov 30 January 2020 08: 37 New
        • 25
        • 20
        +5
        I’m “liked” by olgovich, he even became good at Khrushchev, despite the fact that olgovich is an ardent aniso-adviser. That is, everything is good for him, if only they would do worse for Russia. MaladEts guy, burn on ... negative
        For the first time in 20 years since the founding of collective farms, they have become cost-effective; finally, for the first time in decades, they have increased purchase prices.
        Yes you? And why then bread in the country did not abruptly? request
        From the same, lies and does not blush ...
        1. Olgovich 30 January 2020 10: 22 New
          • 15
          • 18
          -3
          Quote: Alexander Suvorov
          I’m “liked” by olgovich, he even became good at Khrushchev, despite the fact that olgovich is an ardent aniso-adviser. That is, everything is good for him, if only they would do worse for Russia. MaladEts guy, burn on.

          1. Comment, finally, ARTICLES, not people, the so-called Suvorov lol

          2. The good thing is that good for the welfare of the PEOPLE country.

          Accordingly, redirecting huge amounts of money from unreasonably insanely expensive projects to the construction of HOUSING, improving the welfare of collective farmers is wonderful.

          The fact that this is done, distorting the fate of people is bad.

          the destruction of the foul criminal Ugly KFSSR- fine.

          Transfer Voroshilov Crimea Ukraine-a crime.

          Cooking stupidity.
          Etc.

          Finally, didn’t it? no
          1. Alexander Suvorov 30 January 2020 10: 35 New
            • 15
            • 13
            +2
            Olgovich (Andrey)
            Transfer Voroshilov Crimea Ukraine-a crime.
            What time ?! And I then the poor fellow always knew that Crimea gave Ukraine Khrushchev ... laughing
            1. Comment, finally, ARTICLES, not people, the so-called Suvorov lol
            I comment on what I want, not to tell you. Do not tell me what to do and I won’t tell you where to go!
            Finally, didn’t it?
            What exactly from your feverish delirium should reach me?
            1. Olgovich 30 January 2020 10: 53 New
              • 11
              • 15
              -4
              Quote: Alexander Suvorov
              What time ?! AND I'm the poor fellow I always knew that Crimea gave Ukraine Khrushchev.

              For the POOR "Suvorov" ignoramus:
              DECREE
              from 19 February 1954 of the year
              On the transfer of the Crimean region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR
              Approved by the Law of the USSR of April 26, 1954 "On the transfer of the Crimean region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR" and Art. 1 of the Law of the USSR of April 26, 1954 "On the Approval of Decrees of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR"


              [35] Given the commonality of the economy, territorial proximity and close economic and cultural ties between the Crimean region and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics decides:

              To approve the joint submission of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR and the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR on the transfer of the Crimean region from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.



              Chairman of the Presidium
              Supreme Council of the USSR K.E. Voroshilov


              Secretary of the Presidium
              Supreme Council of the USSR N.M. PEGOV

              For Macedosnky: Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR - according to the Constitution of the USSR - HIGHEST official of the USSR

              I comment on what I want, not to tell you.

              You are indicated in the RULES IN, which clearly indicate that they are subject to comment Articles, not commentators :. See the site "Rules"



          2. Alexey RA 30 January 2020 11: 37 New
            • 8
            • 1
            +7
            Quote: Olgovich
            Cooking stupidity.

            With the maizeization of the whole country, everything is not so simple. There, besides the NSC, there was also a “Cretan echo” - in the person of local bosses, ready for anything just to curry favor.
            Said "corn is the head of everything"- so we will sow it everywhere, even in the North. They said"voluntarism"- it means down with corn everywhere. Despite the fact that corn" feed "had time to grow even in the Leningrad region.
      2. Boris55 30 January 2020 09: 09 New
        • 12
        • 3
        +9
        Quote: Olgovich
        For the first time in 20 years since the founding of collective farms, they have become profitable to them,

        Do not tell me, for what reason in the 62nd year in Novocherkassk there was a strike of workers?



        Here is their appeal to the army:



        For this shooting of workers alone, he will be damned for centuries. In the 62nd year, the people still understood the difference between the Soviet power and the power of the party nomenclature, which ultimately led the country to Gorbachev's perestroika.
        1. Olgovich 30 January 2020 10: 08 New
          • 9
          • 19
          -10
          Quote: Boris55
          Quote: Olgovich
          For the first time in 20 years since the founding of collective farms, they have become profitable to them,

          Don't say

          I will say: for the first time, collective farms only became profitable after 1953 gwhen, for the first time in more than 20 years, the BEST prices for products purchased by the state were raised EXTRA, which didn’t even cover a quarter of the cost of production (Peasants pay tribute, Stalin said back in 1928 g and since then, until 1953, it remained). The collective farmers had at least some means. These were Malenkov’s reforms

          But with 1959 g Khrushchev returned to the policy of 1939, a sharp restriction on personal subsidiary plots and household plots that produced up to 60% of livestock production, potatoes, etc. What led to the mass slaughter of cattle, a reduction in the number of cattle and poultry, and food production. As Khrushchev said, the collective farmer should receive milk on ... a collective farm, and not from his cow. same with meat. . What again plunged s / economy into crisis and again led to a shortage of food, as before 1953.

          but it was:
          in July 1952 A letter from engineer K. A. Peters was received in the name of Stalin, in which he complained that “at the beginning of 1951 ...state trade in oil, fats, meat and meat products, sugar, vegetables, cereals, pasta and dairy products completely stoppedhaving ceded its functions to private trade at speculative prices ... under the brand name of “collective farm” trade in “collective farm” markets ... State and cooperative food stores they don’t sell food: there is no meat, fat, sausages, cereals, canned meat and etc., etc., - in a word - there is nothing. Empty shelves and counters the meat and gastronomic departments of these stores are made for decoration with bottles of vodka and wine. Department stores mainly serve the population through resellers. Production workers, engineering and technical workers and workers at industrial centers eke out a sad, half-starved existence. ”

          A check conducted by the letter revealed that in Tashkent “meat and meat products, fish products, animal fats, cereals, pasta, potatoes, vegetables and dairy products are very rarely sold in the retail chain
          Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B.) And the Council of Ministers of the USSR ... S. 366-368.»
          1. Boris55 30 January 2020 10: 18 New
            • 7
            • 1
            +6
            Statistics:

            1. Olgovich 30 January 2020 11: 01 New
              • 6
              • 14
              -8
              Quote: Boris55
              Statistics:


              let's go in the "parrots": in tons of MEAT, MILK, etc.
              And there is a complete a.

              From the same Novocherkassk, 1953 letter to the leadership of the country:
              “There is no more strength to remain silent about the difficult situation in which our Soviet people live. There is nothing. The shops are empty ... For eight months now, children have not seen sugar, butter. One bread. True, this is not hunger, but it is impossible to grow a healthy generation on one bread. No vegetables, no cereals - nothing ”
              1. Foul skeptic 30 January 2020 11: 41 New
                • 8
                • 2
                +6
                please
                1. Foul skeptic 30 January 2020 11: 54 New
                  • 5
                  • 3
                  +2
                  in the 50s there were few products in state trade
                2. Olgovich 30 January 2020 12: 31 New
                  • 7
                  • 16
                  -9
                  Quote: A vile skeptic
                  please

                  belay
                  С 1913 g-1916 Let’s compare, otherwise your tricks with the “beginning” of reference in .... 1952 are FUNNY. lol

                  When the Bolsheviks seized power, forgot?

                  in the report "On Measures for the Further Development of Agriculture of the USSR," September 3, 1953 at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU and lasting 4 hours many figures were given, for example, data on the number of livestock in countriese in 1953 compared from 1916 and 1928 over the years, indicating that we’re essentially did not step over the pre-revolutionary level".

                  - average annual milk yield per cow in kg: in the USSR 1378, , in Holland - 3800)

                  Food consumption for 1952 (per capita, kg per year):

                  USA ................. USSR
                  Bread, flour 78 ............. 180-200
                  Potato 52,2 ............... 190
                  Milk 345 .... .......... 159
                  Meat and fat 81 ................ 24
                  Eggs (pcs.) 379 ............... 70
                  Oil grows. 10,1 ......... 3,7
                  Sugar 42 ............................ 16,2


                  MUCH less. In good "achievements" of power ....

                  July plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 1953 :

                  You can’t tolerate further: no milk, little meat. Announced the transition from socialism to communism, and we do not sell flour.

                  We have on 3,5 million heads of cows lessthan it was before the war.

                  Comrades, when we do not solve agricultural issues, when in the country lack of meat, lack of milk, lack of even potatoes, lack of cabbage, how is this power? .. After all, they will come to us and say: listen, dear comrades, you teach us how to build socialism, but you do not know how to grow potatoesto provide for his people, you do not have cabbage in the capital


                  horror.....
                  1. Foul skeptic 30 January 2020 12: 36 New
                    • 6
                    • 3
                    +3
                    From 1913 to 1916, let’s compare, or else YOUR tricks are with the "beginning" of reference in .... 1952.

                    in your messages above you mention 1952 and 1953, I gave you data for these years, you asked Boris in physical terms, not monetary ones. Just decided to help.
                    It's funny that you all see tricks.
                    And here is a further comparison of the USSR and the USA in 1952 year - is this not a trick?
                    1. Olgovich 30 January 2020 13: 20 New
                      • 7
                      • 12
                      -5
                      Quote: A vile skeptic
                      you asked Boris in physical terms, not monetary. Just decided to help.

                      Boris has data with 1928 years. And you give... since 1952. belay
                      No need to lie.
                      Quote: A vile skeptic
                      But a further comparison of the USSR and the USA in 1952 - is this not a trick?

                      It is simply a FACT of the AWESOME consumption lag behind the USA. And you cannot write off the war, for the same thing happened BEFORE the war.

                      The level of 1913 for food to CAPE up only ... after 40 years is complete, yes .... negative
          2. Foul skeptic 30 January 2020 11: 02 New
            • 12
            • 3
            +9
            farms and household plots that produced up to 60% of livestock, potatoes, etc.

