Military Review

Why the Soviet Army did not stop the collapse of the country in 1991

313

At the end of 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. But even after almost 30 years, we are perplexed: how did it happen that the powerful Soviet Army did not take any steps to defend the unity of the country it served.


The Armed Forces of the USSR in 1990, on the eve of the collapse of the country, served 4 490 800 people. All marshals, generals and admirals, officers, warrant officers and warrant officers, foremen and sergeants, soldiers and sailors of the SA and Navy of the USSR took the oath and had to defend the Soviet state and the Soviet people. However, in reality it turned out quite differently: even the famous Soviet generals, among whom at that time were veterans of the Great Patriotic War, remained silent.

For the post-war history of its existence, the Soviet Army several times participated in the suppression of opposition demonstrations in Eastern Europe (East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968), fought in Afghanistan for nine years in the interests of supporting the Afghan pro-Soviet regime, suffering serious losses. But she could not save her own country from collapse. Now one can argue a lot about the fact that the military leaders did not want to fight with their people, but already at the beginning of 1991 it was clear even to people far from politics where everything was going.

It is unlikely that the Soviet marshals and generals were small children or crazy, so as not to understand the deplorable prospects of the Soviet state, and the cowards of military officers, many of whom went through not only Afghanistan, but also the Great Patriotic War, certainly cannot be called. What prevented the military from taking power into their own hands or, at least, ensuring the coming to power of those forces that could preserve the Soviet state?

First, with all the increased attention to the army in the post-war period, the Soviet party elite always tried to prevent the real influence of the military on the political life of the country. They tried not to let the siloviki into power. As a result, the generation of Soviet generals who were in the ranks by 1991 had already formed a firm conviction that the military should not interfere in politics. By the way, it was at the turn of the 1980s - 1990s. the first political figures of the USSR appeared from among the military - Alexander Rutskoy, Ruslan Aushev, Dzhokhar Dudayev, however, as we understand, they were in a slightly different political camp.

Secondly, the Soviet armed forces were a perfectly working mechanism with excellent discipline, but the SA command did not have the will and initiative to make independent decisions, especially about actions of a political nature.

The same Boris Yeltsin, just two years later, turned out to be much more decisive: the troops brought to Moscow shot the House of Soviets from tanks, and most of Yeltsin's military leaders either supported or was quick to keep silent. Perhaps the whole point was that the military were used to obeying the orders of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, who in 1991 was still Mikhail Gorbachev. Although the Minister of Defense of the USSR Marshal Dmitry Yazov became part of the State Emergency Committee, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Land Forces of the USSR, General of the Army Valentin Varennikov, and a number of other military leaders were among the supporters of the coup attempt.


The last Soviet marshal Dmitry Yazov still did not dare to defend the USSR by military methods


In fact, the indecision of the older generation of Soviet military leaders was such that Gorbachev could not change the country's top military leadership. But he nevertheless went on to update the personnel of the command: the new minister of defense after the failed putsch became the marshal aviation Yevgeny Shaposhnikov, who previously held the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, and the Chief of the General Staff was the head of the Military Academy named after V.I. MV Frunze General of the Army Vladimir Lobov.

The army did not have its own "hot heads" ready to try to prevent the coming collapse of the Soviet state by force. Even such "radicals" as Colonel-General Albert Makashov, who at that time commanded the troops of the Volga-Ural Military District and supported the State Emergency Committee (for which he lost his post), did not take any more independent and decisive actions against Gorbachev and Yeltsin.

Finally, one cannot deny the personal interest of a part of the military elite of the Soviet Union in the upcoming transformations. A number of new generation generals have made a successful military career precisely because of their direct or indirect complicity in the confirmation of Boris Yeltsin in power. The military merits of these people in Afghanistan, for example, are beyond doubt, but they played a rather negative role in the country's political life.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / Technical Sergeant Bob Simons
313 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Svarog
    Svarog 24 July 2020 16: 36 New
    76
    Generals in those days themselves began to engage in "business", everyone in whatever way .. and with the help of their subordinates they built themselves cottages .. Mentally, the country began to fall apart and the 90s are a consequence. It all started with Khrushchev and slowly rotted.
    Even Zhukov sided with Khrushch ... but he could have saved Beria, and then perhaps to this day we would have lived in the USSR, or in general the whole world would have already been the USSR. Beria was a talented organizer and a responsible performer ..
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 24 July 2020 16: 45 New
      -27
      Even Zhukov sided with Khrushch ... but he could have saved Beria

      I represent this over there. laughing
      A mixture of a bulldog with a rhino.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 24 July 2020 16: 49 New
      14
      Quote: Svarog
      Even Zhukov sided with Khrushch ... but he could have saved Beria, and then perhaps to this day we would have lived in the USSR, or in general the whole world would have already been the USSR. Beria was a talented organizer and a responsible performer ..

      I also agree with this idea. And I don’t understand why Zhukov supported Khrushchev.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 24 July 2020 16: 54 New
        +1
        wassat
        And I don’t understand why Zhukov supported Khrushchev.

        I didn't want the executive in charge to "execute" it. wink
        1. Svarog
          Svarog 24 July 2020 17: 01 New
          36
          Quote: Arzt
          wassat
          And I don’t understand why Zhukov supported Khrushchev.

          I didn't want the executive in charge to "execute" it. wink

          You have a superficial knowledge of history, poisoned by the liberals. The growth of Soviet industry, science, the possession of nuclear weapons and, as a consequence, the ability to develop is the merit of Beria. And the one you are talking about was Yezhov.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 24 July 2020 17: 37 New
            -11
            The growth of Soviet industry, science, the possession of nuclear weapons and, as a consequence, the ability to develop is the merit of Beria.

            I do not argue. But this does not negate his other merits. Gromyko recites an interesting episode in his memoirs:

            “In Yalta, during a dinner given by the Soviet delegation in honor of the Americans and the British, Roosevelt asked Stalin:
            - Who is this gentleman who is sitting opposite Ambassador Gromyko? Apparently, before sitting down at the table, Beria did not introduce himself to Roosevelt.
            Stalin replied:
            - Oh! This is our Himmler. This is Beria.
            I was struck by the accuracy of the Stalinist comparison. Not only in essence, but also in appearance, these two monsters resembled one another: Himmler was the only one in Hitler's entourage who wore pince-nez, Beria was the only one in Stalin's entourage who could hardly be imagined without pince-nez ”.


            Himmler did no less for the development of science, industry and the possession of nuclear weapons by Germany.
            1. Essex62
              Essex62 24 July 2020 18: 01 New
              19
              Gas chambers, total annihilation of people, yes, they were compared.
              Enemies were in the Stalinist USSR and criminals. The percentage of those who were not guilty under the distribution was not that great. The class struggle, you know. The creation of a society of people without selfish interests is a very complicated thing. Practically not feasible. As proved by subsequent events.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 24 July 2020 18: 05 New
                +6
                Gas chambers, total annihilation of people, yes, they were compared.

                Duck did I compare?
                Joseph Vissarionovich himself. laughing
                I think he knew Lawrence Palych better than me.
                1. Radius
                  Radius 24 July 2020 18: 39 New
                  +5
                  Where did the quote come from?
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 24 July 2020 19: 11 New
                    -4
                    Where did the quote come from?

                    Below.
              2. Sling cutter
                Sling cutter 24 July 2020 19: 11 New
                +9
                Guys, you are not on the topic skidding! Here is the topic of the article Why the Soviet Army did not stop the collapse of the country in 1991
                Let's on the topic!
                1. VO3A
                  VO3A 24 July 2020 19: 59 New
                  28
                  They do not know history and facts ... At the end of 1988, the first and last All-Army officers' meeting took place in the House of the Soviet Army in Moscow. The delegates were elected by the officers 'assemblies in the units .. Initially, the leadership of the army and the country started this revival of the officers' assemblies in order to receive purely political dividends purely for themselves. They wanted to confirm the unity of the Army and the Party in the person of the highest political officials, but they miscalculated deeply. The elected delegates recorded the critical situation in the army, which was at the last line ... New technology and changes in the nature of hostilities demanded reforms in the army, and everything was the old, moreover, the top leadership in the person of almost all the generals decomposed and dealt with their own selfish issues ... The word general became synonymous with the word bureaucrats and a thief for all officers .. That is not a general, then complete shit .. No one was going to do any reforms, everything suited everyone ... But ordinary officers did not like this, and the officers' meetings made it possible for everyone to hear it ... At the meeting itself, there was a sharp division of delegates demanding reforms and the generals who did not need these reforms ... The meeting adopted a resolution on the necessity urgent reforms and turned to the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces with such an appeal ... A committee was elected to develop proposals from the country's officers ...
                  The generals and the Political leadership were shocked by the result of their venture and tried in every possible way to shut the mouths of the delegates and divert the conversation from the constructive channel ... But at the Meeting they did not succeed, because the generals were invited, but they were not delegates ... division commander and above ... I've never seen so many generals ...
                  But they quickly neutralized the results of the Assembly ... The entire composition of the elected committee was dismissed from the Army in a short time. And the officers' assemblies began to forget ... But this did not work until 1991 ... They acted and represented a significant force in some units ...
                  First, the army collapsed, and then the USSR ...
                  1. Sling cutter
                    Sling cutter 24 July 2020 20: 30 New
                    14
                    Quote: VO3A
                    First, the army collapsed, and then the USSR ...

                    The army is a cross-section of society and the processes were the same. After many years, we can say that the war in Afghanistan had a serious impact on the state of the army. What could have been there, or say otherwise, was acceptable in the Union was not conceivable and could easily end with a "diesel". Conscripts are half the trouble, but the entire officer corps has already served in the Union. I'm not talking about everyone now, but there were some who went for titles and orders, there were workers, staff members were different, quartermasters graduated from many academies, by the way Pasha-Mercedes, Judas in combination, also made a career there, and after all, he did so that he had no bottom, no tires.
                  2. VO3A
                    VO3A 24 July 2020 20: 37 New
                    24
                    And history has confirmed this more than once ... For example, in Ukraine in 1991, a founding conference of representatives of officers' assemblies of units and formations and representatives of the Black Sea Fleet was held, at which the Independent Association of Officers was created ... These representatives, after the creation of the NAO, on behalf of the officers of all Ukraine , whom they plenipotentiously represented, decided to maintain the central subordination of the army (to Moscow) during this transitional period of the collapse of the USSR !!! All parts of Ukraine wanted to maintain central subordination in the person of the officers of these units ... This is strength ... The Nazis would have rest ... Very few colonels supported this decision, and there was not a single general who would lead it ... But the documents commanders signed the delegates for a business trip ... The army did not fall apart from below, it fell apart from above ... It was in Vinnitsa ...
                    1. gsev
                      gsev 30 July 2020 12: 12 New
                      0
                      Quote: VO3A
                      The army from below did not collapse, it collapsed from above ... It was in Vinnitsa.

                      By that time, the state security and military counterintelligence agencies were under the control of local nationalists and they were effectively able to suppress the attempts of the military to maintain central control of the army and navy. And even now it is silly to think that FSB officers are sleeping and thinking how to preserve the unity of Russia. Some are looking for wealthy businessmen to organize their milking. An acquaintance working in the processing of precious metals told me that their FSB officers were seized by the idea of ​​finding osmium producers and robbing them. The man learned that the isotope of osmium is very expensive, but did not understand that physicists, not chemists, are engaged in isotopes, and that osmium, unlike platinum, palladium is expensive to produce but does not represent a market value.
                2. Ryaruav
                  Ryaruav 24 July 2020 21: 06 New
                  0
                  landing, immodest question are you depapi in this time period?
                  1. Sling cutter
                    Sling cutter 24 July 2020 21: 36 New
                    +6
                    Quote: Ryaruav
                    esantura, immodest question are you depapi in this time period?

                    Just in 91, at the beginning of July, I got a job after defending my diploma, and just in August I went on my first business trip to Kirov, drove through Moscow just on the 19th, saw you boiling in the center, stared, but did not understand anything, bought skate on the road, spent the night at the Sevastopolskaya hotel, and on the 20th left for the destination by train Moscow-Beijing in the SV PySy carriage. I had to leave two days earlier, but my best friend Dima tragically died and I had to stay late for the funeral.
                3. major147
                  major147 24 July 2020 23: 03 New
                  +9
                  Quote: Stroporez
                  Guys, you are not on the topic skidding! Here is the topic of the article Why the Soviet Army did not stop the collapse of the country in 1991
                  Let's on the topic!

                  I'll tell you about our unit. In the morning, having learned about the "putsch", the Party organizer rushed to collect desks. contributions that have not been paid for several months. (I am fundamentally non-partisan with all the consequences). In the afternoon, the leadership arrived from the headquarters above and we were informed of their (respectively, our) position in the resulting situation - neutrality! The only thing is that the standard AKSU automatic machines were quickly replaced with AK 74 for the entire l / s. (I was appointed head of the armament service 2 days before the "putsch"). And then they spent all 3 days "in the barracks" until completion, after which they continued their service as usual.
                4. Ros 56
                  Ros 56 25 July 2020 07: 26 New
                  +3
                  Well, if on the topic, because there was no order, to stop the collapse of the country ..
                  1. Sling cutter
                    Sling cutter 25 July 2020 08: 45 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Ros 56
                    Well, if on the topic, because there was no order, to stop the collapse of the country ..

