Why hate Stalin

193
Why hate Stalin
Portrait of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin in the Kremlin. 1941 Written by American photographer Margaret Bourke-White


people's leader


Joseph Stalin accepted a completely dead, burnt-out country that survived a civilizational, design and state catastrophe in 1917-1920. He was able to create a new development project, a new Soviet civilization and a new great power. An alternative to the capitalist, parasitic system has been created in Russia. Russian socialism based on justice. A society of knowledge, service and creation is being created - a society of the future.



Stalin rebuilt the national economy, created new, advanced industries, modernized and re-equipped the Armed Forces (army and navy). He brought up a new generation of Soviet people, selflessly devoted to the Motherland and socialism, the Great Cause. In essence, a cultural revolution has taken place. Education and health care have become advanced, accessible to the common people.

During the Great Patriotic War, Stalin assumed full responsibility for the fate of the country. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief prepared the country and the people for a big war and repulsed another "crusade" of the West against the Russian world. Under his leadership, Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan were defeated. The great leader took revenge for the defeat of the Russian Empire in the wars with Japan and Germany. returned our historical lands - the Baltic States, Bessarabia, Western Belarus and Western Little Russia. Eastern and Southeastern Europe, East Germany are becoming our sphere of influence, creating a security zone on the path of our Western "partners". In the Far East, our strategic positions were restored, including Sakhalin, the Kuriles and Port Arthur. A socialist camp is being created. The vast Chinese civilization is becoming our little brother. The Chinese respected the genius of the Soviet leader.

As a result of the war, we have become a world superpower, having the best army in the world, an advanced military-industrial complex, science, technology and education, and a powerful industry. A stable bipolar world has been created - the Yalta-Potsdam system. Without the opinion and consent of Russia, not a single serious problem in the world was solved.

Stalin did not flinch in the face of the atomic threat from the Anglo-Saxons. The Soviet Union quickly became a nuclear power itself, eliminating the threat of a direct attack by the collective West. After the end of World War II, the United States and its allies began the so-called against Russia. Cold War (in essence, World War III). The Soviet leader repelled all informational, political, economic attacks on the USSR.

Almost all the great people, Stalin's contemporaries understood his role in the history of Russia and the world. So, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy I noted:

“The great leader of our people, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, is gone. The great force, the social force, has been abolished, in which our people felt their own strength, by which they were guided in their creative labors and enterprises, by which they consoled themselves for many years. There is no area where the deep gaze of the great leader would not penetrate ... As a man of genius, in every case he discovered what was invisible and inaccessible to the ordinary mind.

Black myth


The first, and an ardent anti-Stalinist, was one of Stalin's associates, Khrushchev. Obviously, he promoted anti-Russian forces interested in the elimination of the Stalinist project, the Soviet (Russian) civilization. Under the guise of a village jester, a Trotskyist, a supporter of "perestroika", was hiding. With great speed, a “fifth column” was formed in the USSR, which began to “rebuild”, “reform” everything.

A lot of new historians, publicists, philosophers and other “researchers” appeared who began to diligently prove that the era of Stalin was an era of darkness, horror and blood, when the whole country was turned into a camp barracks, where people were only tortured, starved starved and shot. Stalin was accused of sadism, tyranny, immorality, lack of state thinking, and the murder of his wife. Accused of mass terror, genocide of entire nations. That he armed fascist Germany, occupied the Baltic states, destroyed Poland (causing a world war), provoked Hitler to war, etc.

After Khrushchev was removed from the helm of the USSR, the more prudent leaders of the Union curtailed criticism of Stalin. But they did not dare to return the country and society to the Stalinist course, which became the foundation of the 1991 disaster. Gorbachev returned to the treacherous policy of Khrushchev, staged "perestroika-2". After the collapse of the USSR, Westerners and liberals still slandered the great leader, but the people as a whole retained a positive attitude towards him. It only grew stronger over the years, as people became disillusioned with the “market”, which turned Russia into the cultural and economic periphery of the West.