            I with you a year ago already sorted out these nonsense and the source of these nonsense (moreover, the source did not even include the fragment you quoted).
            And again? Which 60%?
            1. Olgovich 30 January 2020 12: 03 New
              • 6
              • 15
              -9
              Quote: A vile skeptic
              I What 60%?

              Refute the monograph by M. Beznin Peasant's yard of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region in 1950-1965 :

              51% of all agricultural production was provided by household plots of the country's inhabitants, who occupied only 2-3% of the farmland as a whole (38% were given to collective farmers, another 13% to workers and office workers). These same pieces of land accounted for as much as 62% livestock production (collective farmers - 46%, workers and employees - 16%). These are average values ​​- in some regions, production in the private sector could be much higher. Naturally, yields and productivity were 2-4 times higher than those of collective farms and state farms
              1. Foul skeptic 30 January 2020 12: 06 New
                • 10
                • 2
                +8
                Refute the monograph by M. Beznin. The peasant yard of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region in 1950-1965:

                Already the last time denied, read past posts. By the way, you decided not to answer that refutation.
                1. Olgovich 30 January 2020 12: 48 New
                  • 6
                  • 11
                  -5
                  Quote: A vile skeptic
                  Already in the past

                  Do not fool your head.

                  You answer with Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU of July 1953 from the lips of its Secretary General:

                  You can’t tolerate further: no milk, little meat. Announced the transition from socialism to communism, but we don’t sell flour.

                  We have 3,5 million less cows than before the war.

                  Comrades, when we do not solve agricultural issues, when in the country lack of meat, lack of milk, lack of even potatoes, lack of cabbage, how is this power? .. After all, they will come to us and say: listen, dear comrades, you teach us how to build socialism, but you don’t know how to grow potatoes at home, to provide for his people you do not have cabbage in the capital.
                  on sale less herring than with the kingе


                  Few? Here you are the Secretary of the Central Committee B. ARISTOV 1952:
                  "I was in Ryazan. - What is there? Outages? - No, I say, comrade Stalin, no interruptions, and for a long time there was no bread, no oil, no sausage. He stood in line with Larionov at 6-7 in the morning, checked. No bread anywhere.


                  Few? Nate: A.M. Puzanov, chapter Council of Ministers of the RSFSR
                  : “Not to mention meat, milk and butter, there was a lack of bread even in the largest cities and industrial centers. Who doesn’t remember yet te thousandth queues, which are very often formed in the evening! ».
                  1. Foul skeptic 30 January 2020 13: 14 New
                    • 9
                    • 3
                    +6
                    Do not fool your head

                    I’m not fooling you, but you - yes.
                    They just talked about Beznin, and here, rrraz, and you immediately jump from Beznin. No, let's continue, what are you?
                    And then we'll see if we will analyze the following passages with you. With them, too, there is nothing surprising. Or does it surprise you that after the war the number of cows has not been restored and is smaller than before the war? Maybe it's just a snap of the fingers? Look at the current number of cows - in 2000 - 6,5 million heads, in 2018 - 3,3 million. And there is no war, but a decrease of 3,2 million.
                    1. Olgovich 30 January 2020 14: 41 New
                      • 5
                      • 13
                      -8
                      Quote: A vile skeptic
                      I’m not fooling you, but you - yes.
                      They just talked about Beznin, and here, rrraz, and you immediately jump from Beznin. No, let's continue, what are you?

                      belay
                      1. I talked about the disaster in the consumption of food. What BEFORE the war, what-after. And this is a fact recognized by the state:
                      Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of 1953:

                      data on the number of livestock in the country in 1953 compared from 1916 and 1928odes, which testify to the fact that, according to the main indicators, we "essentially did not surpass the pre-revolutionary level."

                      2. The share of meat production by private households (which you without proof dispute) -Do NOT affect the total number of meat.
                      3. What BEFORE the war, that AFTER the meat was consumed LESS than before the Thief: everything was in the way for the dancers ....
                      4.
                      in Moscow - the “exemplary communist city” - bread was sold mixed about 40% of potatoes, and no more than a kilogram in one hand
                      tell us further, how ships plowed the expanses of the Bolshoi Theater.
                      1. Foul skeptic 30 January 2020 15: 05 New
                        • 7
                        • 3
                        +4
                        I talked about the disaster in eating food.

                        livestock numbers in the country

                        And do you judge the reduction in food consumption by reducing the number of livestock (which didn’t decrease, I wrote below about 3,5 million animals)? But nothing is inversely dependent indicators laughing - the livestock becomes smaller when it is slaughtered for meat, which means that there is more meat. laughing
                        (which you dispute without evidence)

                        read our past correspondence - it’s for this passage of Beznin that Beznin does not have in the book, because you didn’t take the passage from the book, but from the garbage sites where he was turned over, it was already written, including what was discussed Beznina was talking. So, go ahead and with the song.
                        As for the war, that AFTER the meat was consumed LESS than before the thief:

                        That's because every time you hear the same nonsense, although you have often chewed about your favorite report, that's why I send you to Beznin to look for our previous correspondence myself - it will be more useful.
                      2. Olgovich 30 January 2020 15: 49 New
                        • 4
                        • 13
                        -9
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        And you judge the reduction in food consumption

                        I judge by the conclusions of the COUNTRY'S MANAGEMENT. Who are you? From there? No?
                        So do not fool your head.
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        read our past correspondence - it’s for you precisely from this passage of Beznin, which Beznin does not have in the book, because you did not take the passage from the book,.

                        The meat has become ... more? lol laughing

                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        That's because every time you have to hear the same nonsense, although you chew more than once

                        Chop yourself on your forehead once already:

                        Russia 1913 g-27 kg of meat (CSB)
                        USSR 1937 18 kg
                        USSR 1950 26 kg (deceitful-s .... fat and other hooves)
                        The qualitative composition of the nutrition of the population of the USSR is lower than recommended by scientific standards.
                        The actual consumption of milk and dairy products, meat, fish and eggs lags sharply behind scientific norms, which leads to a large deficiency in the diet of complete animal protein, fats and vitamin A. Low consumption of vegetables and fruits causes a significant deficiency of vitamin C.

                        Lack of protein and vitamins A and C reduces the human body's resistance to diseases and threatens the normal development of children and adolescents Report of the Central Statistical Administration of the USSR.


                        And this is also FALSE: see above. WHAT was happening by weight: BREAD was not enough everywhere ...

                        “Reached,” yes.

                        Shame .... negative
                      3. Foul skeptic 30 January 2020 16: 31 New
                        • 7
                        • 2
                        +5
                        I judge by the conclusions of the COUNTRY'S MANAGEMENT.

                        These are the words. What are they worth? I wrote in one of the messages below on the example of the loss of 3,5 million cows.
                        Therefore, you ignore everything else that you are told, focusing only on convenient manipulation of certain personalities in order to manipulate yourself.
                        Chop yourself on your forehead once already:

                        Russia 1913 g-27 kg of meat (CSB)
                        USSR 1937 18 kg
                        USSR 1950 26 kg (deceitful-s .... fat and other hooves)

                        your own supplements (lying-with .... fat and other hooves) especially make you smile - at least somehow you need to thicken the atmosphere.
                        You do not understand how these figures came out and what is behind them. You have also been written about this more than once. Reread at your leisure. Look at the tablet, which I bring, such a colorful one. I have no doubt that you understand which table we are talking about. You do not understand its contents, but you must remember.

                        The actual consumption of milk and dairy products, meat, fish and eggs lags sharply behind scientific norms

                        Yes, it’s behind. Just why do you think this is an argument in relation to your adored period? Then, too, protein intake lagged behind scientific norms.
                        And if we take into account that these norms were different ...
                        But, by the way, this has already been written to you more than once in more detail than now.
                        Not in the horse's food.
                      4. Olgovich 31 January 2020 10: 32 New
                        • 3
                        • 10
                        -7
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        These are the words. What are they worth? I wrote in one of the messages below on the example of the loss of 3,5 million cows.

                        Words (groundless by anything chatter) is with you.

                        А that what was going on with food in the country is actually witnessed by the terrifying letters of citizens, commissions, and leaders.

                        One recent wild hunger of 47 g with a million dead from hunger is worth ...
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        Therefore, you ignore everything else that you are told, focusing only on convenient manipulation of certain personalities in order to manipulate yourself.

                        And you did NOT say ANYTHING. And they did not prove it. Chatter alone pours a murky stream: Nothing to say, don’t say so ... yes
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        your own supplements (lying-with .... fat and other hooves) especially make you smile - at least somehow you need to thicken the atmosphere.
                        You do not understand how these figures came out and what is behind them. You have also been written about this more than once.

                        Leave a mentor tone behind him nothing not worth it. Respectively, you look absolutely ridiculous request
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        Look at the tablet, which I bring, such a colorful one.

                        Roll your colors into a tube and-there, there, yes ....
                        You failing do you remember the numbers for meat, finally?
                        For milk?
                        Fish?

                        Chop them on your forehead so you don’t get bullshit the next time.
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        Yes, it’s behind. Just why do you think this is an argument in relation to your adored period? Then, too, protein intake lagged behind scientific norms.

                        You don’t even understand WHAT you write, a nightmare: In the USA, meat production has grown from 1910 by 25-30%! WHO said there wouldn’t be anything like that in Russia, huh ?! Given that there was growth in Russia?
                        And only the Soviet Union could not do anything: forty years to consume food-cat down the drain! !

                        Once again, remember the sentence-self recognition CPSU Central Committee:
                        lack of meat, lack of milk, lack of even potatoes, lack of cabbage, how is this power? .. After all, they will come to us and say: listen, dear comrades, you are teaching us how to build socialism, and you don’t know how to grow potatoes at home, to provide for his people you do not have cabbage in the capital.

                        shame .....
                  2. Olgovich 31 January 2020 15: 18 New
                    • 1
                    • 7
                    -6
                    Quote: A vile skeptic
                    read our past correspondence - to you precisely from this passage of Beznin, whom Beznin is not in the book, because you didn’t take an excerpt from a book, but from garbage sites
                    Cesspools are precisely false assertions-insults about the "garbage" literature:
                    Read same !, finally, a wonderful monograph Beznina M. A. The peasant yard of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region in 1950-1965.