                    Then a logical question arises, who should have given this order, would the troops have complied with it and why were tanks brought into Moscow?
                    1. a.hamster55
                      a.hamster55 25 July 2020 19: 45 New
                      +4
                      But somehow it was all frivolous then, not in the army. On the evening of the 18th, at about 23.30, they called home from the headquarters - you received a encrypted message. I got there, got acquainted - "To the commander ... to take control of the RUS (regional communication center), to ensure uninterrupted operation, to prevent ...." To take control under his own understanding, organized a guard service, cut the sectors. At dawn, the local militia appeared with ksyukhs but without armor - they were funny. He didn't let them inside, they talked on the steps of the porch - they themselves are in shock, but peaceful. Then my person on duty came - the higher-ranking officials are demanding for the ZAS. Received an order to turn this mess up.
                5. Alekcandr Sokolenko
                  Alekcandr Sokolenko 26 July 2020 05: 18 New
                  +5
                  Because the "cogs-shpuntiki" are not subjective, not sovereign, they are elements of the System (rivets), and decisions are made by the Subjects of history, people of the Spirit, will, there were once or twice in the USSR, and there were no more - Valery Sablin! - "David" threw a challenge to Goliath (system) - out of love for the Motherland and was killed by the "judges" who traded the Motherland, at all the crossroads of the world and asked not dearly, their last religion was "a box from a copier!"
                6. Alekcandr Sokolenko
                  Alekcandr Sokolenko 26 July 2020 05: 21 New
                  +3
                  Because there was no Pinochet, but the CIA was, how could it be without him ..
                  1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
                    Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 26 July 2020 15: 17 New
                    0
                    But I believe that the CIA in our case was just watching - the United States and their brothers would not dare to interfere in our affairs! They remembered how their intervention on the side of the whites in the Civil War ended - and here, by the way, it could have been the same, but the USSR-1991 is not Russia-1918: a huge country, an excellent army, industry - the first in the world, albeit with slippage, patriotically tuned and monolithic people. And those who are dissatisfied with the country or the government - where are they not?!? ... The dissatisfied were from the time of the pharaohs 5-6 thousand years ago, and will be in the 6th millennium too! And not all the dissatisfied are enemies of the country and the people. Do you agree?
                    1. Essex62
                      Essex62 27 July 2020 07: 45 New
                      0
                      The CIA made a huge contribution to muddying a grandiose flower garden in the USSR. According to some reports, a brigade of killers was working in the country to eliminate key opposition figures to the hunchbacked traitor. It is no longer possible to prove or disprove this; they themselves, of course, never admit it.
                      The rotten top of the army was not going to stop the coup. Judging by the fact that it was so easy for the shopkeepers and currency dealers to have a ride. The office was in the subject. Tired of the "Chekists" to plow for rations.
                      1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
                        Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 27 July 2020 16: 09 New
                        0
                        Yes, I agree, I remember then there was a series of mysterious deaths of officials from the CPSU and from the army. It is impossible to investigate after so many years, and the performers, too, I am sure, have been removed.
                        And the rotten top of the army had no time to defend the country. The only surge of patriotism was in October 1993 during the defense of the White House. I remember myself, and then I was rushing to Moscow to help, but then quickly Yeltsnman suppressed our resistance ...
                      2. Essex62
                        Essex62 28 July 2020 11: 33 New
                        +2
                        There was no defense of the House of Soviets, of the legitimate government. Having violated the Oath given to the Soviet People, the officers supported the counter-revolution. Who sat in the armor that decided the outcome of the confrontation is not known, nor who later told how he shot the Reds. Mercenaries, no conscience. It is possible that the CIA agents. By the 93rd, the pi n dos had complete freedom in our country. The countermeasure system collapsed or slipped. Honest chekists were beaten on the hands and fired. The generals did not react to the call, at that time of the real head of state, Vice-President Rutskoi, and left the troops in the places of deployment, also violating the Oath to the Soviet state.
                        Of course, it's not worth blaming everyone indiscriminately. To understand that the restoration had begun, without a Bolshevik core, was not easy for Soviet officers to perceive the stupid muttering of political officers. Who themselves did not believe in what they muttered.
                      3. silverura
                        silverura 28 July 2020 12: 24 New
                        0
                        Oh, that there was no return!
            2. evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
              evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru 29 July 2020 11: 42 New
              0
              On this topic.
              In order for the officer corps to be able to represent anything, it must consist primarily of REAL officers. Only then can they defend at least THEMSELVES, not to mention the protection of the FATHERLAND. An episode from modern history comes to mind. Several Dagestanis and bandits who joined, watched the garrison in the Far East. Fearing for themselves and their families, officers of the RK (,, Russia Capitalist ,,) regularly paid criminals for a long time. Found a common language.
              These "searches" generally began long ago. And the officers who served in the late 80s of the last century were forced to find their place among the "new reality" - among all these "brothers", "cool", "corrupt cops", "new Russians ,, (and old ,, Russian ,,), ,, confused ,,, ,, infantry ,, and others ...
              The author of the comment knew, for example, a young political worker who recklessly and successfully sold vodka, which was difficult to buy at that time. ... Young, physically strong and well-trained officers went to the ,, brigades ,,. Money had to be earned, families had to be fed. After all, Western "bourgeois" and local "boys are bad guys" have already begun to destroy the financial system of the Soviet Union.
              What kind of "strength" could the officer corps represent in the late 80s? There is no money, I don’t have HIS housing, my wife doesn’t work, there is no place for children in the kindergarten, ... there is no service weapon for constant wearing, no personal weapon, reverent attitude towards the high rank of OFFICER neither in the state nor in society , nor in the army environment - no. What ,, power ,, ?!
              ... Do you believe in ideals, do you believe in the Army? There is a job. Afghanistan, Karabakh, Abkhazia ... “Bourgeois,” have already been paid.
              The fatal mistake of the state of the "USSR" is the rejection of the RUSSIAN TRADITION, from ORTHODOXY. What kind of officials, what kind of officers
              erov ,, will you educate if there is no ROD?
              By the 80s, the ephemeral, belief in communism, among the majority and with paralysis, and the remnants of Christian morality, didn’t. Where is the stern? But no ...
              How, then, to pass the test for more
              money? For positions and titles? How to pass tests related to life-threatening (not only)? But in no way ... Only a few passed tests of this kind with honor.
              In a certain garrison, they remembered for a long time and maintained respect for the commander who refused to carry out the criminal order of Yeltsin and Co., and did not send his subordinates against the defenders of the White House in Moscow. He was fired, but he retained respect, he kept a good memory of himself.
              But "Moloch" is serious. It's only in the movies that someone else's intelligence hits the cheeks of the uncooperative ... Look for yourself. Yesterday he is a “communist”, today he is a “market man”, tomorrow he is a satanist “globalist”.
              In the next state on the territory of Russia, be sure to
              it will be necessary to return to BASIC Russian values. Then we will get REAL officers capable of defending ourselves and the Motherland.
              1. gsev
                gsev 31 July 2020 17: 41 New
                0
                Quote: evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
                Then we will get REAL officers capable of defending ourselves and the Motherland.

                In my opinion, the army and the FSB are more independent and principled people than in business, production and bureaucracy. These often act by accident. In 1992, a man managed to organize the spill of acid into a solution for batteries, he gives up science and goes to businessmen, abandoning all his principles. Or he meets a foreigner who is ready to pay 5 times more than the Russian state or a Russian businessman and immediately forgets his national roots. I think a person always has the ability to think and defend his own, and it should be shown now and not wait for better times or bosses and hope that out of nowhere you will have new skills, powers, resources or abilities ..
            3. The centurion
              The centurion 31 July 2020 17: 04 New
              +1
              In previous centuries, the country was hostage to the feudal system of succession to the throne with its unpredictable dynastic and gerontological tricks. Monstrous and tragic examples of genealogical and genetic mutations of royal surnames and senile schizophrenia of aged monarchs eventually passed the death sentence on the feudal system of government. The situation was aggravated by acute interpersonal and group contradictions. As noted by the historian Karamzin, in Russia, with rare exceptions, each subsequent tsar began his reign by pouring a tub of dirt on the previous one, although he was his parent or brother. The next bourgeois-democratic system of changing and inheriting power was built on the laws of political Darwinism. But the centuries-old history of multi-party democracy has shown that it is not productive for all populations of people. In Russia, it lasted only a few months after the February Revolution and led to a complete paralysis of power and the collapse of the country. After the overthrow of the autocracy and the February democracy, neither Lenin, nor Stalin, nor the CPSU solved the problem of the continuity of the "tsarist" power. The monstrous fights for power between the heirs after Lenin and Stalin are a disgrace to the system they created. A repeated attempt to introduce bourgeois democracy in the USSR during the perestroika period again led to the paralysis of power and the collapse of the country. Moreover, this phenomenon, which the Communist Party of the Soviet Union gave birth to in the form of Gorbachev and his clique, perhaps has no analogues in world history. The system itself has degenerated the gravediggers for itself and the country, and they have done their atrocity almost out of the blue. Legend has it that Socrates, while intoxicated, argued with his drinking companion for a liter of white that he would destroy Athens with his own tongue alone. And he won. I don't know with whom and what Gorbachev argued with, but he did it even better. He destroyed everything and everyone with his one tongue, and created a "catastrophe". Moreover, without any repression, in his own language, he achieved the tacit consent to the surrender of 18 million members of the CPSU, several million employees, officers and employees of the KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Soviet Army, and about the same number of non-party activists. Moreover, millions of people not only tacitly agreed, but also clapped their hands. In this multi-million army there was not a single real guardsman who, according to past experience, at least tried to strangle the traitors with his officer's scarf, although there were several million of these scarves hanging in the wardrobes.
              In the 80-90s. XX century. the decrepit, decayed and degenerated party nomenklatura decided to convert its powers of power into property benefits for themselves and their descendants. In other words, in addition to unlimited power, the nomenklatura oligarchy also wanted to become a bourgeoisie, i.e. factories, factories, houses, steamers subject to her during her lifetime, to make hereditary property. A powerful propaganda campaign was launched to criticize socialism and praise capitalism. Fuel was added to the fire by the actions of Gorbachev and his corrupt clique to inflate the interethnic conflicts smoldering for centuries and to aggravate the shortage of food and consumer goods. Through the joint efforts of party propagandists, business executives and corrupt media (only the circulation of the Atlantean weekly newspaper Argumenty i Fakty exceeded 27 million copies), socialism and Soviet power were discredited in the eyes of the people. Our trusting and naive people believed and suddenly, out of a kind of fright, decided that they could not live without the bourgeoisie. After that, he gave, and in a completely democratic way, to the nomenklatura, liberals and cooperators free tickets to the bourgeoisie and an unprecedented credit of social and political trust, which they ineptly squandered and continue to squander. And the army is the flesh of the flesh of the people, it was part of the "catastrophe".
            4. Sima anwar
              Sima anwar 8 September 2020 17: 48 New
              0
              the only reason is the absence, the fundamental absence, of skills and practice of conducting military operations at the level of the noosphere. It would seem - propaganda, this is the basis of military power. But this understanding turned out to be insufficient. Actually, only the kahal has a corresponding subdivision - a million kabalists working on a 24x7 scheme. And of course, complete illiteracy in the economy. Therefore, to begin with, an educational program. Economy.When paying for resources, including for gas, in dollars, 90% of the profit goes to the us FRS! That is, the states receive 9 times more than the same Gazprom! Where it comes from is the result of the abolition of gold parity in 1975. The scheme with a factor of 2 is extremely simple. We call the resource price in dollars. In the states, the budget is balanced, and there it immediately becomes known how many dollars Russia will receive per year. Therefore, this amount can be quietly printed and lent to, say, Israel for the purchase of weapons in the states. At the same time, since the money will go from the US market to Russia, this procedure will not cause (and does not actually cause) any inflation in the states. Thus, we printed money once, and then we received this amount for a loan of 2. This is how we got a coefficient of 2 for our announcement of the oil price in dollars. If you understand, explain to others. The coefficient of 9 is already due to the use of the French know-how in the states themselves. But 2, in a situation where there is no gold parity, is simply self-evident.

              So it's not about socialism capitalism that matters, but what is the genocide of the world's population is being prepared for -https: //zavtra.ru/blogs/kogda_oni_vtoroj_raz_vklyuchat_5g_millioni_lyudej_umrut

              I'll tell you the reason why and why. So why, because the Jews have no other choice in order to fulfill the task of the Torah - to take power on the planet completely into their own hands. This is due to the fact that the main mechanism for governing the world in Kabbalah is the very pure intention described by Zeland. But its implementation depends very significantly on the recipient of the impact, that is, people should be inclined to perceive the corresponding ideas. And of course the Jews themselves are primarily a focus group with all the corresponding consequences and side effects. But the Chinese and Indians, due to a fundamental cultural difference, are not suitable for this (we omit the details for now). In this connection, it is necessary to reduce these at least 3 billion people, it is clear where these ecological legs grow from. By the way, this also explains the predictions about an ambulance war in which the award will go to Russia - the Chinese, Hindus and Muslims, will fight, so there will be no winner among them. /sima.anwar.7/posts/1196340310519881

              And how to deal with such circumstances besides the withdrawal of Jews from all state structures and literary funds a la Comrade Stalin of the 1937 model I can’t even imagine.
          2. gsev
            gsev 30 July 2020 11: 43 New
            0
            Quote: Essex62
            The percentage of those who were not guilty under the distribution was not that great.

            Everything is relative. How many aircraft designers in the United States were imprisoned for sabotage? How much more than in the USSR. How many scientists of the Landau level were repressed in the United States? And how many outstanding designers of large-scale equipment of the USSR escaped repression? Is there anyone of the level of Tupolev, Korolev, Bartini, Petlyakov, Polikarpov who was not imprisoned under Stalin?
            1. Essex62
              Essex62 31 July 2020 09: 45 New
              0
              I already wrote about this, in another topic, Beria effectively resolved the issue of protecting the most valuable personnel for the country from the assassination attempts of saboteurs, transferring them to a barracks position. Everyone should be sitting like they were.
              1. gsev
                gsev 31 July 2020 17: 22 New
                0
                Quote: Essex62
                Beria effectively resolved the issue of protecting the most valuable personnel for the country from attempts by saboteurs

                And in which country did foreign saboteurs manage to destroy outstanding engineers? A professional saboteur is also a person and he hates to kill intellectuals of a foreign country. For example, the Ukrainians cold-bloodedly killed a German to hide information about the underground from the Gestapo, but refused to carry out the murder of the NTS member when he decided that his target was engaged in politics and not sabotage and espionage. The saboteur Beria managed to carry out a successful assassination attempt on Academician Vavilov, starving him to death, crippling Bartini and the Queen. There is a version that the German special services with the hands of the NKVD were able to destroy more Soviet generals than the Wehrmacht during the entire Great Patriotic War. Or the Germans had nothing to do with it? Another plausible version believes that only the NKVD and members of the "troikas" are guilty of this crime. Your version of these events looks unfounded and is not supported by any plausible arguments.
                1. Essex62
                  Essex62 1 August 2020 10: 48 New
                  0
                  The generals "destroyed by the NKVD" muddied a coup d'etat, an attempt to create a junta with the subsequent restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Soviet power defended the gains of the people. The working class is the hegemon, and the rotten intelligentsia is the accompanying one. True great minds in Russia have never been, loud and worthless, intelligentsia, they were intellectuals. No one has crippled the Queen, Liberda has not yet invented such a thing in recent times to discredit socialism and Soviet power.
          3. vlad106
            vlad106 17 August 2020 16: 27 New
            0
            Quote: Essex62
            Gas chambers, total annihilation of people, yes, they were compared.
            Enemies were in the Stalinist USSR and criminals. The percentage of those who were not guilty under the distribution was not that great. The class struggle, you know. The creation of a society of people without selfish interests is a very complicated thing. Practically not feasible. As proved by subsequent events.




            enemies and traitors with the arrival of the humpback to power swarmed at all levels.
            they sabotaged the work of the authorities, created an artificial deficit and caused discontent among the people, on the wave of which a coup was subsequently carried out
        2. nerd.su
          nerd.su 24 July 2020 18: 10 New
          10
          Quote: Arzt
          Gromyko recites an interesting episode in his memoirs:

          do not throw a reference to the source?
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 24 July 2020 18: 21 New
            +5
            do not throw a reference to the source?

            Andrey Gromyko. Memorable. New Horizons. Book 1.

            In order not to search for a long time, select the fragment itself, copy and paste it into the search.
            1. nerd.su
              nerd.su 24 July 2020 18: 23 New
              +1
              Thank you, I'll look for it though.
            2. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 24 July 2020 20: 14 New
              +6
              Well, this characterizes only Gromyko himself, but not Stalin.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 24 July 2020 20: 22 New
                -4
                Well, this characterizes only Gromyko himself, but not Stalin.

                What is the characteristic, is that Gromyko is honest, or Stalin is a joker? laughing
                1. Aviator_
                  Aviator_ 24 July 2020 20: 28 New
                  +8
                  The fact that in the blissful time of Brezhnev about Joseph it was possible to write any nasty things. However, it is possible that it was written by "literary blacks", but since Gromyko signed the proofs of the work, this characterizes him. I do not idealize Joseph, but a diplomatic reception is not a place for such "jokes". So this is a fake. And Gromyko signed it.
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 24 July 2020 21: 24 New
                    -8
                    I do not idealize Joseph, but a diplomatic reception is not a place for such "jokes". So this is a fake. And Gromyko signed it.

                    Come on, everyone knows that Joseph Vissarionovich loved a good joke, and this one is just in his style. tongue
                    He joked, joked, no Beria or Himmler.
                    He is an effective manager.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. Ryaruav
          Ryaruav 24 July 2020 21: 15 New
          0
          yes, somewhere you are right, but there is a global difference, we are defense, all the rest of the western and eastern wickedness came for our best women in the world, love and hunger are the driving vectors of wild humanity
        5. militarist63
          militarist63 25 July 2020 02: 36 New
          +5
          Stalin replied:
          - Oh! This is our Himmler. This is Beria.