                    There IS clear paragraph about
                    51% of all agricultural products were provided by household plots (38% gave plots to collective farmers, another 13% - workers and employees). They gave 62% of livestock production (collective farmers - 46%, workers and employees - 16%)

                    There, the author’s link to acc. stat. collection .....

                    . So many letters you plagued on the CONSCIOUS .... lie and BAD. belay

                    What for?! WHAT did you prove by this?

                    I do not understand..... request

                    Want a cheap plus sign for populism? So here: +!
                  3. Foul skeptic 3 February 2020 17: 44 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    "Washdowns are precisely false allegations-insults about the" garbage "of literature."

                    1. No need to twist words. I haven’t written anywhere about the "garbage" of literature, I wrote about the "garbage" of sites, from where you got the passage you quoted. Here are my words:
                    "which Beznin does not have in the book, because you didn’t take an excerpt from the book, but from garbage sites."


                    "read it! finally a fine monograph"

                    2. I certainly understand that the best defense is an attack, but it’s not the same impudence ..? I read a monograph by Beznin. First time in the nineties. The second time, when I ran into you a year ago, I had to refresh my memory. The third time is now. Therefore, I know that the monograph by Beznin was published by one edition in 1991 of the All-Russian State Pedagogical Institute (now the Voronezh State University) in the volume of 250 pages (15 printing sheets). Therefore, we move on to point 3.

                    3.
                    "There IS a clear paragraph about"

                    How funny ... You first brought a different text from the "monograph", namely:
                    "51% of all agricultural products was provided by household plots of the country's inhabitants, who occupied only 2-3% of the farmland (38% were given to collective farmers, another 13% - workers and office workers). These same plots of land accounted for 62% of livestock production (collective farmers 46%, workers and office workers - 16%). These are average values ​​- in some regions, production in the private sector could be much higher. Naturally, yields and productivity were 2-4 times higher than those of collective farms and state farms. "

                    In your second edition, he suddenly transformed into:
                    "51% of all agricultural products was provided by household plots (38% gave plots to collective farmers, another 13% - workers and office workers). They also gave 62% of livestock products (collective farmers - 46%, workers and office workers - 16%)."


                    And where did the first option come from then, that you decided to correct it, eh? Not from garbage sites?
                    Do you want the funniest thing?
                    Even your second, "clear" version is not in the monograph. For Beznin, it is presented in a different form, although the numbers "38% and 13%" and "46% and 16%" are actually present. But the context is not distorted, as in those passages that you quoted.

                    "There is the author’s link to the corresponding stat. Collection ....."

                    There is no link to the CSB. Although it is written that the author made the calculations on the basis of the Agricultural Statistics Directorate under the Central Statistical Bureau, and specifically, "the Statistical Table of the RSFSR SD, the development of gross agricultural output by categories of farms, economic regions, Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Karyam, and oblasts for 1950." The very results of the calculations are in the materials of the 1989 special course (specifically in table 46), which was prepared by Mikhail Alekseevich as the basis for the monograph. Although, to be honest, the calculations are loud for simple data transfer.

                    And now according to the data itself:

                    1) It can be seen that the numbers in the monograph in this case are taken for a particular region, not even the USSR, but the RSFSR. If we take the same year 1950 for the USSR, then the share of collective farmers' farms will be (according to the Russian State Autonomous Property, f. 1562, op. 41. unit of property 65)

                    26,1% in all types of personal households in the USSR in 1950. and in 1951 already 23,8%. And then less, you just need to look in other collections, until 1959 I can indicate in which ones. But that is not all.

                    2) The fact is that the gross indicators in this table are based on value terms. Which you are allergic to (recall your words):
                    "let's go in the" parrots ": in tons"

                    And here lies another nuance - if you count in tons of agricultural products, then the share of private households will be even less. The fact is that the collective farmers raised what they can sell at a higher price — the main emphasis on meat (and only pork and poultry, I will explain why later), milk and vegetables. Therefore, naturally, expensive products increase the contribution to the total gross yield. If we take the same crop production, then in 1953, for example, in total (without fruit, berries, grapes and tea) 286 752 thousand tons of products were grown, of which 59 345 thousand tons were on personal farms. And this is 20,7% of the total. The calculations hereinafter on the basis of the data of the Gosstatizdat of the Central Statistical Administration in the statistical collection "Agriculture 1953-1959" of 1960.

                    3) Talk about 2,3,4% of farmland in general, as was done in your first "excerpt from the monograph" - manipulation. Because it is possible to consider only reciprocal weighty commodity items (the private trader doesn’t grow the same tea, but the state has left a lot of land for this crop, pastures and pastures on collective farms occupy large areas that collective farmers can use for their personal purposes, and so on) . We have two common weighty commodity items - potato and vegetable-melon. In the same 1950, collective farms and state farms under these crops had 5322 thousand ha, and private traders - 5133 thousand ha. That is 51 to 49%, which is very far from 2-3%

                    (Continued in the next post)
                  4. Foul skeptic 3 February 2020 17: 45 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    How could you use text where there is such a sentence as an argument ..?:
                    "
                    51% of all agricultural products were provided by household plots of the country's inhabitants, who occupied only 2-3% of the farmland as a whole "

                    You understand that in order to provide half of agricultural products in an area of ​​2-3%, productivity and productivity should be 30-50 (!!!) times higher, and not 2-4 times, as described below. This is math in elementary grades. So it is impossible to write not only from an agronomic, but even from a biological point of view. This is the level and price of the sites you use.
                    By the way, the secret of increased productivity is not a secret at all. Small plots are always more productive than large ones, since they receive more labor costs per unit area, less loss from pests and during harvesting. And, which is indirectly hinted at by the lower marketability of individual farms - the density of sowing, sowed more densely, grown more (up to a certain point) in the same area. This habit has been borrowed from peasants since pre-revolutionary times. Therefore, when you correlate harvested with sown, the yield is noticeably narrowed. I already parsed this on this site.

                    4) In terms of livestock production, the contribution of private households is actually substantial (especially in poultry, milk and eggs). And no one argues with that. But this does not mean superefficiency - but only about the different main goals in this period. The main goal of a private trader is to earn money by selling his products Here and now. The main task of the state is first to restore the cattle population to acceptable values. And this can be seen in the structure - private traders prevail in pork and poultry, because their cultivation requires less cost and time. The state prevails in cattle meat - 1245 thousand tons against 845 thousand tons in 1953 (although back in 1950 the figures were almost mirror). There are many nuances in which you need to understand, and not just look at some numbers. For example, the same sheep were kept on collective farms for the sake of wool mainly, and on private households, mainly for meat for sale.

                    5) And most importantly. And what, incidentally, writes Beznin - about the marketability of products. And here, even in animal husbandry, collective farms and state farms were ahead of individual farms (except for eggs).
                    "Personal farms were more inferior to public production in terms of marketability. Thus, in the Perm region, for example, in 1950 in the state procurement of agricultural products the share of personal households in the potato sector was 33%, cattle - 28%, milk - 44%, eggs - 52% "

                    But again, he considers, only part of the RSFSR. And in the USSR as a whole, for example, in 1953, for meat products in the country as a whole - 73% against 27%, for milk 63% against 37%, for eggs 32% against 68%. Therefore, with all due respect, private traders were not a decisive force in feeding the urban population (which equaled the rural population this decade), they consumed almost everything themselves.

                    6) And what else does Beznin write about, and what should not be forgotten - the use of the resources of collective farms and state farms in personal farms:
                    "Indeed, peasant cattle were often fed largely due to hay harvested from collective farm meadows, sometimes cattle was purchased on collective farms and state farms, plowing of the garden was often carried out by a collective farm horse, and grain was harvested sometimes with a combine harvester, etc."

                    This can be added the lack of the need to keep a bull-producer, they were brought to insemination to the collective farm, it is not necessary to allocate part of the land for pasture, everything can be arable land, the use of collective farm manure, obtaining incubator chickens and so on.
                    Here, for example, an excerpt from the journal Regional Studies No. 4 of 2017 on the same topic:
                    “Obviously, it was impossible to provide livestock feed with such areas. In reality, there was a symbiosis of personal subsidiary and large collective farms: collective farms provided pastures and hayfields for private household plots, allocated grain and other feeds, helped machinery to process plots, to sell products, etc. d "
                    . You see, symbiosis. The entire success of private household plots in the presence of collective farms and state farms. Only.

                    "So many letters you plagued on the CONSCIOUS .... lies and BAD."

                    What is the lie? That you didn’t take the text from the book, because it is not in the book in the form that you quoted? But if you drive it into a search engine, then a whole bunch of “garbage” LJ pops up immediately. So this is true. Or will you continue to persist? Or what did I lie in my posts here?
                    I remember in the New Year’s topic, where they rated each other’s ratings, you said that you admit mistakes and apologize to the interlocutor.
                    So let's see.
                  5. Olgovich 4 February 2020 12: 02 New
                    • 1
                    • 4
                    -3
                    Quote: A vile skeptic
                    Or what did I lie in my posts here?

                    Of course they lied, and roughly:
                    The vile skeptic (Timur) January 30, 2020 11:02

                    I’ve already sorted it out with you a year ago these nonsense и source of these nonsense
                    Which 60%?

                    The vile skeptic (Timur) January 30, 2020 12:06

                    Refute the monograph Beznina M.A. The peasant yard of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region in 1950-1965:

                    Last time denied.


                    And WHERE have you refuted it? lol There these figures are, that you yourself have recognized!

                    So let's see how You
                    Quote: A vile skeptic
                    admit mistakes and apologize to the interlocutor.
                    yes
                2. Olgovich 4 February 2020 11: 49 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  Quote: A vile skeptic
                  1. No need to twist words. I didn’t write anywhere about the "garbage" literature, I wrote about the "garbage" sites

                  The article on the site is literature
                  Quote: A vile skeptic
                  And where did the first option come from then, that you decided to correct it, eh? Not from garbage sites?

                  From the ARTICLE, which you stupidly tried to “refute” and fell into a turkish position.
                  And the numbers are SAME: 51% (38 + 13) and 62% (46 + 16) about which you so pathetically shouted:
                  "What are 60% ?!"