          Did Gromyko tell you about this personally ?! If he could tell this, then, most likely, he could have invented for the sake of Khrushchev's denigration of Stalin and Beria ...! But, it seems to me, this bike is one of the many notions from liberals of the 80-90s ...
          Do you believe that Stalin is so stupid to make such jokes among these ....?!
          1. gsev
            gsev 30 July 2020 11: 55 New
            -1
            Quote: militarist63
            then, most likely, he could have invented for the sake of Khrushchev's denigration of Stalin and Beria

            In his memoirs, Golovanov quotes Stalin's impartial words about Beria, which he said in the presence of Beria and Golovanov. Do not consider Stalin a fool. He knew the attitude towards himself from fellow citizens, whose many relatives were repressed during his time. In Golovanov's memoirs, Stalin said that after his death his name would be defiled and he vaguely hoped that descendants would judge him objectively or with respect. And then Himmler differs from Beria in that he has much less German blood on him than on Russian Beria. Apparently Stalin was informed about Churchill's assessment of the leaders of the mass repressions in the USSR and he decided to impress him in this way. There are de Gaulle's memoirs about how Stalin characterized his military leaders and his readiness to repress them. This statement by Gromyko corresponds to the recollections of Golovanov and De Gaulle and allows us to conclude that Stalin wanted history to preserve this statement of him about Beria as a Russian Himmler ..
            1. militarist63
              militarist63 31 July 2020 22: 55 New
              +1
              and allows us to conclude that Stalin wanted history to preserve his statement about Beria as a Russian Himmler ..
              belay belay wassat
              Did you not notice that you are carrying some utter nonsense ?! laughing

              And what does De Gaulle's memoir have to do with not this joke at all, but what everyone knew ...?! You, if you please, provide me with the "memoirs" of this opposing side, which were not long friends to us, on the topic of this particular "joke"! Churchill and his entourage in Yalta, representatives of Roosevelt's entourage (for he himself quickly left forever) .... And these ... our "friends" did not hesitate to replicate this joke! wink
              And why did you bring Golovanov here ?! How does "Gromyko's statement correspond to Golovanov's recollections" ??! He remembers something else, you yourself wrote about it! You have a logic here (with a twist of Golovanov and Gol), as in an old Soviet joke, according to which, if you have a dried ram, it means that you have masculinity! laughing
              1. gsev
                gsev 2 August 2020 01: 48 New
                -2
                Quote: militarist63
                Did you not notice that you are carrying some utter nonsense ?!

                Let's come from the other side. You will be able to point out a scientist, military man, designer, politician (outstanding of course) with whom Stalin lived in perfect harmony and from whom Stalin did not expect a catch, and the fate of this person and his loved ones under Stalin was fine ?. Oddly enough, Golovanov is considered Stalin's favorite and his memoirs are notable for their sympathy for Stalin. But at the same time, he writes honestly about the fear of Stalin's unpredictability. The man who failed to encourage Stalin to reform bomber aviation and navigational training, persuaded Golovanov to state in his own words the shortcomings that need to be eliminated and send this letter on his own behalf. But he was killed by Stalin. And Golovanov, when he lost his health, was thrown to the sidelines of life like a squeezed lemon. Grabin was able to realize himself only during the war, when the failures in Spain, on the border with Manchuria, in the first years of the war with the Germans, convinced the country's leadership to besiege talkers and sycophants and listen to sober honest realists like Grabin. And after the war, Grabin did not have successful serial projects and he was rotten by Ustinov, then Mytishchi party Stalinist bosses. And he himself did not hesitate to push these party members against the ministry. The historian will question any version. Gromyko could have lied, they could have attributed Gromyko words that he had not written on this website. His editor could have made a gag. But I pointed to Golovanov's memoirs, where it is reported that Stalin spoke about him with contempt. To me, Golovanov's book seems to be true. For example, he interestingly argues with the official version of the time about the contribution of the Sorge group to obtaining information about Hitler's preparation for war. Golovanov has an eloquent commentary on Shtemenko's memoirs about his participation in the Tehran talks.
                1. militarist63
                  militarist63 2 August 2020 03: 20 New
                  0
                  I'm talking about Thomas, and you're talking about Emelya again! request You have a lot of text again, but how can all this sideways confirm that Stalin could blurt out such a "joke" ?!
                  1. gsev
                    gsev 2 August 2020 06: 47 New
                    -2
                    Quote: militarist63
                    but how can this all confirm that Stalin could blurt out such a "joke" ?!

                    Do you know who Gromyko is? A diplomat of his level and worldview, in my opinion, could not write anything that could be directed to the detriment of the USSR and Russia. He was very careful with a long-range scope in all his actions. His memoirs are well known. You can download them easily and for free on the Internet. There really is a mention of Stalin's words that Beria is our Himmler. Do you really think that if a lie was written to them, then Anglo-Saxon sources would not have reported about Gromyko's attempt to falsify history? An attempt to question this fact only testifies to the fact that in modern Russia there are individuals who assess the leaders of the NKVD less adequately than Stalin or Gromyko. Indeed, after 1991, for the first time since Stalin's death, the state security organs began to acquire an unreasonably influential role in Russia. This fact and your unsubstantiated statements lead to sad thoughts about the prospects of competition between Russians and other peoples in science, technology and politics.
        6. hermit
          hermit 25 July 2020 14: 47 New
          0
          If Beria is our Himmler, then Stalin is our Hitler or what? Somehow it was not very much with the comparisons of Joseph Vissarionovich.
          1. gsev
            gsev 2 August 2020 01: 50 New
            -1
            Quote: hermit
            is Stalin our Hitler or what?

            All dictators have something in common. However, the communists and the Nazis are different in many ways.
        7. The comment was deleted.
        8. brat07
          brat07 25 July 2020 21: 45 New
          0
          Quote: Arzt
          The growth of Soviet industry, science, the possession of nuclear weapons and, as a consequence, the ability to develop is the merit of Beria.

          I do not argue. But this does not negate his other merits. Gromyko recites an interesting episode in his memoirs:

          “In Yalta, during a dinner given by the Soviet delegation in honor of the Americans and the British, Roosevelt asked Stalin:
          - Who is this gentleman who is sitting opposite Ambassador Gromyko? Apparently, before sitting down at the table, Beria did not introduce himself to Roosevelt.
          Stalin replied:
          - Oh! This is our Himmler. This is Beria.
          I was struck by the accuracy of the Stalinist comparison. Not only in essence, but also in appearance, these two monsters resembled one another: Himmler was the only one in Hitler's entourage who wore pince-nez, Beria was the only one in Stalin's entourage who could hardly be imagined without pince-nez ”.


          Himmler did no less for the development of science, industry and the possession of nuclear weapons by Germany.

          So what in the personality of these two people, in addition to pince-nez, gave Stalin reason to call Beria “our Himmler”? Apparently, only the position. Himmler was the Reich Minister of the Interior of Germany at the beginning of the war. Beria - People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR

          Source: "This is our Himmler": why Stalin called Beria that way
          © Russian Seven russian7.ru
        9. zenion
          zenion 26 July 2020 17: 30 New
          +2
          Already so many different things have been invented and inserted into one or another mouth. Stalin would never have allowed comparing Beria and Himmler, this could have been invented only recently. Just like they made a thousand sheets of forged documents. By the way, one of the Jewish preachers were told that he predicted the birth of Christ from the lineage of King David.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. Ryaruav
          Ryaruav 24 July 2020 21: 25 New
          +5
          but personally, who are you, tell me further, because db-102 does not deny this to you to svarog, according to knowledge and intellect, as far as the horizon 20 miles, you will forever remain db-102
          1. VO3A
            VO3A 24 July 2020 21: 28 New
            -12
            Such a defender is worse than the most powerful enemy ...
            1. Ryaruav
              Ryaruav 24 July 2020 21: 30 New
              +2
              do you consider yourself the defender of the country?
          2. Svarog
            Svarog 24 July 2020 23: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: Ryaruav
            but personally, who are you, tell me further, because db-102 does not deny this to you to svarog, according to knowledge and intellect, as far as the horizon 20 miles, you will forever remain db-102

            Thanks for your support hi But do not pay attention, similar characters appear here .. laughing
            1. VO3A
              VO3A 24 July 2020 23: 46 New
              -14
              similar characters appear here ..

              You flicker ... You are recently on the forum and you need to correctly assess your value and weight for such a short time in comparison with others ... And your ratings have the same meaning and weight as your emoticons ... Gray inhabitants and fellow travelers on the military forum a lot, but nothing depends on their consistency and they are not interesting, they have no experience, knowledge, position, opinion .. They are boring and monotonous with their podgavkivaniye, sagging and accuracy ... Just a bunch .... It needs to be filtered. .. Today I did it ... although of course it's better not to touch it ...
        2. Xnumx vis
          Xnumx vis 24 July 2020 21: 31 New
          -7
          Quote: VO3A
          and who are you to use that name?

          Mimicry is common among insects. So some kind of stink bug mimics a karakurt ... In this case, there is a similarity ...
        3. major147
          major147 24 July 2020 23: 06 New
          +3
          Quote: VO3A
          .You are our deity ...

          This type was caught by me in an outright lie, but did not even try to justify good hi
          1. VO3A
            VO3A 24 July 2020 23: 15 New
            -7
            This guy was caught by me in an outright lie

            Specifically ... In the Russian language there are words deception and lies, they have certain meanings ... I am listening to claims, atypical, and clarify what is the point and benefit to me to deceive you? Yes, you can have a position and opinion that differs from the opinion of others, but what could be my benefit or my interest?. Here they exchange opinions ... I don't owe you anything and I don't need to deceive someone ..
            on outright lies
            ..
            but didn't even try to justify
            Much honor ... with emoticons ...
            1. major147
              major147 25 July 2020 21: 10 New
              +4
              Quote: VO3A
              And more specifically...

              Actually I'm talking about
              Svarog (Vladimir)
              fool
              1. VO3A
                VO3A 26 July 2020 00: 18 New
                -2
                Already better, but with emoticons somehow ... But in any case, the topic was raised, the necessary and nice for those who are not in a heap ... Thank you, and the necessary post does not apply to you ...
                1. major147
                  major147 26 July 2020 10: 16 New
                  0
                  Quote: VO3A
                  It's better, but somehow with emoticons ...

                  And so? drinks
    3. Pereira
      Pereira 24 July 2020 17: 15 New
      18
      Zhukov and Stalin had serious problems in the "Trophy Case".
      1. Vestnik
        Vestnik 24 July 2020 21: 52 New
        -3
        Quote: Pereira
        Zhukov and Stalin had serious problems in the "Trophy Case".

        The women ruined him and the lusoblyuds ..
        1. Aag
          Aag 24 July 2020 22: 07 New
          +2
          Quote: Vestnik
          Quote: Pereira
          Zhukov and Stalin had serious problems in the "Trophy Case".

          The women ruined him and the lusoblyuds ..

          Even without knowing who you are talking about (Zhukov, Beria, Stalin), there are reasons to assert that they are not like the current ones.
  2. Kronos
    Kronos 24 July 2020 19: 14 New
    +1
    Zhukov had his own ambitions
  3. Vestnik
    Vestnik 24 July 2020 21: 50 New
    -4
    Quote: tihonmarine
    Quote: Svarog
    Even Zhukov sided with Khrushch ... but he could have saved Beria, and then perhaps to this day we would have lived in the USSR, or in general the whole world would have already been the USSR. Beria was a talented organizer and a responsible performer ..

    I also agree with this idea. And I don’t understand why Zhukov supported Khrushchev.

    Read his memoirs .. He was a trusting Ivan! And the Tashkent front defeated him after the Victory! And then in the 90s it was already final. I think so hi
    Now the minuses will pour in and complaints ..
  4. cormorant
    cormorant 24 July 2020 22: 07 New
    +1
    Because he fell into disgrace to Stalin, and his relations with the Chekists were tough.
  5. Vlad T
    Vlad T 25 July 2020 11: 44 New
    -4
    Beria was the worst option, because he was preparing for the collapse of the USSR on nationalist foundations in the republics. For example, he brought from his prison the commander of the Lithuanian nationalist underground and discussed about his appointment to the leadership of Lithuania, etc. ... That he is the enemy, no doubt. there are suggestions that he was still an agent of the British since the time of Baku, because there was a strong British influence and services in the oil fields ...
  6. Alekcandr Sokolenko
    Alekcandr Sokolenko 26 July 2020 04: 38 New
    -1
    Because these are the soldiers of Victory? -And they did not forget the 41st, and if the soldiers of the XNUMXst were afraid of the political police, then the winners, no, and the clash of the Army and the "Gestapo" was inevitable, everyone understood the absurdity of Stalinism (bureaucratic chimera, not socialism) - and how and where to "go" no one knew, so they went by the Tyka method, the first "tyk" to Stalin, the second to Beria.
  • Doctor
    Doctor 24 July 2020 16: 50 New
    0
    To fall apart mentally ... it all began with Khrushchev

    Yeah. A scoundrel, he moved 50 million into apartments. A quarter of the population in 4 years. This is how many blacks you can arm for the battle with the capitalists.
    This mentality is not forgiven.
    1. Pereira
      Pereira 24 July 2020 17: 05 New
      15
      Khrushchev is a Trotskyist. It was he who revived the idea of ​​a world revolution and began to feed the blacks. Brezhnev, his pupil, continued. Everyone knows how it ended.
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 24 July 2020 17: 11 New
        +3
        Quote: Pereira
        Khrushchev is a Trotskyist. It was he who revived the idea of ​​a world revolution and began to feed the blacks.

        Of course, no doubt about it.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 24 July 2020 18: 02 New
          +3
          Khrushchev is a Trotskyist. It was he who revived the idea of ​​a world revolution and began to feed the blacks. Brezhnev, his pupil, continued. Everyone knows how it ended.

          Of course, no doubt about it.

          You do not understand correctly the essence of Trotskyism. Beginning with the London rally in support of the Polish national liberation uprising on September 28, 1864 and the subsequent formation of the First International, socialists of all countries dreamed and still dream of a world revolution.

          In this they are led by the Manifesto of the Communist Party, ending with the words: "Communists consider it a contemptible deed to hide their views and intentions. They openly declare that their goals can be achieved only through the violent overthrow of the entire existing social system. Let the ruling classes shudder before the Communist Revolution. The proletarians have nothing to do with it. to lose in it besides their chains, but they will gain the whole world.
          Workers of all camps unite! "
          1. Pereira
            Pereira 24 July 2020 18: 22 New
            10
            You misunderstand the essence of Stalinism with its theory of building socialism in a single country.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 24 July 2020 19: 21 New
              +7
              You misunderstand the essence of Stalinism with its theory of building socialism in a single country.


              I understand the theory of building socialism in a single country as Comrade Stalin himself teaches us. hi
              1. Pereira
                Pereira 24 July 2020 19: 49 New
                +6
                Thanks for the quote. Very appropriate.
                But:
                international proletarian ties between the working class of the USSR and the working class of bourgeois countries;

                I am not even talking about the mobilization mentioned in the quote in the face of the bourgeois countries with their working class.
                Notice the 38 year quote. The civil war in Spain has not yet ended, 41st sobering, the year has not yet come.
                It is Marxism that is closed on itself. Stalinism is a dynamic, living (until 1953) theory.
                But, even if we do not take into account the dates and dialectics, where are the cannibalistic negroes who began to be fed at the suggestion of Nikita Kukuruzny in Stalin's statements?
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor 24 July 2020 20: 10 New
                  +2
                  But, even if we do not take into account the dates and dialectics, where are the cannibalistic negroes who began to be fed at the suggestion of Nikita Kukuruzny in Stalin's statements?

                  The main idea remains. We have built socialism in a single country, then it's up to the rest of the world. Therefore, first of all, a powerful army is needed.
                  As Comrade Stalin says further in this article, though in a defensive sense:

                  Wouldn't it be better to turn the billions of money spent on strengthening the Red Army for other needs, and reduce the Red Army to a minimum or even dissolve it altogether? People like Comrade Urozhenko, even if they are subjectively even devoted to our cause, are objectively dangerous for our cause, because by their boasting, willingly or unwillingly (it's all the same!) They lull our people to sleep, demobilize the workers and peasants and help the enemies catch us by surprise in the event international complications.


                  For THIS Dneproges, Magnitka, "tractor" factories, etc.
                  And not for the little people of this country, they are the same resource as, for example, horses.
                  Only feeding is optional.

                  At the time when Stalin wrote these lines, it was about a battle for Europe.
                  And under Nikita Sergeevich and Brezhnev, the emphasis of the struggle shifted overseas and to third world countries.
                  Time cannot be stopped, the world is developing. So, without dialectics in our business - nothing. laughing
                  1. vahpus
                    vahpus 24 July 2020 20: 19 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Arzt
                    We have built socialism in a single country, then it's up to the rest of the world.

                    And why did the world need socialism?
                    1. Doctor
                      Doctor 24 July 2020 20: 30 New
                      +2
                      And why did the world need socialism?

                      This is a question for Karl Marx. lol
                    2. Pereira
                      Pereira 24 July 2020 20: 31 New
                      +3
                      And to very many people.
                    3. vahpus
                      vahpus 24 July 2020 20: 32 New
                      -2
                      Quote: Arzt
                      This is a question for Karl Marx.

                      Karl Marx did not know a word like that.
                  2. Pereira
                    Pereira 24 July 2020 20: 31 New
                    +1
                    If you have not understood this until now, then it is useless to explain.
                  3. vahpus
                    vahpus 24 July 2020 20: 35 New
                    -4
                    And I didn't get it.
                    And almost the entire population of the world does not understand.
                    One you advanced and knowledgeable in our time turned out to be.
                    And a small handful of retirees.
          2. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
            Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 26 July 2020 18: 12 New
            0
            And where is Comrade Lenin?!?
        2. Aag
          Aag 24 July 2020 19: 38 New
          +3
          Quote: Pereira
          You misunderstand the essence of Stalinism with its theory of building socialism in a single country.

          Where did you get such confidence? Excuse me, a question for you, because you summed up the above discussion of commentators. I don’t count myself as an expert, but Trotsky did not ogreb for the idea of ​​a world revolution, of which Lenin was an adherent. Based on the works of Marx, Engels. IMHO: Few things has changed since then (transformed, yes, but the essence remained) Isn't that why they are trying to distort all that knowledge (confirmed, or, rejected by history), crush it to suit their interests?
          1. Pereira
            Pereira 24 July 2020 19: 53 New
            +2
            Exactly. Stalin, calling himself a student of Lenin, developed and modernized the Communist theory.
            Trotsky was bullied precisely because he viewed Russia exclusively as a resource and a sacrifice in the name of the world revolution, by which he understood the dominant role of fellow tribesmen.
            Nikitka, on the other hand, destroyed all theoretical developments from the age of 24 and reduced the theory of Communism to pompousness according to the patterns of the 19th century. Formally denying Trotskyism, in fact, he led exactly Trotsky's policy.
            Since 1953, the communists did not understand that in fact they were now Trotskyists.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 24 July 2020 20: 44 New
              +1
              Nikitka, on the other hand, destroyed all theoretical developments from the age of 24 and reduced the theory of Communism to pompousness according to the patterns of the 19th century. Formally denying Trotskyism, in fact, he led exactly Trotsky's policy.

              Stalin began to explain what Trotskyism was in the article "Our Differences", in the discussion that began about trade unions.
              The general meaning: there are peasants and workers in the country.
              Trotsky:
              The peasants are stupid understand only the whip. Workers are dumb too only understand the whip.
              In the army and in civilian life, both must be beaten.
              Stalin:
              The peasants are stupid understand only the whip. Workers are conscious, you can try to convince them.
              In the army, both must be beaten.
              In civilian life, you can try to convince workers.

              Verbatim:

              And where is Khrushchev here?
              1. vahpus
                vahpus 24 July 2020 21: 00 New
                -2
                Quote: Arzt
                Trotsky:
                The peasants are stupid

                The main ally of the Bolshevik-Leninists, including Bronstein, was that part of the peasantry, which was later called kulaks and massacred, fighting the Bolshevik-Leninists for power in the country. I don't think the Bolshevik-Leninists thought their allies were stupid.
                Quote: Arzt
                Stalin:
                The peasants are stupid, they only understand the whip. Workers are conscious

                Yes, he relied on workers. For this, he turned the peasants into agricultural workers. By eliminating the peasantry in the USSR as a class.
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor 24 July 2020 21: 18 New
                  -2
                  The main ally of the Bolshevik-Leninists, including Bronstein, was that part of the peasantry, which was later called kulaks and massacred, fighting the Bolshevik-Leninists for power in the country.

                  Have you ever read what Lenin ordered to do with the kulaks?

                  For this, he turned the peasants into agricultural workers.

                  It's a shame he didn't turn them into citizens of his country. By issuing passports.
                2. vahpus
                  vahpus 24 July 2020 21: 48 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Arzt
                  Have you ever read what Lenin ordered to do with the kulaks?

                  Ulyanov's "war communism" and his later "formations" should not be confused. In fact, there are three different Ulyanovs. And this is just something in 4 years, from 1917 to 1921. Since 1921, his views have not changed.
                  Quote: Arzt
                  he has not turned them into citizens of his country. By issuing passports.

                  He did not need citizens, neither in cities nor in villages. They did not exist at all during his rule. They began to appear again only in 1987. But they finally appeared only in 1991.
          2. vahpus
            vahpus 24 July 2020 20: 49 New
            -4
            Quote: Pereira
            Stalin, calling himself a student of Lenin

            I lied.
            He executed the Bolshevik-Leninists in the period from 1927 to 1938. Especially active in 1937-38.
            Quote: Pereira
            Trotsky was bullied precisely because he viewed Russia exclusively as a resource and a sacrifice in the name of the world revolution, by which he understood the dominant role of fellow tribesmen.

            Do not tell tales.
            The Bolshevik-Leninists, including Bronstein, abandoned this idea as early as 1921.
            Quote: Pereira
            Since 1953, the communists did not understand that in fact they were now Trotskyists.

            Khrushchev was a Stalinist Bolshevik.
            The second and last in this series.
            And the Leninists, whom you call Trotskyists, returned to power in the USSR only in 1983.
            1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
              Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 26 July 2020 18: 16 New
              -1
              God, what are you lost! ... I personally feel sorry for you.
      2. DNS-a42
        DNS-a42 25 July 2020 06: 12 New
        +4
        The theory of building socialism in a single country is Lenin's idea, the implementation of which was continued under Stalin.

        Lenin: “The unevenness of economic and political development is an unconditional law of capitalism. From this it follows that the victory of socialism is possible initially in a few or even in one, separately taken, capitalist country. The victorious proletariat of this country, expropriating the capitalists and organizing socialist production at home, would stand up against the rest of the capitalist world, attract the oppressed classes of other countries, raise an uprising against the capitalists in them, and, if necessary, even with military force against the exploiting classes and their states. "

        Stalin was a Marxist. Stalinism (as a separate scientific trend) never existed.
  • Vestnik
    Vestnik 24 July 2020 22: 41 New
    -4
    Quote: tihonmarine
    Quote: Pereira
    Khrushchev is a Trotskyist. It was he who revived the idea of ​​a world revolution and began to feed the blacks.

    Of course, no doubt about it.

    I agree, it all started with this .. negative
  • Alekcandr Sokolenko
    Alekcandr Sokolenko 26 July 2020 04: 41 New
    0
    Even Trotsky was not such a "Trotskyist" as Stalin, who could not have destroyed the party and the best part of the people, for the sake of the usurper and his complexes, and Stalin had no choice either -or ... and he returned to the monarchy and empire with quite a natural result.
  • your1970
    your1970 31 July 2020 15: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Pereira
    Khrushchev is a Trotskyist. It was he who revived the idea of ​​a world revolution and began to feed the blacks. Brezhnev, his pupil, continued. Everyone knows how it ended.

    Then it turns out that it is impossible to build socialism in principle, if everyone except Stalin led the Union to the grave !!!
    1. Pereira
      Pereira 31 July 2020 15: 11 New
      -1
      Didn't expect the discussion to continue. If I had not been on the site, I would not have seen it.
      You have asked a very long question. In a nutshell, I can't answer, but I'll try.
      Nobody built socialism before Stalin. Nobody knew how to build. By the year 53, as experience was gained, a transition to the next level was required. How it happened we will never know. The experiment was canceled. The party nomenklatura decided not to risk its power and remain at the intellectual level of the 20s.
      In a society, lack of development means stagnation and death.
      And it is on this basis that it is now being argued that socialism is impossible.
      Chinese socialism is not Stalinist. But this is still development. Therefore, China has what it earned, and we are in the past.
      1. Essex62
        Essex62 2 August 2020 11: 14 New
        0
        Socialism in the 60s and early 80s was the peak of development. But ... Comrade Stalin was right three times - surrounded by the bourgeois world, tirelessly corrupting Soviet society, constantly striking at the most vulnerable point of human essence - individualism. It turned out to be impossible to etch the selfish psychology of the Soviet man. A calm, well-fed life, without a class struggle, leveled all the education of hatred for bourgeois morality. People perceived it as a game, as a boring necessity, like going to church on weekends under the old regime. To realize that with a change in the system, a person could not lose all the benefits of socialism. The result is disaster. Half of the population is below the poverty line, a shortage of jobs, destroyed education and health care, a mass of homeless people, including children. Desolation throughout the vast country, with the exception of megacities, from which the indigenous people are squeezed out by newcomers, not even the titular nation.
  • gsev
    gsev 31 July 2020 17: 53 New
    -1
    Quote: Pereira
    It was he who revived the idea of ​​a world revolution and began to feed the blacks

    I recommend finding photographs of Gagarin with Western actresses. The generation of the Khrushchev reign had more excitement and life in the eyes than the modern rulers of Russia, the owners of its factories, newspapers and ships, even if they were ordinary people. The United States read the books of I. Efremov, admiring their optimism and belief in the destiny of man, and the KGB wrote volumes of paper with libels accusing him of alien espionage at public expense. When the protocols of such cases and interrogations of Vavilov, Korolyov, Bartini are posted on the Internet, then the Russian civilization will have a chance to understand and correct its flaws.
  • paul3390
    paul3390 24 July 2020 17: 32 New
    13
    Uh-huh .. He waved his magic wand and resettled .. And the fact that the entire program, factories, projects were being prepared under Comrade Stalin, does not count ..
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 24 July 2020 17: 44 New
      -25
      Uh-huh .. He waved his magic wand and resettled .. And the fact that the entire program, factories, projects were being prepared under Comrade Stalin, does not count ..

      You have got to the heart of the differences between these two actors.
      Stalin really created a powerful industry. But he created it not for the people of Russia, but for building communism in the world.
      If it weren't for Khrushchev, all these factories would have been driving concrete for pillboxes on the border of the empire, and the people would have lived in barracks.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 24 July 2020 17: 59 New
        -12
        Doctors, scientists, teachers, skilled workers, yes, officials and security officials - in this empire they would live in stone houses, not concrete ones.

        Well, the lower class, yes, in the barracks. The whole question is whether this lower class needed to be pulled.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 24 July 2020 18: 09 New
          -6
          Doctors, scientists, teachers, skilled workers, yes, officials and security officials - in this empire they would live in stone houses, not concrete ones.
          Well, the lower class, yes, in the barracks. The whole question is whether this lower class needed to be pulled.

          The whole point is that this "lower stratum" constituted the overwhelming majority of the country's population.
          But you grasp the essence of Stalin's socialism correctly. love
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 25 July 2020 00: 24 New
            -2
            Well, in general, we ended up as an empire, when we began to reckon with the majority of the numerical, and not effective.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Normal ok
              Normal ok 25 July 2020 04: 56 New
              +2
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              Well, in general, we ended up as an empire, when we began to reckon with the majority of the numerical, and not effective.

              I think that all modern Russian capitalists and their effective managers adhere to the same opinion: “you don’t want to feed all this henaypeko-smugness” (that is, the population).
              1. Sancho_SP
                Sancho_SP 25 July 2020 11: 49 New
                -1
                Anyway, any leadership of a strong (fascist, authoritarian) state. In my opinion, this is bad, but equalization (which consists in taking money from qualified participants in the economy and transferring it to lumpen) is even worse.
          2. evgen1221
            evgen1221 25 July 2020 08: 59 New
            +4
            What kind of barracks would they live in? (Khrushchevs) under Stalin were designed and only the war prevented the start of construction earlier, house-building factories throughout the country under Stalin began to build and preparations for construction began. Stalin died and Khrushchev continued the finished project.
        2. paul3390
          paul3390 24 July 2020 18: 13 New
          14
          In the post-war period, active construction of new enterprises took place throughout the country. The builders were housed in temporary barracks-type buildings. At the same time, next to the enterprise, housing for workers. These were either individual one-story houses with 2-3 rooms with all communications costing 10-12 thousand rubles, or two-story houses, consisting of 4-5 apartments. Individual houses were transferred to the ownership of the owners using a one-percent loan for 10-12 years without a down payment. The payment on the loan was 1000 rubles per year, or no more than 5% of the average family annual income. The share of such individual houses was 30-35% of the total volume of urban construction. Families moved into separate apartments in two-story houses without any payments, since these houses were state-owned. Usually workers who come to a new enterprise from all over the country, mainly from rural areas, lived for some time in barracks, waiting for normal comfortable housing. Such houses consisted of either urban-type settlements or small districts on the outskirts of cities near enterprises. For singles and young families without children, dormitories were built next to the enterprise. Beautiful comfortable multi-storey buildings were built in the central districts of the cities.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 24 July 2020 18: 45 New
            -13
            In the post-war period, active construction of new enterprises took place throughout the country.

            Beautiful comfortable multi-storey buildings were built in the central districts of the cities.

            Everything is correct. The question is about proportions and goals.
            Russia was ruled by international adventurers with interests far removed from the interests of the people. The territory, natural resources and population of the country were used for the world revolution. People - crumbs from the master's table.

            After Stalin's death, it was not a representative of the national minorities of the empire who stood at the head, but a native of the Kursk province and the son of a miner Nikita Khrushchev. He remained an ideological communist in many ways, but being the first genetic Russian and a representative of the people at the helm of the state for many centuries, he decided to do a little good for the common people.
            This was not forgiven him.
      2. paul3390
        paul3390 24 July 2020 18: 12 New
        12
        What nonsense .. And communism he built for - for orangutans or what? What other pillboxes after the war - the fiercest nonsense .. Before you write Che - it is better to first read what on this topic. It won't hurt so much ..
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 24 July 2020 18: 56 New
          -13
          What nonsense .. And communism he built for - for orangutans or what?

          Almost guessed right. But blacks can be offended. laughing
          Russia in Stalin's understanding is a bridgehead on the Dnieper in 1943.
          All forces to build communism all over the world. To use the resources of the bridgehead to the maximum.
          1. Aag
            Aag 24 July 2020 20: 05 New
            +8
            Quote: Arzt
            What nonsense .. And communism he built for - for orangutans or what?

            Almost guessed right. But blacks can be offended. laughing
            Russia in Stalin's understanding is a bridgehead on the Dnieper in 1943.
            All forces to build communism all over the world. To use the resources of the bridgehead to the maximum.

            I am mistaken, perhaps: Stalin did not pursue the idea of ​​a world of revolution. Slogans can be different, but the goals, soberly assessing the situation, are to create around the country, in significant areas, if not allies, then controlled, loyal ones ...
            And, the main question. Anyone can give an example, when Stalin acted, spoke to the detriment of the Country, and even more so in selfish interests? There were certainly mistakes. There was no meanness! When else did Russia "rush"? Under Peter? Yes. We are proud. But, I dare to note that Peter's contemporaries did not greatly favor him (this is mild, about the upper class). Well, remember the construction of Peter, how many died, who will count ...
            Excuse me, I went out of business ... This is to assess those or other personalities in history at different stages ... hi
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 24 July 2020 20: 17 New
              -11
              I am mistaken, perhaps: Stalin did not impulse the idea of ​​the peace of the revolution.