                  And here SUCH! lol
                  Quote: A vile skeptic
                  There is no link to the CSB. Although it is written that the author made the calculations based on the Department of Agricultural Statistics at the Central Statistical Bureau,

                  Again lying: Beznin indicated on the basis of what he wrote: on the data Department of Agricultural Statistics at CSB,
                  Quote: A vile skeptic
                  It can be seen that the numbers in the monograph in this case are taken for a particular region, not even the USSR, but the RSFSR.

                  You denied exactly BEZNINA, forgot?
                  Quote: A vile skeptic
                  Talk about 2,3,4% of farmland in general, as was done in your first "excerpt from the monograph" - manipulation

                  It is true, as well as the fact that the output of the same products from the infield and on collective farms and -different, like heaven and earth. As well as income from work here and there: the collective farm was a dumb BARSHCHINA, which the state FORCED peasants to work on themselves
                3. Foul skeptic 13 February 2020 15: 42 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  1)
                  "Of course they lied, and roughly:
                  The vile skeptic (Timur) January 30, 2020 11:02
                  I with you a year ago already sorted out these nonsense and the source of these nonsense
                  Which 60%?
                  The vile skeptic (Timur) January 30, 2020 12:06
                  Refute the monograph by M. Beznin. The peasant yard of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region in 1950-1965:
                  Already last time denied.
                  And WHERE have you refuted it? lol There these figures are, that you yourself recognized! "


                  No need to overshadow my words. You pretend you don’t understand what it is about?
                  Ok, I will explain:
                  "These nonsense" is this text (which you passed off as a paragraph from the monograph of Mikhail Beznin):
                  "51% of all agricultural products was provided by household plots of the country's inhabitants, who occupied only 2-3% of the farmland (38% were given to collective farmers, another 13% - workers and office workers). These same plots of land accounted for 62% of livestock production (collective farmers 46%, workers and office workers - 16%). These are average values ​​- in some regions, production in the private sector could be much higher. Naturally, yields and productivity were 2-4 times higher than those of collective farms and state farms. "

                  The source of these nonsense is Internet sites of a certain orientation, and not a monograph by Beznin.
                  Therefore, it is not necessary to ascribe to me that I refute Beznin, I refute, firstly, these Internet garbage dumps, and secondly, you, who turned out texts from these garbage dumps as a monograph by Beznin.
                  2)
                  "THERE IS THESE NUMBERS"

                  So what?
                  Colin Powell has a white powder tube. Does this mean that Iraq has bacteriological weapons?
                  This is called manipulation.
                  3)
                  "An article on a site is literature"

                  In my text it is very clear what I meant by literature - a book, not a site. I have clearly delineated this:
                  "Beznin does not have in the book because
                  You didn’t take an excerpt from a book, but from garbage sites

                  Cesspools are precisely false assertions-insults about the "garbage" literature:

                  read it, finally, the wonderful monograph by Beznin "

                  I will say more, you perfectly understood what I had in mind, since these two sentences meet in one place - your answer to me, when you answered me, you told me to read Beznin's monograph, and not the article on the site.
                  So valenku pretend not work.

                  4)
                  Quote: A vile skeptic
                  And where did the first option come from then, that you decided to correct it, eh? Not from garbage sites?
                  From the ARTICLE, which you stupidly tried to “refute” and fell into a turkish position.


                  Oh, here's the article? And what is this article? It was a monograph, literally a couple of posts back. Well, you wrote like that, forgot?
                  "Refute the monograph by M. Beznin. The peasant yard of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region in 1950-1965:

                  51% of all agricultural production was provided by household plots of the country's inhabitants, who occupied only 2-3% of the farmland as a whole (38% were given to collective farmers, another 13% to workers and office workers). The same land plots accounted for as much as 62% of livestock production (collective farmers - 46%, workers and office workers - 16%). These are average values ​​- in some regions, production in the private sector could be much higher. Naturally, productivity and productivity were 2-4 times higher than those of collective farms and state farms. "

                  If this, as it turned out, is an online article, then give a link to this article. And let's see how much it can be called a "monograph", which in 1991 was published at the All-Russian State Pedagogical Institute.

                  5)
                  And the numbers are SAME: 51% (38 + 13) and 62% (46 + 16) about which you so pathetically shouted:
                  "What are 60% ?!"

                  And here SUCH! lol

                  I have already given you the Powell test tube example.
                  Nothing that the paragraph in the monograph, in addition to numbers, has words. Which are contrary to the fact that in your "monographs that turned into an article" heaped
                  "51% of all agricultural products was provided by the household plots of the country's inhabitants, who, on the whole, occupied only 2-3% of the farmland"
                  And please tell me, in this monograph in the sentence, where there are numbers 38 and 13 and 46 and 16, there are a couple more numbers between them, and they ... bam, and for some reason they decided to skip it. AND? Do not say?
                  6)
                  Quote: A vile skeptic
                  There is no link to the CSB. Although it is written that the author made the calculations based on the Department of Agricultural Statistics at the Central Statistical Bureau,

                  Again lying: Beznin indicated on the basis of what he wrote: on the data of the Department of Agricultural Statistics under the CSB,


                  Uh, I generally also say that Michael made the calculations according to the Statistics Department:
                  "it is written that the author made the calculations based on the Department of Agricultural Statistics under the Central Statistical Bureau"

                  But the link is to the TsGA. This is a trifle, of course, because in the indicated case the Central Administration contains 77 sheets of notes from the CSB, but this trifle once again shows that you did not hold the monograph in your hands.

                  7)
                  Quote: A vile skeptic
                  It can be seen that the numbers in the monograph in this case are taken for a particular region, not even the USSR, but the RSFSR.

                  You denied exactly BEZNINA, forgot?


                  I wrote above that I disproved:
                  "... I refute, firstly, these Internet garbage dumps, and secondly, you, who gave the data from these garbage dumps to Beznin's monograph."
                  8)
                  Quote: The vile skeptic
                  Talk about 2,3,4% of farmland in general, as was done in your first "excerpt from the monograph" - manipulation

                  It's true"

                  That is, nevertheless, in your opinion, in the country 2-3% of agricultural land was given 51% of agricultural products - right?
                  Well, tell me about 51% of tobacco, or sugar beets, for example, from these 2-3%.

                  "the output of the same products from the infield and on collective farms and -different as heaven and earth"

                  And who is arguing? This is absolutely natural. For understanding people, there is no miracle in this, as well as evidence of "super-efficiency". In part in a previous post, I touched on the reasons for this.

                  "Like income from work there and there."

                  For some reason you forget about the expense.

                  "the collective farm was a dumb BARSHINA, which the state FORCED the peasants to work on themselves"

                  1. It represented perhaps the most effective model in the absence of initial capital for land users.
                  2. It made me so personally that in my life I remember single-handed people as much in the mid-70s.
    5. Foul skeptic 30 January 2020 13: 45 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      An answer to you from the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU of July 1953 from the lips of its Secretary General:

      We have 3,5 million less cows than before the war.

      Ah, as it is not manipulative, to give the words of Khrushchev, who drove Beria into the mud at this plenum.
      Especially when you consider that Nikita Sergeyevich himself manipulated the numbers.
      1) He kept silent that after the war there were 22,8 million heads of cows, and in 1952 - 24,8 million heads. Therefore, use the indicator "before the war" - manipulation.
      2) He singled out cows from the cattle category and did not say about other cattle categories, and according to them there was an increase even in comparison with even the pre-war level. - manipulation
      3) He did not say that the decrease occurred at the expense of individual farms, on the collective farm cattle the number of cows did not decrease compared to the pre-war level. Because the sole persons competently used the fact that the state did not let cattle under the knife to make up the population. Because of what meat was actually in short supply. And for it you could make good money. But not only the individual farmers acted this way, collective farmers also slaughtered their livestock and sold meat. Therefore - manipulation.
  • Hantengri 30 January 2020 11: 40 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    Quote: Olgovich
    I will say: for the first time, collective farms became profitable only after 1953, when for the first time in more than 20 years the LOWEST prices for products purchased by the state were raised, which did not even cover a quarter of the cost of production

    Is this confirmed by any documents? Or is it another "Deep Analysis of Historical Processes, Based on Moldavian Mathematics", by authorship, personally, of Olgovic?
  • Sergej1972 30 January 2020 14: 47 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    This is clearly not an appeal from the Novocherkassk workers.
  • Ptolemy Lag 30 January 2020 15: 00 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Worthy successors have grown in Cornfield ...
  • BAI
    BAI 30 January 2020 18: 14 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    This is the first time I don’t understand why Olgovich was blamed for, although he had already fallen from the generals underground. Khrushchev is a controversial person, as are the results of his reign. There are pros, there are cons. What is more, what is less - there is no definite answer. I read a collection of his works. There are many perfectly sound ideas. But with good intentions, the road to hell is paved. I will not flip through frantically volumes for quoting. Therefore, do not require quotes taken out of context. The source to help.
    1. rich 30 January 2020 22: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Samsonov Alexander, I have cited the entire paragraph from your article here, along with the heading
      Red emperor
      After the death of Joseph Stalin, several grandiose projects were completed that could turn the USSR-Russia into an advanced civilization that overtook the whole world for many generations. Projects that could create a “Golden Age” society and forever bury predatory Western capitalism, a consumption and extermination society that kills people and nature, and also bring great economic benefits to the country, contribute to its spatial development, development of the outskirts and strengthen security. (End of paragraph) )