              Prior has been doing it all his life.
              And, the main question: Can anyone give an example when Stalin acted, spoke to the detriment of the Country, and even more so in selfish interests?

              As for the damage to the Country, the question is what to raise under the country. If the amount of iron smelted for tanks, then this is one thing, and if the well-being of the inhabitants, then another.
              Who needs these tons of pig iron, if the builders of the Dneproges dined in brigades, because one spoon for ten?

              And of course there is no self-interest. Money? What for? The whole country is in his hands.
              Zuckerberg also wears the same shirt.
              1. Aag
                Aag 24 July 2020 20: 49 New
                +4
                I don’t know in detail for Zuckerberg ... For others, I’ve heard. Enough ...
                Let's not "butt" ?! In my family there are "victims of Stalinism." But, not the older generation, nor I (66th year of birth), does not dispute the country's achievements in the Stalin years. By the way, "there was a case, and prices were reduced" V.S. Vysotsky ...
                Now what? "No money, but you're holding on"?
                Braces, temples? They remembered patriotism, -that means they were stealing? (I can be wrong, -K. Prutkov) It happened in Russia. And more than once. But how beautifully they lay!
                Sorry, deviated from the topic of the article ...
                1. Aag
                  Aag 24 July 2020 22: 19 New
                  +4
                  Well, really, it is rude, of course, hackneyed, but, in fact, they destroy Stalin's achievements, or rather, the achievements of the Soviet people!
      3. nerd.su
        nerd.su 24 July 2020 18: 17 New
        11
        Quote: Arzt
        Stalin really created a powerful industry. But he created it not for the people of Russia, but for building communism in the world.

        Stalin was a supporter of building communism in the USSR. And the name of the one who wanted to build communism all over the world is Trotsky.

        Quote: Arzt
        If it weren't for Khrushchev, all these factories would have been driving concrete for pillboxes on the border of the empire, and the people would have lived in barracks.

        Remind you of your literary pseudonym - Akunin? Berezin? Rezun?
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 24 July 2020 19: 09 New
          -12
          Stalin was a supporter of building communism in the USSR. And the name of the one who wanted to build communism all over the world is Trotsky.

          They are both builders. It's just that Trotsky is hasty and fussy, the Civil War is not over yet, the country is in ruins, and he shouts "Give me Berlin!"
          But after the Miracle over the Vistula, Joseph Vissarionovich realized that serious matters must be prepared seriously.
          Remind me of your literary pseudonym - ... Berezin? ....

          I heard about those two, but who is this?
    2. paco.soto
      paco.soto 24 July 2020 18: 06 New
      +7
      And the fact that the entire program, factories, projects were prepared under Comrade Stalin does not count .. ©
      They didn't let me through an article about this on VO, for example, a photo from the institute textbook Dochi: after all, it was Stalin who designed the irrigation of not only Crimea, but the entire south of the USSR

      П

      I'm sorry, I can't find this photo with a textbook in my hands from my phone.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 24 July 2020 19: 02 New
        -8
        And the fact that the entire program, factories, projects were prepared under Comrade Stalin does not count .. ©

        In the account. The question is about goals and proportions. If Ford builds cars for people, then GAZ - trucks for the transportation of shells. For people - what will remain. It's not a matter of principle, there are enough people, few trucks. wink
        1. paco.soto
          paco.soto 24 July 2020 19: 13 New
          -1
          For people - what will remain. ©
          Neutral opinion: I agree with you, but I have no right to develop this topic in honor, I have long been a citizen of the damned Geyrope and will only cause irritation among the inhabitants of Russia with my razmishlizma. Best regards to you.
        2. Aag
          Aag 24 July 2020 20: 07 New
          +6
          Quote: Arzt
          And the fact that the entire program, factories, projects were prepared under Comrade Stalin does not count .. ©

          In the account. The question is about goals and proportions. If Ford builds cars for people, then GAZ - trucks for the transportation of shells. For people - what will remain. It's not a matter of principle, there are enough people, few trucks. wink

          ! And the grain, concrete was not transported ?!
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 24 July 2020 20: 20 New
            -5
            ! And the grain, concrete was not transported ?!

            We drove. As I say, the question is in proportions and goals.
            How much concrete was poured into the foundation of the tank factory workshop and how much into the foundation of a peasant house.
            That is the question.
            1. Sam-07
              Sam-07 24 July 2020 22: 01 New
              +2
              if your bad neighbor clogs in ammunition and cleans his own gun in plain sight, then it would be reasonable not only to think about concrete, but also how to make gunpowder ...
  • Vestnik
    Vestnik 24 July 2020 21: 59 New
    -3
    Quote: Arzt
    Yeah. A scoundrel, he moved 50 million into apartments. A quarter of the population in 4 years. This is how many blacks you can arm for the battle with the capitalists.
    This mentality is not forgiven.

    He rehabilitated Bandera and others. And then a slow substitution began .. like "You tell me, I tell you .." The communists were all real in the war, and those who were in the rear on the armor came to replace them.
    So it started to fulfill the plans .. In 1947 there was a terrible famine! Again the surplus overdone ... Well, then under Khrushche they also tried ... padly
  • paco.soto
    paco.soto 24 July 2020 17: 55 New
    -5
    or in general the whole world would be already the USSR. ©
    He crossed himself with a smile.
  • smart ass
    smart ass 24 July 2020 17: 58 New
    +6
    Ahaha, the generals are to blame)))) themselves that sat on the couch and watched your country collapse? Why didn't they go under the tanks for the USSR? Is the State Department to blame? Or did the sofa magnetize your ass? Who's guilty? Look at yourself in the mirror
    1. paco.soto
      paco.soto 24 July 2020 18: 14 New
      +1
      Why didn't they go under the tanks for the USSR? Is the State Department to blame? Or did the sofa magnetize your ass? Who's guilty? ©
      Stroking your garden couch: damn State Department, definitely !!!
      Smiled.
    2. Aag
      Aag 24 July 2020 20: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Clever man
      Ahaha, the generals are to blame)))) themselves that sat on the couch and watched your country collapse? Why didn't they go under the tanks for the USSR? Is the State Department to blame? Or did the sofa magnetize your ass? Who's guilty? Look at yourself in the mirror

      I am ashamed to ask, where were you at that time?
      1. smart ass
        smart ass 25 July 2020 02: 13 New
        -1
        At that time I was 7 years old
        1. Aag
          Aag 26 July 2020 20: 55 New
          +2
          Quote: Clever man
          At that time I was 7 years old

          I was lucky ... And your generation often tells me: well, you were all talking about ... fucking ... In Transbaikalia, it was not very clear what was happening. But no matter how they got rid of, some of them, they did not break the oath, they kept their combat readiness. Sorry. for the pathos: the Strategic Missile Forces, -that, unleashed "club", naturally nuclear, which did not allow the United States to act without regard to this factor! So, in this regard, I am clean. They did it! But, thanks to individual commanders, they did not look for political preferences, acted according to the Regulations of General Arms, and of the type of troops ...
          1. smart ass
            smart ass 27 July 2020 05: 36 New
            -1
            I assure you even the army to stop the collapse of the USSR was impossible. All the inhabitants of the country were tired of the scoop and wanted something new, unknown. Jeans, gum, cocacols, so you can only blame yourself.
            1. Campanella
              Campanella 29 July 2020 09: 35 New
              +1
              Great logic. If you ask citizens of developed countries whether you are tired of the regime, the answer will be unequivocal - tired.
              You can not argue in the categories bored, not bored.
              1. smart ass
                smart ass 29 July 2020 09: 59 New
                -2
                In this case, you can live in a concentration camp))) you are fine)
                1. Campanella
                  Campanella 29 July 2020 12: 33 New
                  +1
                  You haven't seen a concentration camp yet!
                  I have lived half of my life in the USSR, the second in Russia I live. This is far from the concentration camp, I am more sick of the injustice of today's capitalism. This is a concentration camp! In it, everyone is free ... but dependent on money. This is the main lack of freedom. And all your freedoms are invented by political scientists.
                  In a conversation, you do not carry all the nonsense that can be born in your head, but filters what and where you can say and notice you do not consider it unfree.
  • Aag
    Aag 24 July 2020 19: 15 New
    0
    "Beria was a talented organizer and a responsible performer .."
    You can't argue ... But isn't it too
    initiative and zealous? .. If it is softer ..
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Uncle Izya
    Uncle Izya 24 July 2020 19: 40 New
    -2
    Come on, Beria said why do we still need to feed the GDR, he was in his youth in the bourgeois organization of the Musavatists and it is not a fact that it would have been better with him
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 24 July 2020 19: 50 New
    +3
    Zhukov could not save Beria on the basis of personal hostility.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Terenin
    Terenin 24 July 2020 20: 18 New
    +5
    how did it happen that the powerful Soviet Army did not take any steps to defend the unity of the country it served.
    Well, how can a well-armed and well-protected, for example, a medieval knight fight (resist) a swarm of bees?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Alexander Sosnitsky
    Alexander Sosnitsky 26 July 2020 11: 23 New
    0
    Everything was thought out very well. The army thought, but not traditional but hybrid. All the power is there
  • Courier
    Courier 24 July 2020 16: 37 New
    +4
    And in 1917 did not stop
  • iouris
    iouris 24 July 2020 16: 40 New
    +8
    There was decisiveness - there was no command (as well as conscience and brains - there was nowhere to nest). It must be understood that in such transitional historical moments, military leaders (in peacetime) always expect to fly higher to perch.
  • prior
    prior 24 July 2020 16: 41 New
    27
    Just as the leadership of the CPSU betrayed the country, the leadership of the army also betrayed it.
    The collapse of empires is provoked by the elite. An axiom, however.
    1. Svarog
      Svarog 24 July 2020 16: 44 New
      +2
      Quote: prior
      Just as the leadership of the CPSU betrayed the country, the leadership of the army also betrayed it.
      The collapse of empires is provoked by the elite. An axiom, however.

      Yes, based on this axiom, now there is no reason at all for the betrayal of the "elite" .. "elite" - in chocolate .. regional grumble a little, but now they will be taken up too ..
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 24 July 2020 19: 51 New
        +3
        The elite is heterogeneous. The part is conditionally patriotic. The second is definitely pro-Western.
        1. smart ass
          smart ass 27 July 2020 05: 38 New
          -1
          Isn't it a conditionally patriotic pro-Western?
  • Doctor
    Doctor 24 July 2020 16: 44 New
    +5
    But even after almost 30 years, we are perplexed: how did it happen that the powerful Soviet Army did not take any steps to defend the unity of the country it served.

    This was not her task. The main goal of the army is an external enemy. Other structures existed to defend against the internal enemy.
  • Prisoner
    Prisoner 24 July 2020 16: 45 New
    12
    Was the army supposed to? How? To crush your population with tanks? The army is still an instrument of defense against an external enemy. Immediately, the enemies dug in at the very top and the Ministry of Defense issued orders. The second civil war would have finished us off completely.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 24 July 2020 20: 20 New
      +8
      But what about the Chinese, who were not afraid to "crush their population with tanks" in Tiananmen Square and remained a great country?
      1. vahpus
        vahpus 24 July 2020 20: 22 New
        -10
        Is China a great country?
        How is it?
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 24 July 2020 20: 30 New
          12
          Do you have doubts? Or have they since 1989 lost their territory, destroyed the army and industry, and left Space?
          1. vahpus
            vahpus 24 July 2020 20: 33 New
            -13
            Quote: Aviator_
            Do you have doubts?

            Huge.
            Quote: Aviator_
            Or have they since 1989 lost their territory, destroyed the army and industry, and left Space?

            Not yet evening.
            Wait.
            All will be.
            1. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 24 July 2020 20: 47 New
              +8
              The expectations have been going on for 31 years.
              1. vahpus
                vahpus 24 July 2020 20: 50 New
                -8
                Quote: Aviator_
                waiting for 31 years.

                This is a moment for history.
                But how long does the string twist ...
      2. Prisoner
        Prisoner 24 July 2020 20: 55 New
        +6
        One area and 1/6 of the land are two big differences. We would have to crush at least 15 capitals of the union republics. Least. And in Beijing, traitors did not steer.
        1. vahpus
          vahpus 24 July 2020 21: 42 New
          -8
          Quote: Captive
          And in Beijing, traitors did not steer.

          They did not rule in Moscow either.
          But the USSR, in spite of everything, collapsed.
          And China, which is also an empire, will collapse sooner or later.
  • Courier
    Courier 24 July 2020 16: 55 New
    -1
    The army could not stop the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    The Soviet army could provoke a civil war, but there is no way to save the country.

    As much as lovers of the Union would not deny, this country had the deepest economic problems, voluntary isolation and an extremely costly foreign policy.

    The Soviet Union did not know how to economically, did not know how to subjugate other countries without weapons, and poured millions into Arab sands and African tribes.

    The Soviet Union fought the West so successfully that by the end of the 80s, the United States no longer wanted the collapse of the USSR, fearing that nuclear weapons would spread throughout the world.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 24 July 2020 17: 24 New
      11
      Quote: Courier
      The Soviet army could provoke a civil war, but there is no way to save the country.

      When changing leaders, she did not provoke, but here ...
      The generals could simply isolate the instigators of the coup, but (in all likelihood) the prospects were obscured by the eyes and honor.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 24 July 2020 18: 03 New
        -4
        Quote: ROSS 42
        The generals could simply isolate the instigators of the coup, but (in all likelihood) the prospects were obscured by the eyes and honor.

        Rather, they did not want to go against the people.
        After all, he, this people, came out to defend Yeltsin, didn't he. They even threw themselves under the BMPs.
        1. Ross xnumx
          Ross xnumx 24 July 2020 18: 51 New
          10
          Quote: Spade
          Rather, they did not want to go against the people.

          In the army, Yeltsin and the people were not associated as something in common. Most of all, the army condemned Gorbachev's lie about his arrest in Foros.
          And under the BMP lay not the people, and the booze-fueled Moscow gopota. My friend was a direct participant in the events and saw all these "feats" with his own eyes. In addition, Govorukhin has films:
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 24 July 2020 19: 27 New
            +1
            Quote: ROSS 42
            In the army, Yeltsin and the people were not associated as something in common.

            Lying.
            The troops very closely followed what was happening at the White House.
            I know from the direct participants. They were alerted (at least two units, one in the ZabVO, the other in the Siberian Military District). A lot of emissaries from both the executive branch and the party bodies came to them. Campaigning for Yeltsin. "You will not go against the people"
            And what was happening in Moscow completely and completely fit into the description of these emissaries. Including those lying under the BMP.

            Quote: ROSS 42
            And under the BMP lay not the people, but the booze-fueled Moscow gopota.

            And did the "narot" sit in the kitchens?
            So I sat out
            And now he accuses. Army, KGB, "traitors" and others.
            1. Campanella
              Campanella 26 July 2020 23: 56 New
              +2
              Well, actually, this coup was made by the top, not the people.
              So, in fact, the KGB was supposed to deal with them, but when Kryuchkov put a memo on Gorbachev's table that Yakovlev A.N. the traitor hunchback did not give her a go.
        2. Aag
          Aag 24 July 2020 20: 17 New
          0
          Quote: Spade
          Quote: ROSS 42
          The generals could simply isolate the instigators of the coup, but (in all likelihood) the prospects were obscured by the eyes and honor.

          Rather, they did not want to go against the people.
          After all, he, this people, came out to defend Yeltsin, didn't he. They even threw themselves under the BMPs.

          Come on! The people came out against the system, and here the ready-made Yeltsin. (He
          and now here, have you noticed?)
          And, in general, they noticed - the people began to look for roots, and not to discuss the article.
        3. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 24 July 2020 20: 22 New
          +3
          Even under the BMPshki rushed

          Well, yes, three inadequacies rushed in 1991 under the BMP leaving Moscow
          1. Campanella
            Campanella 25 July 2020 16: 53 New
            +1
            These are the victims of propaganda.
          2. Campanella
            Campanella 25 July 2020 16: 54 New
            0
            These are the victims of propaganda.
            1. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 25 July 2020 23: 42 New
              +2
              Ostap Bender called such victims differently (Pasha Emilievich, who sold the chair)
    2. Aag
      Aag 24 July 2020 22: 25 New
      -1
      Quote: Courier
      The army could not stop the collapse of the Soviet Union.

      The Soviet army could provoke a civil war, but there is no way to save the country.

      As much as lovers of the Union would not deny, this country had the deepest economic problems, voluntary isolation and an extremely costly foreign policy.

      The Soviet Union did not know how to economically, did not know how to subjugate other countries without weapons, and poured millions into Arab sands and African tribes.

      The Soviet Union fought the West so successfully that by the end of the 80s, the United States no longer wanted the collapse of the USSR, fearing that nuclear weapons would spread throughout the world.

      Here are your theses: 50/50, agreement, and rejection ...
      The question arises, do not blame consperalogy, and not on purpose we are bred to different corners of the ring?
    3. Dmitry10SPb
      Dmitry10SPb 25 July 2020 17: 25 New
      0
      I agree. There could well be an adventurer like Valery Sablin, who started a riot in 1975 at the "Storozhev". I would have shot, say, the parties to the agreement in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. What then? Blood streams. The army did not have the intellectual and strong-willed potential to name the situation in the country's economy. And that's okay. This is none of her business.
  • boris epstein
    boris epstein 24 July 2020 16: 59 New
    11
    In fact, the internal conflict was not supposed to be resolved by the army, but by counterintelligence, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Internal Troops and the point-to-point special forces (an operation according to the classical scheme - telephone, telegraph, bridges, command posts). They had enough strength for this, but everyone was waiting for Gorbachev's order to impose martial law, not realizing that he had made all this mess. Gdlyan writes in his book that everything was already ready. But the Alpha and Vympel detachments refused to storm the barricades near the White House without Gorbachev's orders.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Pereira
    Pereira 24 July 2020 17: 09 New
    +7
    It was a deliberate policy.
    Extra-systemic strong personalities should not appear in the country, capable of leading the people. This was done to prevent an anti-communist uprising, which, by the way, was impossible.
    But when an anti-communist coup from above happened, there was no one to lead the ideological communists to defend Soviet power. Polozkov was not even close to being considered such a leader.
    Ideologues have outsmarted themselves.
    1. georgiigennadievitch
      georgiigennadievitch 24 July 2020 18: 22 New
      11
      There is no unequivocal answer. But, as it seems to me, the country really pursued a purposeful policy, only it was aimed at ideally disarming the people. Moreover, the army was in the crosshairs of all embittered losers, inept correspondents and junior researchers and the like. saw the hope for their chance and threw mud at the entire Soviet period. No matter what newspaper you open, everywhere there is "chernukha" on the army with extremely stupid and lazy officers, bullying, general's dachas, etc. Korotich played a special role in the attack on the army with his " By the light ". It got to the point that young people began to throw themselves at the veterans of the Great Patriotic War with claims of this kind - what the hell did you grandfathers win the war for? Now they would live like in Europe, drive "Merciers" and drink Bavarian, and not stand in long lines with "dushmans" for diluted Zhiguli (there was the height of the hump-fight against drunkenness). In a number of garrisons after the attack by crowds and beating officers received orders to go to service in civilian clothes, etc. Do you think the Kremlin did not know this? No, the "hard Leninists": Aliev, Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Nazarbayev, Shevardnadze, Yakovlev, etc. led by the hump, if they did not support all this nonsense openly, then they encouraged by their action and inaction. I will never forget how, as a colonel, I stood as spat upon before the Kuzbass miners who were laughing at me summoned to short-term gatherings when they asked me about the financial support. believed. He showed me my membership card with payment marks. Laughing, they offered me to get a job with them in the mine and give out flashlights and gas masks before the shift. According to them, the women who worked there received five times more than me. I was ashamed and not only for myself , but for all our spat upon and robbed of the army, which by echelons, divisions, armies with military equipment, families and belongings were withdrawn from the groups of troops into a clear field, where they were hastily disbanded. There is length of service, no, there is an apartment in the Union, no, everything formation in reserve and go to all four sides. In such conditions it was not very clear who and from whom should be protected.
      1. Pereira
        Pereira 24 July 2020 18: 42 New
        +5
        You write everything correctly. And I remember well those times and that wave of chernukha. Only this applies to the period of perestroika.
        I'm talking about an earlier period. 60-70 years.
        A person with pronounced leadership qualities could realize them either in state structures or in an organized criminal group. If not a party member, then it was problematic to become a shop manager. Where else can you learn to be a leader?
        You know about the army and you can tell.
        Well, what did it lead to? Who, after all this, will lead the communist anti-perestroika uprising? Leaders from the party nomenclature?
        Many were waiting for such a leader. And who could it be? Polozkov, who very, just very harshly criticized the Gorbachev course? And where is the action?
        Remember the secretary of the Leningrad Regional Committee Gidaspov. Many in the late 80s saw him as an alternative to Gorbachev. So what? Sold to General Dima. Like Kuptsov, who replaced Polozkov.
        There were plenty of people who understood. There were no people who knew how.
        Even the State Emergency Committee wanted, but could not.
        And those who knew how were on the other side.
        1. georgiigennadievitch
          georgiigennadievitch 25 July 2020 18: 38 New
          +1
          The mind of a commander must be equal to his will. Napoleon. In general, I think that the question in the title of the article is incorrect. It was not in the traditions of the Soviet Army to get involved in internal political processes. And in general, who of the army commanders at the top could competently and effectively intervene? Yazov? When he was appointed instead of Sokolov, soon after that an accident occurred in Moscow. A sports battalion truck collided with the police Volga. Four police officers were killed. Yazov personally went to investigate this accident. He came to the conclusion that the military was to blame for everything. After that, a formidable order was issued. that a soldier in no case should serve where he was called up from. I served at that time in the training artillery regiment of the training division of the Moscow Military District. This became a problem for us. As a rule, Muscovites were sent to our regiment, because. they differed from others in their large height and weight. and did not fit in size for tankers, crews of infantry fighting vehicles. And since after the end of training we sent them to serve mainly in Taman, Kantemirovka, it was not very clear, but where they were, in fact then The question about the punishment of the guilty was very original. The battalion commander and the chief of physical training of the district were fired on a pension that had already come up. The head of the organizational and mobilization department of the district was transferred to an equivalent position in Chita (what kind of punishment is this?). As people in the know told, some time after that order, a trial took place. It turned out that the soldier-driver (USSR champion), who was returning from training on the rowing canal on his boat, which he was carrying in a truck, was not guilty of anything. He did not violate the traffic rules. Volga crashed into him on a large speed at the crossroads on the side of a secondary street. The driver and passengers were dead drunk and the Volga got stuck under the truck. God knows how Yazov figured out. approximately at the same time, he decided to check one of the military research institutes near Moscow. It would seem that he should have delved into the problematic, provide some assistance, etc. He arranged a drill inspection. He walked with a ruler and measured the distance between the asterisks, emblems. And explained while order in the army begins with a millimeter, a second. Who would be against? Only probably this should be done by the company foreman, well, at worst, the company commander, but not the Minister of Defense. No, maybe he was an outstanding Ministry of Defense, not for us, as they say, to judge, it was not for nothing that he saw his hump in the Far East, but clearly for the role of a military dictator I didn’t pull. There’s nothing to say about the others.
        2. your1970
          your1970 31 July 2020 15: 11 New
          0
          Quote: Pereira
          I'm talking about an earlier period. 60-70 years.

          Quote: Pereira
          A person with pronounced leadership qualities could realize them either in state structures or in an organized criminal group. If not a party member, then it was problematic to become a shop manager. AND

          That is, they lie about social lifts in the USSR?
          It turns out that then what are you in the party = are you in power?
    2. Aag
      Aag 24 July 2020 22: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: Pereira
      It was a deliberate policy.
      Extra-systemic strong personalities should not appear in the country, capable of leading the people. This was done to prevent an anti-communist uprising, which, by the way, was impossible.
      But when an anti-communist coup from above happened, there was no one to lead the ideological communists to defend Soviet power. Polozkov was not even close to being considered such a leader.
      Ideologues have outsmarted themselves.

      Sublimating words into popular wisdom: "The fish rots from the head."
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 24 July 2020 17: 14 New
    +9
    Why the Soviet Army did not stop the collapse of the country in 1991

    Because it was not allowed to discuss orders in the army, and officers from the "OO" openly warned those who were especially zealous that they could be left without shoulder straps, ranks and pensions ...
    "Do you need it?"
    Another question must be asked:
    “WHY KGB of the USSR DIDN'T PREVENT THE COLLAPSE OF THE STATE AT THE LEVEL OF HIGHER OFFICERS?"
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 24 July 2020 18: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: ROSS 42
      Another question must be asked:
      "WHY KGB

      We must ask a completely different question.
      "WHY COMMUNISTS ACCUSE ANYONE BEYOND THEIR COSTS"
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 24 July 2020 18: 14 New
        0
        And who weren't there communists?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 24 July 2020 18: 23 New
          -2
          Quote: Cartalon
          And who weren't there communists?

          The one who stayed at home.
          When all different dregs depicted people on the barricades at the White House. Even the Ukronatsi overcame their laziness and came to Moscow.

          And these were sitting.
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon 24 July 2020 18: 52 New
            +3
            And so dregs and not communists, so there were no communists as such in the country, in fact, according to my feelings, it was so, there were no communists in the USSR.
      2. Aag
        Aag 24 July 2020 22: 29 New
        -1
        Quote: Spade
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Another question must be asked:
        "WHY KGB

        We must ask a completely different question.
        "WHY COMMUNISTS ACCUSE ANYONE BEYOND THEIR COSTS"

        And how do they, the communists, differ from all others in this regard?
    2. Gato
      Gato 24 July 2020 18: 25 New
      +3
      WHY DIDN'T THE KGB OF THE USSR PREVENT THE COLLAPSE OF THE STATE AT THE LEVEL OF HIGHER OFFICES?

      The KGB was directly and unequivocally forbidden to independently conduct any actions related to the nomenclature, in addition, senior KGB officers themselves were included in this nomenclature. Such cases were conducted by a specially trained department of the Central Committee with the involvement of the forces and means of the KGB and prosecutors. That is, the "higher ranks" fought against the decomposition of themselves - well, they could not master themselves request
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 24 July 2020 19: 40 New
        +2
        The KGB was directly and unequivocally forbidden to independently conduct any actions related to the nomenclature, in addition, senior KGB officers themselves were included in this nomenclature. Such cases were conducted by a specially trained department of the Central Committee with the involvement of the forces and means of the KGB and prosecutors. That is, the "higher ranks" fought against the decomposition of themselves - well, they could not master themselves request

        So it is so, but the fact remains.
        In fact, a coup d'etat took place in the country, followed by the collapse of the state.
        In this muddy situation, the STATE SECURITY Committee had to feel like a fish in water, because it was created for such situations.
        But the SYSTEM didn't work.
        1. Sling cutter
          Sling cutter 24 July 2020 21: 01 New
          +8
          Quote: Arzt
          The STATE SECURITY Committee was supposed to feel like a fish in water,

          Gebuha, headed by Kryuchkov, was the main traitor, and then the beneficiary of the collapse of the USSR. So they now crawled out like mushrooms after the rain, gray majors and lieutenant colonels, who had nothing to do with the USSR.
          PySy. "Alpha" was given the order to neutralize the ebn, but they also allowed him to climb onto the tank while drunk.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 24 July 2020 21: 34 New
            +2
            Gebuha, headed by Kryuchkov, was the main traitor, and then the beneficiary of the collapse of the USSR.

            I don’t think so. Kryuchkov was still in the Emergency Committee. There was not enough determination. And they didn't figure out quickly who was their own, who was a stranger.
            1. Sling cutter
              Sling cutter 24 July 2020 21: 50 New
              +8
              Quote: Arzt
              I don’t think so. Kryuchkov was still in the Emergency Committee. There was not enough determination. And they didn't figure out quickly who was their own, who was a stranger.

              Kryuchkov knew about Gorbachev's affairs and was obliged to put a bullet in his forehead, in extreme cases in the back of the head and eliminate Ebna.
              But he did nothing of this, and arranged a circus with horses in the form of the State Emergency Committee.
        2. Aag
          Aag 24 July 2020 22: 34 New
          +1
          Quote: Arzt
          The KGB was directly and unequivocally forbidden to independently conduct any actions related to the nomenclature, in addition, senior KGB officers themselves were included in this nomenclature. Such cases were conducted by a specially trained department of the Central Committee with the involvement of the forces and means of the KGB and prosecutors. That is, the "higher ranks" fought against the decomposition of themselves - well, they could not master themselves request

          So it is so, but the fact remains.
          In fact, a coup d'etat took place in the country, followed by the collapse of the state.
          In this muddy situation, the STATE SECURITY Committee had to feel like a fish in water, because it was created for such situations.
          But the SYSTEM didn't work.

          Once again, the SYSTEM "worked"! The KGB, by the end of the Union, had become not a committee of the state, but a committee of the Central Committee of Security. Or rather its individual personalities ...
  • 1536
    1536 24 July 2020 17: 15 New
    +7
    Here we can say, paraphrasing the words of V.I. Lenin, which he wrote in the article "In Memory of Herzen" that "the Decembrists put the Soviet military to sleep." That's right, because since the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, the military elite has practically been deprived of the opportunity to influence the adoption of far-reaching political decisions or interfere in the political administration of the country. The result of this "excommunication" was the defeat in the Crimean War in 1853. The remaining half a century, the Russian military only defended the borders of our Motherland, provided fraternal assistance to the Slavic peoples, but in the end they fell into the whirlpool of the First World War and, trying to interfere in politics, calling for the renunciation of the now Emperor Nicholas II, they lost everything, starting from their own lives. ending with the country. The Bolsheviks knew Russian history well. I.V. knew her especially well. Stalin. Since the end of the 30s of the XX century, the military, it seems to me, were afraid to look at the Kremlin stars, so that God forbid not to imagine themselves as the managers of the USSR. Interrupt Stalin's life, as, for example, F.-D. Roosevelt in 1945, perhaps we would have seen by the beginning of the 1960s G.K. Zhukov at the head of the Soviet state. Perhaps this would have happened before. Recall that it was no coincidence that General Eisenhower was elected President of the United States in 1953. But alas, history has no subjunctive mood. Thus, our military was ready to carry out any order. But they did not receive the order to save the country in 1991. Had this order been given by the country's political leadership, I have no doubt that the USSR would have been saved.
    For some reason I don't like Decembrists. They either "wake up" not on the case of what type, who lives in Britain for unknown money, or on the contrary "lull" the citizens of Russia who are loyal to the oath and to the Fatherland. And in that in another case, our people only get worse from this.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 24 July 2020 17: 18 New
    +9
    Well, I did, I didn’t ... the generals didn’t want to lose their general's dachas ... and the new times promised to be tempting ...
    1. paco.soto
      paco.soto 24 July 2020 18: 21 New
      +1
      and new times promised to be tempting ... ©
      "Bingo!"!!! You saved me from pondering for the comment "The SGV and, personally, I and the rest of the officers were only barely kicked out at the beginning of the 93rd." Time did not deceive us.
    2. Aag
      Aag 24 July 2020 22: 39 New
      +1
      Quote: parusnik
      Well, I did, I didn’t ... the generals didn’t want to lose their general's dachas ... and the new times promised to be tempting ...