      It turns out complete nonsense, such as - in the garden of elderberry, in Kiev, uncle. I read it several times, but I didn’t understand anything. Please explain how the title of this paragraph relates to its text. belay
  • Alex Nevs 31 January 2020 11: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Steeper than the Tagged Humpback, there will never be anyone.
  • Paul Siebert 31 January 2020 14: 51 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    The article is correct! What for!
    Recently, certain circles in Russia have been trying to denigrate the name of Stalin, to make him a bugbear for future generations of Russians.
    Will not work!
    Our people, even having gone through incredible suffering during collectivization and repression, managed to maintain respect for the Leader.
    Managing to make the Soviet Union an industrial power, to win the war, to show the world a model of society without profit, the society of the future.
    In my opinion, his main merit is that he made us believe in ourselves, taught us to dream.
    Dreaming not about dividends from own shares, not about Miami mansions, but about universal justice and happiness.
    About the distant stars that we will surely conquer.
    That we will surely defeat all the diseases on the planet.
    The fact that, looking at us, other nations will also rise to their full height, throw off oppression, and become our brothers.
    He succeeded a lot. There wasn’t enough life. But the defeat did not happen.
    Our people cannot be defeated at all. 1991 is not a defeat, but a tactical retreat.
    Still will be! Ahead is a victory! smile
  • Catfish 31 January 2020 15: 06 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Alexey, as for the fleet, the cruisers, which had lost their significance, were launched for scrapping and emphasis was placed on the construction of nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles. What is Khrushchev’s betrayal here? Nuclear submarines are now the basis of Russia's nuclear shield, and large surface ships serve only to demonstrate the flag in regional conflicts. And you won’t get enough money for everything. hi
  • Ross xnumx 30 January 2020 06: 36 New
    • 21
    • 7
    +14
    It was the “villains” who clung to power that distorted the Stalinist policy of creating a socialist state. It was precisely these “pristeba prisha” that turned outward from Stalin's plans and projects. They simply wrung out from the realization that the country's unthinkable wealth and resources were being spent on
    Entot ... like him ... people

    One was not taken into account by these "boobies" - "What is written with a pen cannot be cut down with an ax." After Stalin, there were not only documents that the Khrushchev primitive corrected, destroyed, and rules in order to highlight its significance. There was also the PSS of I.V. Stalin in the volume of 13 volumes. This is not the PSS of V.I. Lenin, but also not the memoirs of the same LIB or the May decrees of the GDP ... I cannot say about the rest of the “statesmen” that I am familiar with their epistolary genre. But “expanding” and “sowing” knowledge in the economic structure of the modern Russian state is possible only in accounting reports and promising breakthroughs.
    The main thing that distinguished Stalin from the late leadership was his reliance on the productive forces of the working class and peasantry, coupled with scientists and the intelligentsia.
    This is not your reliance on the oligarchs and the "newly hatched" elite.
    How is this true:
    Any person, regardless of origin, affluence, place of residence, could fully reveal his creative, intellectual and physical potential.

    good
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Uncle lee 30 January 2020 06: 54 New
      • 16
      • 12
      +4
      And Samsonov described, as it really was! No need to juggle ....
      1. smaug78 30 January 2020 09: 08 New
        • 14
        • 8
        +6
        Samsonov, in principle, can not describe anything laughing This is the usual copy-paste of statues, very often doubtful, from the Internet, which people who are not burdened with knowledge are mistaken for truth and do not want to check ... It’s a kind of folk healer with TV.
    2. polar fox 30 January 2020 07: 12 New
      • 13
      • 5
      +8
      Quote: Raiym bek
      Samsonov, as always, as he smokes and begins to carry nonsense.

      and the grass, in this case, you personally supply ... not? Or delivery fell through and comments were born?
  • Olddetractor 30 January 2020 06: 42 New
    • 13
    • 10
    +3
    You just wonder how much Nikita Sergeyevich was able to do in one helmet, he dropped his prestige, pokered his politics, ruined the army and planted everything with corn. A sort of subjective voluntarist. I did not have time to connect the sewerage with the water supply system, the wise comrades did not. I think it was not so simple. It is worth paying attention to the fact that all the negativity of that time is attributed to Nikita, and everything positive to other people. Khrushchev’s personality was demonized, he didn’t steer the country alone. It was a system crisis
    1. Plantagenet 30 January 2020 07: 44 New
      • 9
      • 5
      +4
      “But - our shortcomings are the continuation of our advantages: Khrushchev’s unlimited confidence that he knows everything better than anyone, his desire to lead everything, to delve into everything, to follow everything, to teach everyone, and finally, an excess of temperament - ultimately gave rise to fussiness and a foul, they pulled the country in. He did not allow the “boyars" to live in peace, with him, barely recovering from the shock of Stalinist repressions, they did not receive the desired stability, stability of their position, certainty of their personal prospects, and this is, I repeat, representing tsya me the main cause of the bitterness with which they snapped at him, whooping, expelled from the Kremlin.

      The secretary who spoke at the plenary meeting, if I am not mistaken, of the Rostov regional party committee spoke most clearly on this occasion: "Now no one will tell us who to go to the fair, and to whom from the fair." The fact is that Khrushchev shortly before that decided to limit his tenure as regional party secretaries, throwing a remark: “It’s time for many to go, as they say, from the fair, and they all sit at their posts.” So, it is precisely this, I think, that Khrushchev signed the death sentence for himself. "

      Georgy Ilyich Mirsky “Life in three eras”
    2. Gardamir 30 January 2020 09: 31 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      I like your comment. So say Khrushchev did not steer the country alone. And Gorbachev is not alone, and Yeltsin is not alone? And Putin alone attached Crimea, but the rest is not him.
  • mark1 30 January 2020 07: 04 New
    • 15
    • 4
    +11
    I began to read, in style I thought that A. Prokhanov broke into VO, but no - Samsonov. Well, according to expectations, I assumed that it would be about specific megaprojects, such as a tunnel to Sakhalin, the Transpolar Railway, maybe some great projects that were unknown to the village were canceled ... but I only found out one thing - The bastard bastard!
    1. bober1982 30 January 2020 07: 39 New
      • 8
      • 4
      +4
      Quote: mark1
      I began to read, in style I thought that

      This is what you thought, because immediately the article begins - about the stars to which civilization torn along with Stalin, and into the mysterious beautiful distant. Also puzzled.
  • pmkemcity 30 January 2020 07: 06 New
    • 11
    • 2
    +9
    Stalin I.V.
    American billions
    Now a more eloquent picture is revealed before us. At a time when the Russian revolution is straining its forces to defend its conquests, and imperialism is trying to finish it off, American capital supplies billions to the Kerensky – Milyukov – Tsereteli coalition so that, by curbing the Russian revolution completely, it will undermine the revolutionary growth in the West traffic.
    That is the fact.
    Is it not true: the West is importing into Russia not so much socialism and liberation, but rather bondage and counter-revolution.
  • atalef 30 January 2020 07: 07 New
    • 24
    • 33
    -9
    Stalin created civilization and a society of the future, a society of the "golden age" ("What kind of society did Stalin create"). A society of knowledge, service and creation.

    Sorry about the future when people without guilt were grabbed at night and at Kolyma (at best, 0 or under execution. When children were separated from their parents. When human life wasn’t worth it at all - the society of the future according to Stalin was built in the DPRK.
    All adherents of the society of the future according to Stalin - I urge you to join hands in orderly rows in the DPRK to bow to Eun.
    Slave psychology - the king wants to.
    Projects that could create a Golden Age society and forever bury predatory Western capitalism, a society of consumption and extermination, killing man and nature

    killing man and nature.
    The author probably lives in a cave without access to the Internet and the ability to go abroad.
    Travel around Europe and see dead people lying on the sidelines of roads and ruined nature.
    Not tired?

    Quote: ROSS 42
    It was the “villains” who clung to power that distorted the Stalinist policy of creating a socialist state. It was precisely these “pristeba prisha” that turned outward from Stalin's plans and projects.

    RETURN STALIN belay fool
    I read and crap.
    With this approach, for 100 years you will wait for the return of Stalin, then Putin, then some other thing - Mutin - the main thing is that you would crush your people harder and wave your harder with a club.
    That all would biaole.
    Some kind of tin.
    Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren?
    no wonder that
    The number of young people wishing to leave Russia reached 53 percent

    https://www.svoboda.org/a/30292609.html
    The whole world is looking to the future, and return the past to you.
    Yes, and what? belay
    1. Gardamir 30 January 2020 09: 36 New
      • 9
      • 7
      +2
      Where do you find such truths? None of my relatives were sitting. Unless my mother’s brother, the “Stalin ghouls” on the funnel were taken. So he broke someone's head in a village fight.
      1. Nasrat 30 January 2020 10: 04 New
        • 9
        • 12
        -3
        I say ...., it’s nice to read when the communists are sucking other communists ... - this is the right article !!! From me for this plus the author!
        It's funny to read about the Trotskyists during the Khrushchev period !!!! Trotsky was removed from all posts, in my opinion, from 1927 ... and his followers turned out to be just the sea ... Stalin ruled until 1953 and left no followers !!! It turns out, based on the exclamations of the Stalinists, Trotsky was a genius !!! And Stalin .... without followers left after death wassat

        I urge the author to continue the line and expose the Trotskyist Brezhnev, because he clearly did not pull on the role of the new Stalin .... wassat Expose Trotskyist Brezhnev !!!!
        1. bober1982 30 January 2020 10: 35 New
          • 7
          • 8
          -1
          Quote: Nasr
          Trotsky was removed from all posts, in my opinion, since 1927 ... and his followers are just a sea

          Stalin was vindictive and vindictive, and even destroyed the repentant Trotskyists, by 1937 these were not left. The issue with the Trotskyists was completely and finally closed.
          And therefore, when Khrushchev is accused of Trotskyism - it looks very ridiculous, and even funny.
          The name of Trotsky, in the Soviet people, was included in the folklore, in the famous catch phrase, namely - Star like Trotsky
          1. Nasrat 30 January 2020 11: 00 New
            • 10
            • 12
            -2
            I'll tell you so ... these Stalin’s ridiculous adherents ... they’re all to blame, and Stalin, as an icon, is clean and not depraved .. Khrushchev, it turns out to be a Trotskyist .., Gorbachev sent by enemies ... - It seems that that the CPSU is a passage yard ... and this is subject to 5 million submission to it. !!!!! soldier + Ministry of Internal Affairs + KGB and so on ... like children, by God - they come up with some kind of werewolves, Trotskyists .. all around are enemies who have perverted the ideas of communism ... Yeah .. and don’t want to notice simple truths - communism has reached an impasse Stalin's ideas crashed into everyday life. Tired of both the people and the nomenclature, to make feats, I just wanted to live like people ..
            1. bober1982 30 January 2020 11: 17 New
              • 4
              • 8
              -4
              Quote: Nasr
              all around the enemies who perverted the ideas of communism ...

              Such thoughts, by the way, are not brought to good.
              Capture and attempt to hijack a Soviet warship Watchdog in 1975, the ship’s political leader, V. Sablin, was in charge, the motive for action was the perversion of the ideas of Leninism by the modern Soviet leadership (!!)
              A. Solzhenitsyn - received his sentence for some stupid letters, where he criticized Stalin for moving away from the ideas of Leninism.
              Various leftist groups that harbored various crazy ideas, including terrorist ones, again because of distortions of the ideas of Leninism.
              Even at the household level, one had to watch such clever men at one time, in the literal sense, he would start talking nonsense about this very departure from Marxism, okay, somewhere else in the smoking room, or even he would blurt out at the meeting. They looked at such as crazy.
              1. Nasrat 30 January 2020 11: 35 New
                • 5
                • 10
                -5
                Quote: bober1982

                Such thoughts, by the way, are not brought to good.
                .

                Tooting...

                Quote: bober1982
                ... They looked at such as crazy.

                And now they have risen ... judging by the comments bully
                1. Looking for 30 January 2020 16: 17 New
                  • 4
                  • 2
                  +2
                  Wait. Give me a deadline. We’ll raise it again. You won’t have time to dribble for the cordon.
                  1. Nasrat 30 January 2020 16: 24 New
                    • 4
                    • 8
                    -4
                    Quote: Seeker
                    Wait. Give me a deadline. We’ll raise it again. You won’t have time to dribble for the cordon.

                    Your time is up .. it only remains to console themselves on such sites ... laughing
                    The commies have all repainted as democrats ... and you are talking about "slowing down" ... they are sharing the trough without you ... takes malice? wassat And who shares that trough? Those who managed to repaint ... cunning commies! tongue
            2. chenia 30 January 2020 16: 42 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              Quote: Nasr
              Yeah .. and they don’t want to notice simple truths - communism has come to a standstill, all of Stalin’s ideas have crashed into everyday life. Tired of both the people and the nomenclature of feats to perform,


              One could agree, if not for the last three decades. Well, and how successful are the bourgeoisie. What has been done in terms of life? In the USSR, no one was starving (in my memory. And this is 65 years old). Yes, the products were of better quality, and now?. The embarrassment is inundated - so CRITCH has covered consumer cooperation.

              And in other areas?

              You should also take into account that every 10 years the country increased by 23-25 ​​million.
              (they also had to worry about). And now?.
              Something under the bourgeoisie, prosperity did not come?
            3. Alex_59 31 January 2020 11: 50 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Nasr
              It seems that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is a passage through the courtyard ... and this is subject to 5 million subordination to it. a soldier + the Ministry of Internal Affairs + the KGB and so on ... like children, by God - they come up with some kind of werewolves, Trotskyists .. all around are enemies who have perverted the ideas of communism ...

              I also like the idea of ​​how some “masters of the West” ousted Stalin and appointed Khrushchev. It amazes me that with such opportunities, these same "masters of the West" are engaged in some kind of petty nonsense. If they change leaders so easily for the people they need, then nothing prevents them with such power simply by order to dissolve the USSR and close the issue once and for all. Why these circus numbers with a change of leaders?
    2. chenia 30 January 2020 10: 46 New
      • 14
      • 2
      +12
      Quote: atalef
      Travel around Europe and see dead people lying on the sidelines of roads and ruined nature.


      Ukraine. For 30 years, minus 15 million people. A completely ruined economy. Capitalism + Liberalism. Result. Yes, so the Germans did not destroy the population during the war.
      So what is Stalin?

      The international financial mafia feeds only its own, the rest milks and destroys.
    3. Olgovich 30 January 2020 15: 22 New
      • 5
      • 10
      -5
      Quote: atalef
      The number of young people wishing to leave Russia reached 53 percent

      https://www.svoboda.org/a/30292609.html

      IN ALREADY ALREADY escaped 5 million: Now about 5 million British live abroad, this makes up 7-8% of the population.
      Moreover, the process of departure of the British from their country accelerated in the last ten years - England during this time left 3,6 million people.

      Poor England ...
  • carstorm 11 30 January 2020 07: 10 New
    • 10
    • 5
    +5
    it’s not for me to judge whether it’s good or bad, but what would happen if Khrushchev weren’t such a fan of rocket weapons? would it be the way it is now if it were not for its solution? or is the concept of naval aviation a bad thing? history is such a strange thing ... one pulls the other and sometimes stupid decisions bring benefits in many years.
  • rocket757 30 January 2020 07: 32 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Each time / period of the development of the state, its own Stalin or Khrushchev!
    Nothing happens just like that.
    It’s just to regret that they lost what they did, didn’t realize, what they could realize ... society, people, even a unified assessment of what it was and why it happened this way and not otherwise, we cannot coordinate, create!
    Maybe no matter how later? When and talk about how it was, no one will be?
    We have not experienced anything yet, have not calmed down, which means that emotions will be seething and objective analysis may fail!
    I want to say that you must repeat the old mistakes ... only the list of those errors is MISCELLANEOUS!
  • Vasily Ponomarev 30 January 2020 07: 56 New
    • 12
    • 13
    -1
    God, what a masterpiece, now we already have a traitor Khrushchev, it turns out that the real Soviet Union, which would suit the Communists, lived only 30 years, then the traitors divorced under Stalin
    1. pmkemcity 30 January 2020 08: 27 New
      • 15
      • 2
      +13
      We cannot but touch upon the wrong behavior of some prominent political figures if we are talking about unity in our affairs. I mean Comrades Molotov and Mikoyan.

      Molotov is a dedicated man. Call, and I have no doubt, he will not hesitate to give his life for the party. But you can not go past his unworthy actions. Comrade Molotov, our foreign minister, being under a “chartreuse” at a diplomatic reception, agreed to the British ambassador to publish bourgeois newspapers and magazines in our country. Why? On what basis was it necessary to give such consent? Is it not clear that the bourgeoisie is our class enemy and to spread the bourgeois press among the Soviet people - this will do nothing but harm. Such a wrong step, if allowed, will have a harmful, negative effect on the minds and worldview of Soviet people, will weaken our communist ideology and strengthen the bourgeois ideology. This is Comrade Molotov’s first political mistake.

      And what is the proposal of Comrade Molotov to transfer Crimea to the Jews? This is a gross mistake of Comrade Molotov. Why did he need it? How can this be allowed? On what basis did Comrade Molotov make such a proposal? We have Jewish autonomy - Birobidzhan. Isn't that enough? Let this republic develop. And Comrade Molotov should not be the lawyer of illegal Jewish claims against our Soviet Crimea. This is Comrade Molotov’s second political mistake. Comrade Molotov misbehaves as a member of the Politburo. And we categorically rejected his far-fetched proposals.

      Comrade Molotov respects his spouse so much that we do not have time to make the decision of the Politburo on this or that important political issue, as it quickly becomes known to Comrade Zhemchuzhina. It turns out that some kind of invisible thread [c. 585] connects the Politburo with Molotov’s wife, Pearl, and her friends. And she is surrounded by friends who cannot be trusted. It is clear that this behavior of a member of the Politburo is unacceptable.

      Recording speech I.V. Stalin at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU
      16 1952 October, the
  • Ros 56 30 January 2020 08: 08 New
    • 13
    • 5
    +8
    To my shame, I’m only now beginning to understand that these were corn flowers, we lost much more by the grace of this bald member, we lost the future for our descendants. Perhaps there is still the opportunity to correct mistakes, but there are great doubts, especially with our leadership.
  • rudolff 30 January 2020 08: 39 New
    • 13
    • 6
    +7
    Not very well, to put it mildly, I belong to Khrushchev, but why roll all the barrels on him? There was the Twentieth Congress, there was a special meeting of the Central Committee, there was a discussion of the cult in the patriotic and Komsomol primary organizations, there was a massive renaming and demolition of monuments, there was a removal of the body from the mausoleum, and what, did many speak out against it? Swallowed, forgotten and began to live on. But what about the very Golden Age society that Stalin created according to Samsonov? Smoked on the sidelines?
    1. bober1982 30 January 2020 08: 50 New
      • 6
      • 8
      -2
      Quote: rudolff
      Not very well, to put it mildly, I belong to Khrushchev,

      I also have an ambiguous attitude to Khrushchev, let's say so - the persecution of the Church was terrible, I did not like aviation.
      But blaming all the sins on him is not good. He was completely stupid of a man, a true Leninist, of course he was not a Trotskyist and a pest, a lot was good and useful with him.
      The main mistake of Khrushchev was the debunking of the so-called cult of the personality of Stalin, it was a gross mistake, which actually led to the collapse of the international communist movement. This was the collapse of the ideas of communism.
      1. Aviator_ 30 January 2020 09: 27 New
        • 13
        • 2
        +11
        It was the Trotskyist who demanded the fulfillment of his Wishlist, despite objective circumstances, he generally believed that there were no objective circumstances. So he took and liquidated the cooperatives, MTS, announced that communism is when there is a lot of sausage, and it will be in 1980, well, etc. Tselin organized no one needed, unprofitable. What is there to think about the trans-polar highway? Economic Councils instead of ministries - this is generally a masterpiece. Joseph was going to limit the role of the party, and this one he organized separately rural and separately industrial district committees. He divorced party parasites, doubled their number, but they did not answer for anything, but climbed into everything. And how then to treat him?
        1. bober1982 30 January 2020 09: 36 New
          • 4
          • 7
          -3
          Quote: Aviator_
          And how then to treat him?