      It seems that the "summer cottages" in such a large-scale "game" are not that level.
      People operated on other categories! (Not denying commercialism, and other human "weaknesses") ...
  • seacap
    seacap 24 July 2020 17: 34 New
    +3
    The article is not serious, although with attempts to analyze, for whose interests and for what purpose it was published, it is not clear. Here you don't even need to be a special psychologist, but just common sense is needed. How do you imagine an army clearing out Moscow and the country? Russia is not an African or Latin country, it has a different mentality and different historical experience. Which of the marshals, of sound mind and memory, tb. the past World War II will take on the role of Pinochet and want to go down in history knee-deep in blood, there are no crazy people. Any "gesture" of the army and navy, strictly regulated by charters and laws, is aimed at the armed defense of the country from an external enemy, the role of the army in internal political activity is strictly limited in any country in the world. It is enough to read carefully the text of that oath, especially the last lines, to understand why the army did not take power into its own hands in the USSR, and in the Republic of Ingushetia in the same way, and so on. when the Commander-in-Chief is himself a coward, a representative and, personally preparing and organizing the destruction of the power entrusted under his leadership.
    1. Gato
      Gato 24 July 2020 18: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: seacap
      Any "body movement" of the army and navy strictly regulated by charters and laws

      And besides, all the "body movement" of the commanders was controlled (and controlled) by political officers and "keep quiet", each of which drummed on his own line - for greater reliability. Nowadays, few people know, but the commissioners of the WRC (albeit in peacetime) had the right to arrest the unit commander if he increased the degree of combat readiness without an order from above.
      1. Aag
        Aag 25 July 2020 05: 57 New
        +1
        "Now, few people know, but the commissioners of the WRC (albeit in peacetime) had the right to arrest the unit commander in case he increased the degree of combat readiness without an order from above."
        Where is it from?
        According to all the Charters, Instructions, Regulations, and Orders, the commander is (at least in my presence) directly responsible for combat readiness ... etc., etc. By what methods, measures, is the second question .. ...
        And, by the way, answering the question in the table of contents of the article: Yes, they did not understand what was happening!
        1. Gato
          Gato 25 July 2020 09: 32 New
          0
          direct responsibility for combat readiness

          This does not mean combat readiness in general - the commander is constantly responsible for it, but the degree of combat readiness: constant, increased, military threat and full.
  • Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown 24 July 2020 17: 36 New
    +2
    Maybe I don't understand that, of course, but, from my point of view, from the point of view of a direct participant in those events, it was like this:
    - there was a vote and the people said "for" the preservation of the USSR - albeit in a new format
    - "thugs of society" in the form of the State Emergency Committee resisted this and staged a "putsch"
    - the people, even in the form of me, resisted this the same - and we defeated them, these putschists soldier

    The army was then driven to Moscow, but the army did not shoot at the people ... The tanks that were subordinate to Rutskoi, on the night of August 19-20, 1991, went over to Yeltsin's side ... and around 3 a.m. they deployed in battle formation around The White House, the cannons were uncovered, ammunition was delivered in the Urals, and Rutskoi's tanks were ready to shoot at the tanks that had been driven from the Kievsky railway station ... It would have been messy ... well, it did not take place ...

    I already wrote recently - I repeat - see my posts for details - in the afternoon of August 19 - it happened - I saw the White House in the sight of the head tank repeat laughing

    So ... why am I ... The army then had nothing to do with those events ... Each divisional commander did what he could and wanted ... They were not asked ... Everyone acted according to his own conscience ...
  • Vyacheslav1962
    Vyacheslav1962 24 July 2020 17: 42 New
    +7
    The task of the Army and the Navy is to defend the Motherland from an external enemy.
    The task of the militia (police and the National Guard) and the KGB is to protect the state from an internal enemy.
    Whoever studied at whom did his duty.
    The country collapsed, but at the time of the collapse, the borders were locked. The task was completed by the Armed Forces.
    The country was falling apart, but despite the availability of information about those who planned to destroy it, the KGB and the police did nothing to prevent the collapse. These internal organs did not fulfill their task.
    We all want to live in a state governed by the rule of law, but almost immediately: "where was the army ?!" The army was in its place during the collapse of the Union. If the people, in their general mass, did not want to defend their interests, then there is nothing to blame the army.
    In the history of Russia, the army has already made a bunch of coups. Either she dragged women to the throne, then she supported the peasants. It may be enough to weave it to something that does not correspond to its functions and tasks.
    1. Plastmaster
      Plastmaster 24 July 2020 19: 24 New
      0
      As if yes ..... But I think at that moment, attacked us, the army would not have twitched to resolve the aggression on its own. With words, and who to defend.
      1. Vyacheslav1962
        Vyacheslav1962 24 July 2020 20: 06 New
        +4
        Quote: Plastmaster
        How and yes ... But I think at that moment, attacked us, the army would not have twitched

        Now we can talk about this only in the subjunctive mood.
        I can only speak for myself and my colleagues. If ...., then they would have fought for their homeland. And no one would remember which state he is defending. The main thing is that one's own country and homeland would be under threat.
        1. Plastmaster
          Plastmaster 24 July 2020 20: 44 New
          +5
          So that's just the point. These are privates and junior officers, after school and colleges, they have patriotism. And the higher one will start + and - count.
          1. Vyacheslav1962
            Vyacheslav1962 24 July 2020 22: 06 New
            +5
            Quote: Plastmaster
            And the higher one will start + and - count.

            At the time of the collapse of the Union, I was a major. The social circle both among the junior and among the senior staff, well, the top staff was in full view of all of us. There were enough self-seekers among all strata, but there were very, very few of them.
            It was a little later, when commerce in army circles began to expand, patriotism among officers began to diminish. Well, maybe the picture with the withdrawal of the ZGV in the early 90s also influenced, when the higher, and the elders, and the younger tried to make money there, all those who sat in warm places, not really hiding, wanted to profit from the absolute majority of the withdrawn contingent.
            But the bulk of the officers who left the USSR, including the senior staff, in the early 90s were devoted to their cause, regardless of rank.
            1. Sergej1972
              Sergej1972 25 July 2020 01: 19 New
              +1
              I remember the shameful meeting of the officers of the Tskhinvali Helicopter Regiment that was shown on television at that time, 1990 or 1991. Rightly complaining about housing difficulties, about insufficiently high monetary allowances, the helicopter pilots blackmailed their superiors by the fact that all sorts of armed formations would gladly use their services, which, naturally, would pay well.
    2. New
      New Year day 25 July 2020 09: 48 New
      +3
      Quote: Vyacheslav1962
      The task of the Army and the Navy is to defend the Motherland from an external enemy.
      The task of the militia (police and the National Guard) and the KGB is to protect the state from an internal enemy.
      Whoever studied at whom did his duty.

      As a result,
      Quote: Vyacheslav1962
      Country collapsed
  • jurijsv
    jurijsv 24 July 2020 18: 06 New
    +5
    We should not forget about the cleansing of the military leadership in 1987 and after, as well as how Gorbachev framed the leadership of the security forces in January 1991. In place of the "departed" were appointed more compliant, which as a result and led to the failure of the State Emergency Committee.
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter 24 July 2020 21: 03 New
      10
      Quote: jurijsv
      We should not forget about the purge of the military leadership in 1987 and after,

      Gorbach dismissed many generals after the arrival of Rust on Red Square, and this was the start of a larger purge.
  • Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown 24 July 2020 18: 10 New
    0
    Well ... in addition to my post to this article, I can't help but express that some women call me a "scumbag" in relation to the events of August 19-21, 1991 (I hope you read this post love )

    So ... around 3 o'clock in the morning already on August 20 ... just imagine (since you are on VO - well, can you imagine the AK? repeat ) they did not allow people to approach the tanks, which were going to shoot at the tanks standing in the defense of the White House ...

    Opposite you - a man of some sort with AKs, eaten up, a finger is on the descent, any movement - and a turn will go into you ... And you, demobilized - and you explain to the "scoop" that only if his finger twitches on the trigger - he will receive a "polar northern fox" laughing taking into account the fact that I have only a dozen bottles of Molotov cocktail with me - and he has an AK-74 with 30 rounds hi
  • Drugov
    Drugov 24 July 2020 18: 16 New
    +2
    Come on, the Ministry of Defense, but here's how this process could have been screwed up by the KGB, here you really need to understand.
    1. seacap
      seacap 24 July 2020 19: 33 New
      +3
      Quote: Drugov
      Come on, the Ministry of Defense, but here's how this process could have been screwed up by the KGB, here you really need to understand.

      The state security is not a forceful executive body, it is just an information committee, they do not make decisions of a forceful nature, but could only provide information and analytical conclusions, which was done in full. There is evidence that Yakovlev is a recruited agent, as reported to Gorbachev personally. Then, before the so-called. over the passage of Rust, to whom did Gorbachev transfer the air defense map of the North-West direction, which is a state secret document, received the day before from the General Staff and then not returned? As a result, MSS Sokolov was removed and more than 100 officers and generals went to court. T, h, is not worth the direct and conscious betrayal of the top leadership, the so-called. elite (the term cattle-breeding and agricultural) to attach a well-deserved organization, albeit one that has shortcomings and mistakes. The Brest Fortress and frontier posts are also the NKVD, the most effective SMERSH service is also.
      1. Drugov
        Drugov 24 July 2020 19: 58 New
        +1
        I disagree with you only by definition NOT FORCE, what, what, but forces, means and what is most important, the authority of the committee had enough to complete any task, but apparently historically what happened was destined to happen.
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 25 July 2020 01: 25 New
      +2
      There was already a split in the leadership of the power structures. There were already the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the KGB of the RSFSR, headed by Yeltsin's supporters. And although the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the KGB of the RSFSR were subordinate to the relevant union structures, they already allowed themselves to criticize them. Some regional departments of the KGB and regional departments of internal affairs on the territory of the RSFSR were guided by the union structures, while others were already at the Russian. Who occupied the building of the Central Committee of the CPSU during the August events - officers and cadets of the Oryol police school, which was subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RSFSR.
      1. Drugov
        Drugov 25 July 2020 14: 52 New
        -1
        That is why I say that this is fate and so it should have happened.
  • Gardamir
    Gardamir 24 July 2020 18: 18 New
    +7
    You cannot interpret history so one-sidedly. Speaking why, we must recall all the events of the Gorbachev years. Consistent pouring slops throughout Soviet history. Suggestion that the market, the host will do better.
    After 30 years, I want to say it has not become better. Krymnash? So he was ours. Only traitors can relinquish their territories.
    Maybe we didn't have our own yachts in the Soviet Union, and now we don't. Then we knew that we will always have a salary, a pension is now survival.
    So we were just lured by various imaginary sweets. They promised freedom, democracy, and now who wants freedom is an agent of the State Department.
    The question is, what was the army supposed to protect us from? Yet it was according to the laws. A few years later, the grown-up generation will ask in the same way, what the army did not protect against embryo.
  • mark2
    mark2 24 July 2020 18: 27 New
    0
    And where are these former colonels of the super powerful army of the USSR, tearing at their tunic and beating themselves in shit? Well, murmur something in your defense. You were accused of betraying the Motherland
    1. Kisa
      Kisa 25 July 2020 06: 57 New
      +2
      only time gives an assessment of events. 27 years ago, the parliament was raskherachili with tanks, so there people threw caps into the air in support - right now you ask them, how is that .... ???? your granddaughters will ask the same thing in 20 years, grandfather, and then you reset the constitution ...
  • vahpus
    vahpus 24 July 2020 18: 53 New
    -6
    Why the Soviet Army did not stop the collapse of the country in 1991

    Because it was not a full-fledged army, but a paramilitary formation.
    Therefore, there was simply no one to do it.
  • vavilon
    vavilon 24 July 2020 19: 04 New
    +1
    First of all, most of the highest military ranks changed their oath, they gave it not only to the government, but first of all to the Soviet people, which they betrayed
  • Plastmaster
    Plastmaster 24 July 2020 19: 19 New
    +1
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    Doctors, scientists, teachers, skilled workers, yes, officials and security officials - in this empire they would live in stone houses, not concrete ones.

    Well, the lower class, yes, in the barracks. The whole question is whether this lower class needed to be pulled.

    Some kind of garbage. All this is more by the present time, although teachers and workers should be deleted.
  • nikvic46
    nikvic46 24 July 2020 19: 19 New
    -1
    There were supporters of Yeltsin and there were real Soviet generals. Why did they not oppose Yeltsin? Such people have a slightly different vision of the world than ours; most likely they feared the outbreak of a civil war.
  • Gado
    Gado 24 July 2020 19: 25 New
    -1
    Again, if only, if only.
    The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Department of Internal Affairs is already history, although, having lived to see the consequences of this collapse, we, who are contemporaries of these events, understood late how we were slandered and robbed.
    And yet, let's live in the modern day. If we could not build and maintain socialism, maybe we will make capitalism better ... I don't even know what to think, looking at the power of the oligarchs and LGBT parades.
    1. Campanella
      Campanella 24 July 2020 20: 46 New
      +2
      Only if we make socialism out of capitalism.
      1. vahpus
        vahpus 24 July 2020 20: 57 New
        -1
        Quote: Campanella
        if we make socialism out of capitalism.

        I don’t think that it is possible to turn a capitalist country into a socialist country.
        1. Campanella
          Campanella 24 July 2020 22: 39 New
          +1
          Here, as in that joke, so that socialism does not come out))).
          Through some revolutionary and non-revolutionary transformations it is quite possible. Have you made capitalism out of socialism with the sauce of improving your life?
          1. vahpus
            vahpus 24 July 2020 22: 42 New
            -1
            Quote: Campanella
            Have you made capitalism out of socialism with the sauce of improving your life?

            Capitalism cannot be made out of socialism at once. Since these are not adjacent CEFs.
            The reverse transformation is also not immediately possible.
            1. Campanella
              Campanella 25 July 2020 01: 17 New
              +2
              This is if you think in the old categories. Nowadays socialism is a fair redistribution of resources through the state, that is, the rich can be harnessed to the solution of social problems, linking the growth of their personal wealth with the public.
              1. vahpus
                vahpus 25 July 2020 08: 38 New
                -1
                Quote: Campanella
                Nowadays socialism

                In this case, it is necessary to clarify and separate "socialism" in the classical sense of this term from "Soviet socialism". Which was not really any socialism.
                Quote: Campanella
                that is, the rich can be harnessed to solving social problems

                You can TRY to harness.
                But it will hardly work.
                Rather, you will have to lose them.
                It is possible not to lose them and their capital, but this will take a long and tedious, decades, to develop society in the country. And only after all this, and after the transition to capitalism, the rich and their capital will not be lost. There are no other options, violence cannot help the cause.
                1. Campanella
                  Campanella 25 July 2020 11: 25 New
                  +2
                  Socialism is primarily a welfare state in the interests of the majority. So I think he was, not classical-theoretical, but practical-mental.
                  The rich, yes, will have to be lost in the name of harmonizing society.
                  To equalize everyone and everything, of course, will not work, but the main thing is this feeling from life, and it is, as you know, relatively.
                  Therefore, a slight differentiation of society is inevitable. Again, the international factor must be taken into account. In short, everything is complicated, but it is quite obvious that a successful social project is the way for the further development of civilization.
                  1. vahpus
                    vahpus 25 July 2020 11: 44 New
                    0
                    Quote: Campanella
                    Socialism is primarily a welfare state in the interests of the majority. So I think he was, not classical-theoretical, but practical-mental.

                    No, the society of hicks is not called socialism. This is "Soviet socialism". When everyone is equally poor.
                    And real socialism, when there are no poor at all. But they are not very rich either.
                    This phase of the development of society (very high) is appropriate to talk about in a developed capitalist country. And in an undeveloped capitalist country or not at all in a capitalist country, it is inappropriate.
                    Quote: Campanella
                    The rich, yes, will have to be lost in the name of harmonizing society.

                    Once already "harmonized". Would you like to step on the mop a second time? Did you miss the Soviet poverty?
                    Socialism is impossible by order and in underdeveloped societies. It is possible, but only in highly developed societies. Those who have grown up to him with brains.
                    And "Soviet socialism" is not at all what one should strive for. Hungry in it. And cold. And disgusting from a moral point of view.
                    Quote: Campanella
                    but the main thing is this feeling from life, and it is, as we know, relative.