          He also promised to show the last priest on TV.
          Where did the party itself look? And, then, what was she like?
          Quote: Aviator_
          Joseph was about to

          This is a perestroika word remake, in Russian traditions to call - Joseph Vissarinovich, such a fashion went into perestroika, in a Western manner.
          1. Aviator_ 30 January 2020 19: 29 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            That's exactly the party he gave to slaughter the party nomenclature. Previously, the leadership of the party at all levels had responsibility; under Khrushchev Kukuruznom, it disappeared.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Engineer 30 January 2020 10: 15 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    In order to build an Ocean Fleet, you need to have a strong economy and a well-fed people, so you had to start the story not with the rattling of weapons, but with this:
    1. chenia 30 January 2020 20: 32 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Engineer
      In order to build an Ocean Fleet, you need to have a strong economy and a well-fed people, so you had to start the story not with the rattling of weapons, but with this:


      You seem to be right. But only if Stalin would not have started with a rattling of weapons, and from this
      ,
      this beauty would be called the German Reich.
  • hermit 30 January 2020 10: 25 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    One could simply write one phrase: Khrushchev is to blame for everything. And the point. It's funny, but after the collapse of the USSR, Russia actually returned to Khrushchev’s military doctrine. Reduction of conventional weapons and a bet on nuclear deterrence. Maybe Khrushchev was simply ahead of his time? In general, I recommend the book of S. Khrushchev "The Birth of a Superpower". She is probably subjective, but shows N.S. Khrushchev in the military-strategic sphere.
    1. Aviator_ 30 January 2020 19: 33 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The book of US citizen S. Khrushchev is very interesting to read, I agree. The logic is extremely moronic - if the war, then only global, although it was under Khrushchev Kukuruznom there were a lot of regional conflicts. The book shows well the kitchen of decision making with his dad. There were also enough lovers of licking the anus at the NCH around: Chelomei organized the State Prize to S. N. Khrushchev when he was 29 years old. Nobody still knows what an outstanding S.N. Khrushchev created at this age.
  • agorar 30 January 2020 10: 43 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Here are the main projects not related to the army
    https://zen.yandex.ru/media/24history/megaproekty-stalina-kotorye-skryli-i-unichtojili-posle-ego-uhoda-5d1a8cfea710a500adce6e9e,
    and here in detail WHAT Khrushchev destroyed in agriculture:
    https://apxiv.livejournal.com/176700.html
  • Sergey Olegovich 30 January 2020 10: 47 New
    • 13
    • 5
    +8
    Under the red emperor, the "imperial" armed forces of the USSR-Russia were recreated, the best traditions of the empire were restored.

    Stalin was not an emperor. Stalin was the secretary general. How many fables can I write about Stalin. Stalin was the most successful Leader, the most successful!
    Khrushchev, he is a traitor to Soviet power. Khrushchev betrayed Leninism-Stalinism! He did a lot of things. In one comment you won’t write anything.
  • Kostadinov 30 January 2020 11: 05 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    Khrushchev came to power in 54. For 10 years, the USSR missile shield was created under him. By the way, conventional troops continued to develop. It’s ridiculous to argue with the facts.

    By the year of Stalin's death, the foundation for the nuclear missile shield of the USSR was already beaten. Khrushchev is not very successful, but the matter continued. The USSR lagged behind the United States in nuclear missile weapons precisely under Khrushchev. In 1954, such a weapon did not hit the USSR and the USA and they had an equal start, and ten years later the United States beat a great superiority in nuclear missile weapons.
    Already 10 years after Khrushchev, the USSR reached parity with the United States in nuclear missile weapons.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Andrey VOV 30 January 2020 11: 19 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Dear author ... well, tell me, why each time publishing a new article at its beginning there is so much of the same pathos, until you get to the main topic in the article, the brain is cut down! Well, you can already without this, well, so everyone knows your views ..
  • Andrey VOV 30 January 2020 11: 22 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Quote: LiSiCyn
    Khrushchev was smart enough not to go too far ... Otherwise, he would have left his post much earlier.

    Khrushchev in all his actions bent her so much so that the guard! Thoughtless contractions of the army, corn in the Arctic, economic councils and there and back, and so on and so on
  • Alexey RA 30 January 2020 11: 27 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    Projects of heavy surface ships, such as heavy cruisers of the Stalingrad type (project 82) were also buried, a series of project 68 bis cruisers (according to NATO classification - Sverdlov class) were not completed, the ships under construction were decommissioned.

    That is, Khrushchev stopped building large artillery ships. Extremely valuable ships ... especially in the 60s and 70s. smile
    Who else in the world built battlecruisers in the 50s?
    Khrushchev focused on creating a nuclear missile fleet. The priority was nuclear submarines and coastal missile-carrying aircraft.

    Khrushchev concentrated his forces on the main task - the delivery of UBF to enemy territory. Until reliable ICBMs appeared, such a means were submarines with short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
    Only the solution of this problem guaranteed the survival of the USSR in a situation where its territory was covered even by the enemy’s infantry-infantry fighting system.
    At the same time, promising military programs not related to the development of nuclear missile weapons were cut. In particular, a powerful blow was inflicted on Soviet military aircraft. This enemy of the people demagogically argued that the country has good missiles, so you do not need to pay so much attention to the Air Force.

    What horrors.
    In fact, projects of aircraft without missile weapons were cut. The same design bureaus that made the aircraft part of the aircraft-missile system calmly continued to work - just remember the same Tupolev missile carriers (including modifications of the Tu-95 cast-iron bomber under the URO).
    1. chenia 30 January 2020 19: 52 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      What horrors.


      About the fleet, I will not say no special. But he showed artillery. We self-propelled guns only in the mid 70's and appeared.
  • Operator 30 January 2020 12: 19 New
    • 12
    • 6
    +6
    Keep your hands off our Nikita Sergeyevich - it was he who dispersed the next "first-fighters" (tankers, artillerymen and especially the navy) in order to begin to form the nuclear missile potential of our country.

    Naturally, this potential was created on the Stalinist basis (and on what else), but this did not eliminate the need to disperse the obsolete admiral generals who could only fight in 1945 — climb tank wedges for nuclear strikes, maneuver yes Do not maneuver in a broth with dumplings (Baltic, Black, Mediterranean and other coastal seas).

    It’s another matter that Khrushchev’s successors (dear Leonid Ilyich, Ustinov, etc.), who profess a Western cargo cult, foolishly wanted to fasten to the nuclear missile potential of +60000 unworkable tanks in storage, +100500 unnecessary pre-war carriers and RPKSN, cropped, unframed infantry, etc. etc.

    Khrushchev was to blame only for unsuccessful experiments in the economy; he built the USSR Armed Forces in a modern way - relying on missiles and nuclear weapons.
    1. Alexey RA 30 January 2020 16: 35 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      but this did not abolish the need to disperse the obsolete admiral generals who could only fight in 1945 — climb tank wedges for nuclear strikes

      And what is so terrible about this? The enemy of the 60s simply doesn’t have as many VLF to stop the tank armada - remember the standard "1 VLB per battalion"?
      In addition, the resistance of mechanized forces to the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons is quite large. The Totsky training ground is an example of this. Yes, and radiation after the impact subsides quickly.
      At the end of the artillery bombardment, in the direction of the epicenter of the atomic bomb explosion, radiation reconnaissance patrols were sent to the tank (whose armor reduced radiation by 8–9 times), arriving at the epicenter 40 minutes after the explosion. They found that the radiation level in this region 1 hour after the explosion was 50 R / h, in the zone of radius up to 300 m - 25 R / h, in the zone of radius 500 m - 0,5 R / h and in the zone of radius 850 m - 0,1 R / h. The team marked with special flags the zones “more than 25 R / h”, “0.5-25 R / h”, “0.1-0.5 R / h”. The designation of the boundaries of the zones of infection was completely completed 1,5 hours after the explosion, i.e. before the advancing troops to the areas of infection.
      At about 12 o’clock the advance detachment of the mechanized division of the “Eastern”, moving ahead of the battle formations of the first echelon and overcoming hotbeds of fires and blockages, went into the area of ​​the atomic explosion. After 10-15 minutes, behind the advance detachment, units of the rifle regiment advanced to the same area north of the blast epicenter, and units of the mechanized regiment southward. The troops moved along the roads in columns. In front of the columns, military radiation reconnaissance followed, which established that the level of radiation in the area at a distance of 400 m from the epicenter of the explosion by this time did not exceed 0,1 R / h.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. chenia 30 January 2020 20: 09 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      fight a la 1945 - climb tank wedges for nuclear strikes


      Feel the power of a true expert. Anyone and everything else is scattered by vigorous rockets and land mines in Europe. The Americans would give shit to Britons and Franks a vigorous baton. Why? Then,. that their tanks can’t be rolled out. And you’ll start the racket with special warhead .... and it started (or rather ended. Who the hell will be there to figure out where it took off, immediately the answer. And then you can’t hide behind a puddle.

      But for regional conflicts, tanks and artillery are just that.
      Reply
  • Yury Siritsky 30 January 2020 13: 02 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    This attacked aviation as well, deciding with its own little mind that we did not need long-range aviation. The behavior of the marshals of victory, unquestioningly accepting the dope of a corncracker, was surprising in some Latin country that he would have been thrown to a landfill long ago.
    1. Alexey RA 30 January 2020 14: 55 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      Quote: Yuri Siritsky
      This attacked aviation as well, having decided with its own mind that we did not need long-range aviation.

      Well, yes, yes ... Tu-22, missile carriers based on Tu-16 and Tu-95 - this, of course, is a serious blow to long-range aviation. smile
      Khrushchev hit the cannon-cast iron aircraft, the legacy of the Second World War. But airplanes with URO bloomed and smelled under him.
      1. Bersaglieri 30 January 2020 15: 33 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        And nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles. Khrushchev correctly chose the “development vector”: we cannot build AUG at parity — we will make an asymmetric answer. And he turned out.
        1. Alexey RA 30 January 2020 16: 03 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Bersaglieri
          And nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles. Khrushchev correctly chose the “development vector”: we cannot build AUG at parity — we will make an asymmetric answer. And he turned out.

          Not certainly in that way. Khrushchev-era missile submarines are primarily carriers of missile defense, not anti-ship missiles. These submarines were intended to strike ground targets, in addition to submarines with SLBMs.