                    Personally, when I remember socialism, nothing but an abomination is recalled. It was a terrible time. Time for goons.
                    Quote: Campanella
                    But it is quite obvious that a successful social project is the way for the further development of civilization.

                    If you live somewhere in Sweden or Switzerland, then please dream about socialism as much as you like.
                    But in the underdeveloped countries you will get nothing but "Soviet socialism". And this is a sea of ​​blood during its "construction". And then hopeless poverty with no prospects for the future. Rednecks are happy about this poverty, because it is approximately the same for everyone. But that's why they are goons, they agree to lose their eyes, if only the neighbor lost both.
                    It was quite recently. Does history really teach you nothing?
                    1. Campanella
                      Campanella 25 July 2020 17: 22 New
                      +1
                      I disagree with you about Soviet socialism.
                      He lived in it for half of his life.
                      I was comfortable in it, not hungry and not disgusting. Maybe you're out of luck. There were enough problems, but without them it would not happen.
                      As for developed capitalism, it sucks of a much worse quality.
                      And it’s silly to compare the standard of living of a country that had to fight for its independence with the capitalist kagal.
                      1. vahpus
                        vahpus 25 July 2020 17: 48 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Campanella
                        I was comfortable in it, not hungry and not disgusting.

                        It's not the same for everybody. It depends on the person.
                        Quote: Campanella
                        As for developed capitalism, it sucks of a much worse quality.

                        Where did you manage to become so closely acquainted with developed capitalism?
                        Quote: Campanella
                        it is foolish to compare the standard of living of a country that had to fight for its independence with the capitalist kagal.

                        In fact, the USSR has never interested anyone in the world. And he did not "fight for his independence" with anyone. Unless he himself attacked his neighbors.
                        There was only one attack on the USSR in its entire history, 22.06.1941/1940/XNUMX. And even then, it is unclear whether it would have happened or not, if in November XNUMX Molotov in Berlin had not run over Hitler after Germany had lost. " Battle of Britain ". And Hitler was in a difficult position. Maybe it would have cost if the Bolsheviks sat on the priests exactly and in the European showdown, which certainly did not concern them, did not interfere.
                      2. Campanella
                        Campanella 25 July 2020 23: 16 New
                        +2
                        Of course, the young Soviet republic was of no interest to anyone and no one in this world threatened her. Only now history speaks of something else. The Entente, Hitler with all of civilized Europe and America until a certain time, then the Cold War launched by the same West at the suggestion of Churchill, the American plan for the destruction of the USSR ... do you know history well enough to repeat Western propaganda?
                      3. vahpus
                        vahpus 25 July 2020 23: 56 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Campanella
                        Of course, the young Soviet republic was of no interest to anyone and no one in this world threatened her.

                        Absolutely.
                        However, you got excited about the republic. The USSR has never been republican.
                        Quote: Campanella
                        Only now history speaks of something else. Entente

                        In fact, the Entente troops were on the territory of the former Republic of Ingushetia in agreement with its legitimate government. It was the Bolsheviks who were illegal usurpers-putschists.
                        Quote: Campanella
                        Hitler with all of civilized Europe and America until a certain time

                        France and Britain declared war on Hitler in early September 1939.
                        The United States entered WW2 against Germany in an initially hybrid manner in March 1941.
                        Do you know at least a little history?
                        Or only within the "Short Course in the History of the CPSU (b)"?
                        Quote: Campanella
                        then the Cold War launched by the same West at the suggestion of Churchill

                        In fact, XB was launched by the USSR. And it all began with the blockade of West Berlin.
                        Quote: Campanella
                        American plan to destroy the USSR

                        Designed by you?
                        How do you know about such US plans? They were, if they were, top secret.
                        Are you Stirlitz?
                        In general, the USSR considered itself the navel of the earth in vain. He had little interest in the world at all. Obscurantists are raging there at the end of the earth, and let them rage. If only normal people are not disturbed.
                        Quote: Campanella
                        do you know the story well

                        I know her. You are not. Since you just told me a stupid set of quotes from the Handbook of the agitator of the district committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
                        And this is a big difference between us.
                      4. Campanella
                        Campanella 27 July 2020 00: 09 New
                        +1
                        How interesting you are, Russia is to blame for everything!
                        Did Napoleon come to visit us? And the Teutonic Order, Poles, Swedes, according to you, also came to be friends with us?
                        You don't know history at all, as well as life.
                        You can google about the American plan. It is very strange that with your knowledge of history you have missed this fact. It was called in my opinion Dropshot
                        Your faith in the demons of the Soviet regime and the innocence of the West is simply
                        striking. Only after the Second World War 30 million people died in wars with the participation of the United States.
  • place
    place 24 July 2020 19: 31 New
    +4
    The reason is the absence of a ruling class... Engels wrote about this and Lenin referred to him in his work "State and Revolution". Thought comes down to the fact that if one ruling class is driven out, and the other has not yet been formed, the state apparatus will FOR TIME become the main force of society.

    Until a new ruling class matures in society and takes power. And then the state will again turn into a classic instrument in the hands of the ruling class.

    In the conditions of Russia, in the absence of a mass labor movement, this new ruling class has become adventurers and simply bandits. And the state became his instrument, in full accordance with the theory.
  • seacap
    seacap 24 July 2020 19: 42 New
    +4
    Quote: mark2
    And where are these former colonels of the super powerful army of the USSR, tearing at their tunic and beating themselves in a shit?

    Most of them are in damp ground under modest obelisks where national conflicts were "extinguished" throughout the territory of the former USSR, and the capital was not spared the "shooting" of the 90s, like the same Rokhlin, colonels, like soldiers, sergeants, warrant officers and officers fulfilled their duty and oath to the end, despite the rabid state policy to discredit and destroy the army and navy.
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 24 July 2020 19: 53 New
    +2
    people with shoulder straps and the rest of the privates and sergeants took the oath (the stars came to my father-in-law, swear the oath of russia, all the officers said the oath is given only once (in fact, it is supposedly similar to the officers of the ria, but no people you are always going to live on crumbs from the master's table
  • akulych
    akulych 24 July 2020 20: 02 New
    +3
    Quote: Svarog
    Generals in those days themselves began to engage in "business", everyone in whatever way .. and with the help of their subordinates they built themselves cottages .. Mentally, the country began to fall apart and the 90s are a consequence. It all started with Khrushchev and slowly rotted.
    Even Zhukov sided with Khrushch ... but he could have saved Beria, and then perhaps to this day we would have lived in the USSR, or in general the whole world would have already been the USSR. Beria was a talented organizer and a responsible performer ..

    Why would Zhukov save a man who was going to jail Zhukov for fraud with trophies ??? Zhukov, on the contrary, gave troops to counter the NKVD.
  • akulych
    akulych 24 July 2020 20: 04 New
    +4
    Quote: tihonmarine
    I also agree with this idea. And I don’t understand why Zhukov supported Khrushchev.

    I didn’t want to sit for fraud with trophy property. The count went on for days, Zhukov there heaped up so much that the tower could shine for him.
    1. place
      place 29 July 2020 15: 38 New
      0
      Quote: akulych
      I didn’t want to sit for fraud with trophy property.

      --------------------------------

      Most likely this is the main motive for the coup d'état committed by Khrushchev and his military group.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • akulych
    akulych 24 July 2020 20: 16 New
    -1
    Quote: Arzt
    I heard about those two, but who is this?

    Writer. Like science fiction. Another deputy of Strelkov-Girkin in Slavyansk and one of the probable perpetrators of the downed Boeing. In his first specialty - the battalion commander of the air defense missile system.
  • akulych
    akulych 24 July 2020 20: 18 New
    0
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    Well, the lower class, yes, in the barracks. The whole question is whether this lower class needed to be pulled.

    Are we definitely talking about socialism and communism? They, like BE, do not provide for the division into higher and lower layers.
    1. vahpus
      vahpus 24 July 2020 20: 24 New
      -2
      Quote: akulych
      socialism and communism? They, like BE, do not provide for the division into higher and lower layers.

      Still as stipulated.
      The less developed a society (and society in the USSR was only slightly more developed than the cave society), the more rigidly it is structured.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • akulych
    akulych 24 July 2020 20: 25 New
    +2
    Quote: vahpus
    Quote: akulych
    socialism and communism? They, like BE, do not provide for the division into higher and lower layers.

    Still as stipulated.

    Oh, how ... I did not study well.
  • Campanella
    Campanella 24 July 2020 20: 42 New
    +2
    Everything is simple, the question is ideological confusion. During the years of perestroika-trembling, so much has been ground down, thanks to the traitorous scoundrel A.N. Yakovlev, that the people have long lost the direction of movement in this cacophony of democrats and liberals of all stripes. The history of Russia was mutilated and turned into an ideological weapon, presenting it in the right form and manipulating it.
  • samarin1969
    samarin1969 24 July 2020 20: 51 New
    +9
    Secondly, the Soviet military was a perfectly working mechanism with excellent discipline,


    I do not consider myself possessing all the information. But the author's thought is very controversial. How DMB-89 I had a chance to look at the SA from the inside. My classmates shared similar thoughts. The Soviet Army at the end of the 80s looked little like a decisive fighting force. I served in one of the largest units. It seems like a mountain of new tanks and people. But! Combat and political training is symbolic. In the barracks - a kid "international" of privates. In DOS - the bourgeois command staff with an economic and alcohol component. Only "Afghans" and those transferred from the GSVG were allocated. In 1988, there were national conflicts and racket with machine guns was playing. Friends from Moldova, the Caucasus, Central Asia shared information from letters about the rapid growth of nationalism. There was a significant case at the headquarters. The zampolit of the regiment, in the presence of senior officers, asked the Armenian sergeant to speak out for friendship with Azerbaijanis (against the background of the events of Karabakh). The answer was clear, loud: all Azerbaijanis need to be p .... (dangerous words). And the sergeant had nothing for these frank words!
    The army has also rapidly degraded.

    Sure. If an authoritative decisive military man seized power, then part of the territory of the Union would be preserved. But that would be a different country. For some reason, many see the collapse of socialism in 1991. The collapse of the USSR took place - like an uprising of national entities. And most of the "titular" peoples of the "SSR" supported the disintegration. The army included not only the Achalovs and Makashevs, but also such as Dudayev and the future backbone of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. But the Soviet Mustafa Kemal was not in the USSR. That's why the Soviet Union collapsed.
  • Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown 24 July 2020 20: 53 New
    +3
    Quote: Arzt
    Even Zhukov sided with Khrushch ... but he could have saved Beria

    I represent this over there. laughing
    A mixture of a bulldog with a rhino.

    Anyway, this "mixture" is better than Gorbachev and Company bully
    If you, for example, do not know - it was under the leadership of Beria, the USSR received a "yadren loaf" good
  • Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown 24 July 2020 21: 01 New
    +2
    Quote: Aviator_
    Well, this characterizes only Gromyko himself, but not Stalin.

    Basically, what is the difference between a spy and a spy? wink
    The scout works for us, and the spy against us hi
    But the functions are the same drinks
  • demo
    demo 24 July 2020 21: 03 New
    +4
    MILITARY Oath
    the USSR



    I, a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, joining the Armed Forces, take the oath and solemnly swear to be honest, brave, disciplined, watchful soldier, strictly keep military and state secrets, unconditionally fulfill all military regulations and orders of commanders and commanders.

    I swear to conscientiously study military affairs, to protect military and national property in every possible way and to be loyal to my People, my Soviet Homeland and the Soviet Government until the last breath.

    I am always ready, by order of the Soviet Government, to defend my Motherland — the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, as a soldier of the Armed Forces, I swear to defend it courageously, skillfully, with dignity and honor, without sparing my blood and life itself to achieve complete victory over the enemies .

    If I violate my solemn oath, then let me suffer the harsh punishment of Soviet law, the general hatred and contempt of the working people.

    The strength and weakness of the army lies in the fact that nothing can be done without an order.
    And it's all.
  • Poetry
    Poetry 24 July 2020 21: 07 New
    +2
    Yes. In 1989 I returned home, to another country. Cooperators, bandos. KAMAZ s are burning, stalls are burning. TT is working. AKS-74 is in operation. Figase! ..
  • Red Alert
    Red Alert 24 July 2020 21: 18 New
    +1
    Quote: Arzt
    Well, this characterizes only Gromyko himself, but not Stalin.

    What is the characteristic, is that Gromyko is honest, or Stalin is a joker? laughing

    Gromyko anti-Soviet, traitor to the cause of communism
  • saygon66
    saygon66 24 July 2020 21: 20 New
    +2
    - The point here is in the particular education of the individual in the state ...
    - Orders, as you know, are not discussed ... and if they are, then only in terms of their best execution.
    - The initiative is encouraged, again, within the framework of guidelines - and they just never came!
    - Preferring to see citizens as cogs of the System, the state suppresses or severely restricts citizens' initiative. On the one hand, it is easier to manage obedient and agreeable people, but on the other hand, in case of control failures, one does not have to count on at least some kind of support from the masses ...
    - Here's how not to remember Minin and Pozharsky - they did save Russia, as a personal initiative!
    - Somewhere there must be a golden mean between complete freedom and complete suppression of the individual ...
  • Vestnik
    Vestnik 24 July 2020 21: 34 New
    +1
    Why the Soviet Army did not stop the collapse of the country in 1991

    Because in the 91st there was no longer the Soviet Army ..
    It all started under the Gorbachev, HARMING, HUMILIATION AND DISTRIBUTION in the media "not ours" ..
    Bullying bullying bullying .. It got to the point that officers and demobilization in civilian life went outside the territory of the unit ..
    The flight from Germany is terrible for the most elite units, then Afghan, but there is more organized .... And then it began! They threw youngsters into conflicts on purpose so that there would be losses, etc. Well, who knows, he will understand .. My heart stabbed, as I begin to remember.

    Oh, guys, how many politicians have put you ... We will avenge you and will not repeat this, no matter how we are pushed by these rabid throats from all sides soldier
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 24 July 2020 21: 36 New
    +3
    how easy it is to take the question away from the comet topic 90% is not about where the 1000000 officers were when the country was sold for 2 kopecks they would take money as a pinochet but the country would be defended
    1. lubesky
      lubesky 25 July 2020 03: 23 New
      0
      How is it where? Many of them participated in the sale, many went through a good school of speculation in Afghanistan
  • Radikal
    Radikal 24 July 2020 22: 19 New
    +3
    Quote: Aviator_
    Well, this characterizes only Gromyko himself, but not Stalin.

    By the way, he was one of those who said the final word for the choice of Gorbachev for the post of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, which he later regretted. sad
    1. Vestnik
      Vestnik 24 July 2020 22: 50 New
      -1
      Quote: Radikal
      Quote: Aviator_
      Well, this characterizes only Gromyko himself, but not Stalin.

      By the way, he was one of those who said the final word for the choice of Gorbachev for the post of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, which he later regretted. sad

      I didn’t know and it’s very hard to believe. Vedt Gromyko was in the west "Mr. NO" ..
      And Gorbach bastard podmahival all, and then EBN generally Judas two
  • Rastas
    Rastas 24 July 2020 23: 47 New
    +2
    The army in the USSR did not play an independent political role, but was only an instrument in the hands of politicians. Therefore, during the collapse of the country and did not speak. This is not Latin America.
  • lubesky
    lubesky 25 July 2020 03: 22 New
    +3
    At the very beginning of the article and in the title itself, there was a mistake - the Soviet army was not given the task of countering the struggle against internal affairs. The country's armed forces are a reflection of its civil society; the army must protect against external threats, not internal ones (for example, Chechnya). So thank God that the marshals did not intervene in the conflict, otherwise they would have received a bloody massacre throughout the Union and a civil war. A completely different question is that for such a betrayal of the achievements of the party and the people, the country fed the mighty KGB and other special services, it was they who broke the oath and they must be put to the wall. But the Soviet soldier did not break his oath!