          As for anti-aircraft submarines, the asymmetric answer here did not quite work out. It turned out that in addition to these submarines, a surface fleet is still needed - at least to help break through the boundary of the PLO. And the asymmetric answer itself turned out to be too narrowly specialized, in contrast to what this submarine had to deal with.
          1. Bersaglieri 31 January 2020 12: 53 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I agree. RCC on a nuclear submarine is already from the mid 60s (pr675, etc.)
  • Rakovor 30 January 2020 13: 30 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: Nasr
    And now they have risen ... judging by the comments

    No, they just all gathered here, on this site, the last of the Mohicans.))
    1. Nasrat 30 January 2020 14: 18 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: Rakovor
      Quote: Nasr
      And now they have risen ... judging by the comments

      No, they just all gathered here, on this site, the last of the Mohicans.))

      Ha ha ha ... for sure ... but let's not laugh ... this is such a disease ...
  • Sergej1972 30 January 2020 15: 09 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    And that most of these megaprojects were covered in 1953-1954. (during the period of collective leadership and tug of war between Khrushchev and Malenkov) at the initiative of Beria and (or) Malenkov, with the full support of members of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the author is bashfully silent.
  • Kolin 30 January 2020 15: 30 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It seems the author has read too much Wahi
  • Bersaglieri 30 January 2020 15: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "There was nothing" (c), because there was no material base :)
  • Operator 30 January 2020 16: 45 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The enemy of the 60s simply doesn’t have as many VLF to stop the tank armada - remember the standard "1 VLB per battalion"? In addition, the resistance of mechanized forces to the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons is quite large. The Totsky training ground is an example of this. Yes, and radiation after the impact subsides quickly

    Since 1956, 2100 units have been produced by the Devi Crockett alone - one per battalion, approximately 2 million people are lost. And this is not counting other types of nuclear weapons (bombs, artillery shells and mines).

    Radiation after the explosion of a single-stage nuclear charge decreases just enough to pass through the infected zone by an accelerated march. But it will be impossible to live permanently in this zone for about 1000 years, which is critical for the use of such low-power charges, for example, in Tehran and other Iranian cities.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • BAI
    BAI 30 January 2020 18: 02 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Ostap suffered. The author has surpassed himself. So rarely can anyone mix flies and meatballs. Philosopher-priests and their persecutor Khrushchev. Song. Taking individual words separately is kind of clever. How to combine everything together - such nonsense turns out.
  • nikvic46 30 January 2020 20: 30 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Stalin should not be called emperor. He did not have imperial ambitions. If we talk about Finland, the proximity of the border of an aggressive country to Leningrad did not suit the country's leadership at all.
  • Camrad 30 January 2020 21: 00 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In particular, a powerful blow was inflicted on Soviet military aircraft. This enemy of the people demagogically argued that the country has good missiles, so you do not need to pay so much attention to the Air Force.

    Not a special one in this thread. But in childhood, my favorite magazine was “Science and Life” number 1967 with an article on the air parade on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the revolution or something. Since somehow I still remember those breakthrough news, vertical take-off, variable sweep, short take-off, MiG-23, Su-17, MiG-25, Yak-38, Tu-22M prototypes. What is this if not the golden age of Soviet aviation? I do not think that these projects went into business only after the resignation of Khrushchev. It would be interesting to hear real experts.
  • wooja 31 January 2020 04: 55 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The results of Khrushchev's activity are mixed ... to put it mildly. Some accuse him of stupidity and voluntarism, which is the place to be, but why did he act that way? Perhaps he kept too many skeletons in his closets ... there is certain evidence that he was influenced by agents of influence, unfortunately his actions harmed not only the armed forces, but also law enforcement and security agencies about state interests and can not be mentioned .. .., it was during the rule of the KNV that the party replaced the state ... and the competence of party leaders, especially at that time was not very high, a person with 3 classes of education ... could demand, put pressure on, but accept meaningful decisions independently - hardly ..., the forerunner of the GMR
  • Nitarius 31 January 2020 05: 46 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    corn is not the word .. the earth on it rested in all its glory!
  • Free wind 31 January 2020 09: 03 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    So what are mega projects? Are philosophers priests?
  • VicktorVR 31 January 2020 09: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    There was no red empire. There was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  • Kostadinov 31 January 2020 11: 23 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Operator
    It’s another matter that Khrushchev’s successors (dear Leonid Ilyich, Ustinov, etc.), who profess a Western cargo cult, foolishly wanted to fasten to the nuclear missile potential of +60000 unworkable tanks in storage, +100500 unnecessary pre-war carriers and RPKSN, cropped, unframed infantry, etc. etc.

    Khrushchev was to blame only for unsuccessful experiments in the economy; he built the USSR Armed Forces in a modern way - relying on missiles and nuclear weapons.

    During Khrushchev, the USSR lagged behind the United States precisely in the nuclear missile potential of which it was so praised.
    By 1954, the USSR and the USA did not hit a single ICBM or BR for submarines. And when Khrushchev was removed from the United States, these missiles hit ten times more than in the USSR and much better as combat readiness.
    Khrushchev’s successors who “fell into insanity” were able to achieve parity precisely in the nuclear missile potential with the USA after Khrushchev. And in the land wars, the USSR had beaten superiority over the United States since 1945. Khrushchev also tried to lose this superiority but failed. Not enough time.
  • ser56 31 January 2020 11: 55 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    another illiterate analysis from an apologist for a Caucasian terrorist ...
  • Dmitry V. 31 January 2020 12: 42 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    after the end of the great war

    The Great War, historians call the First World War.

    Projects of heavy surface ships, such as heavy cruisers of the Stalingrad type (project 82) were also buried, a series of project 68 bis cruisers (according to NATO classification - Sverdlov class) were not completed, the ships under construction were decommissioned.

    One of the archaisms of Stalin, who had little idea of ​​the modern concept of naval warfare, N. G. Kuznetsov spoke of the cruisers of 82 projects:
    A heavy, obscure ship. It is not visible that the end justifies the means. Very expensive ship ...

    Well, the author knows better than the admiral. The paper suffers.
    Considering that work was underway on the first RCC aviation KS-1 Kometa and ship-based KSSh - the cruisers of 82 projects (Stalingrad) had no future, they could not even join the battle.
  • Kaw
    Kaw 31 January 2020 16: 41 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Under Stalin, people lived in barracks and communal apartments. One room for a family, One kitchen and toilet for 3-20 families. Khrushchev began to build separate apartments for people, Khrushchev. What an ignorance, but still its housing.
    1. 1970mk 1 February 2020 19: 23 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I’ll even say .... in the museum of local lore Ivanovo visited .... Do you know when the last people from Zemlyanok moved at least somewhere ?? in 1962! Soviet Power burned with might and main.
  • Alexander Sosnitsky 31 January 2020 17: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Not so simple. But what about the workers 'and peasants' state with a layer of intelligentsia? So they surrendered the USSR to some by their stupidity, while others, by design, as liberally underestimated. And replaced by the nouveau riche. And we got it in full. But scientific communism was conceived.
  • ximkim 31 January 2020 18: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: 30 vis
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    Quote: ANIMAL
    Maize spoiled a lot .... Earth him Glassy! Fleet, Artillery, Aviation ... How many Upscale personnel removed from the Army ... am1 million 200 thousand people were simply thrown into the street.
    The military education system - I almost ruined ... A TRAITOR AND A COWARD.

    T / e Khrushchev at which the nuclear triad was created, which is still the basis for the defense of the Russian Federation was an agent of the West? It’s difficult, like everyone else.

    Here is praise again The leader it’s coming ... Weeping right away with emotion .... I would have watched all these “cogs” sobbing if Stalin were in power ... I don’t understand right away whether people have dementia or, what else ...?

    This article is It causes discussion, emotions, comparisons and most importantly emotions. But if you look at what is happening (now) in the country under wonderful leadership, everything stands still.
  • Kostadinov 31 January 2020 18: 24 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: Kaw
    Under Stalin, people lived in barracks and communal apartments. One room for a family, One kitchen and toilet for 3-20 families. Khrushchev began to build separate apartments for people, Khrushchev. What an ignorance, but still its housing.

    And if Stalin beat Khrushchev in the place of UTB, he thought he would leave the people in barracks and communal apartments? After Khrushchev, it also got better and there were more and wider flats.
  • Kostadinov 31 January 2020 18: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The Great War, historians call the First World War.

    I do not know how the greatness of wars is measured, but for the peoples of the USSR, including the Russian, a great victory was beaten in the 1941–45 war, and not in the First World War.
    One of the archaisms of Stalin, who had little idea of ​​the modern concept of naval warfare, N. G. Kuznetsov spoke of the cruisers of 82 projects:

    1. This is the very admiral who wanted to build dozens of battleships and aircraft carriers, but considered the cruiser fours "unclear".
    2. Of all the heavy artillery ships, the cruiser 82 project was better suited for naval war in the 50-70 years of the 20th century. And for the "escort" of American aircraft carriers and for shelling the coast, etc.
  • Petrol cutter 31 January 2020 21: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yekhan Palych! It was such a picture that hung with my grandfather! As I looked, I remembered! How many years have passed ... And he became sad to bother. Thanks to the author.
    I have not studied this article yet. But immediately a plus.
  • Petrol cutter 31 January 2020 21: 34 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The beginning inspired me. It was promising. Then, we again went to the aircraft carriers. This is not inspired. We will read further.
  • Nikolai 31 January 2020 21: 47 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Khrushchev destroyed a lot of things: the Glory of the Leader, relations with the countries of the Socialist Camp, agriculture, a centralized economic management system, a thaw culture, the leading role of Russians in the republic’s authorities. And the rehabilitation of all scum (Bandera, forest brothers, etc.) ultimately led to nationalism "on the ground" and the destruction of our homeland!
  • sleeve 1 February 2020 07: 16 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    What a game ... I'm talking about an article.
  • 1970mk 1 February 2020 19: 21 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Samsonov, as always, burns!
    the number of aircraft in March 1953 in 5,3 million people

    It was not necessary to reduce? So then it was necessary to fight! There was no other way.
    But Samsonov IT is not clear ...
    The collective farm would be the Stalin city of Samsonov. That would be fun - to plod for workdays. Or does Mr. Samsonov not want this action?