Why do all kinds of liberals, democrats, cosmopolitan Westerners, thieves-plutocrats, new Bandera and Vlasovites, Basmachi-jihadists and Baltic Nazis hate Stalin in the West and in our country? The answer is simple. He was for Russia and the people. He did not make any wealth and did not give other leaders. His treasure was the Soviet civilization - tens of thousands of factories, schools, institutes and design bureaus, a mighty army and navy, a strong Soviet ruble. The Soviet people had faith in the future, in justice, in their own tomorrow. Stalin gave these treasures to the people.

Stalin created the society of the future, the society of knowledge and creation. At the center of this society was not a consumer, a slave of the capitalist system, but a person - a creator-creator. It was an alternative to the Western slave-owning, parasitic order. Society of the future, beautiful far away.

After the country recovered from a terrible war, Stalin planned further fundamental changes. Society was reaching a new level of knowledge. The party was supposed to lose political power, becoming an ideological "order" that educates the people. Real power would pass to the people - the Soviets. That would be true democracy. However, the nomenklatura was not ready to give up power, the process of rebirth had already begun. The eternal desire for power, wealth and their inheritance. Therefore, Stalin was eliminated, and they tried to bury his project with the hands of Khrushchev, Gorbachev and their followers. But the project of the leader is alive, it is kept by the people. This is the code-matrix of the Russian super-ethnos - truth, justice, ethics of conscience.
Our news channels

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

193 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    6 March 2023 04: 35
    The best pro-Stalinist, patriotic work, alternative, unfortunately, is the cycle "Sea Wolf" by Vlad Savin.
    1. +46
      6 March 2023 04: 49
      Stalin created the society of the future, the society of knowledge and creation.

      And what now: a society without a future, one past, a society of ignoramuses, and destruction ....
      That's why they hate I.V. Stalin!
      1. +27
        6 March 2023 15: 00
        Why hate Stalin

        They don't hate him...they don't even hate him fear
        1. +15
          7 March 2023 09: 29
          Quote: Civil
          They don't hate him... they're even afraid of him

          They hate and fear because there is nothing to oppose. With all the excesses and shortcomings of Stalin, the country went forward, and with all the advantages of the current, we are rolling into the abyss.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. 0
            7 March 2023 16: 07
            Quote: insafufa
            In this state, there are those who suffered for their beliefs under Stalin, whose relatives were in camps under Stalin.

            I had two grandfathers and an uncle, my wife's grandmother, in Stalin's camps. Ordinary people . were declared kulaks. for diligence. Uncle and both grandfathers fought. Awarded .
            1. 0
              15 March 2023 08: 03
              My grandmother was dispossessed of kulaks, they began to live anew in a dugout in a bare field.
            2. +2
              April 6 2023 16: 51
              my grandfather was sitting. It was for what. He said that there were no innocents sitting with him ... I don’t deny that there were innocents, but a clear minority, and not just what they sang to us from all irons
          2. +11
            7 March 2023 19: 50
            Come on, I’ll tell you straight out - speak out (this word was replaced by a local "cultural" bot), comrade ... Tell tales from hardworking and unfortunate kulaks. We have known the statistics for a long time, and the fact that those who were "turned heads" were members of gangs... Yes, and their descendants - like you - we personally know, here is an example - EBN - the grandson and son of kulaks - what he did to our country - you, scum, spreading lies, about the Great Leader - do you know?
            1. 0
              15 March 2023 08: 04
              In my opinion, you are a narrow-minded and primitive person, yearning for the whip of the owner. I also found an idol. At the moment it is part of our history.
              1. 0
                April 16 2023 07: 46
                And how without the Owner? And how without the Owner?
          3. +6
            7 March 2023 21: 51
            My great-grandfather was first dispossessed, he had 12 children, then under Beria they massacred a 60-year-old old man

            Those. children were born at the beginning of the 20th century ... And when they were dispossessed, they should already have been adults. And who should be blamed for the starvation of children? royal regime?

            There they quickly remembered his studies in the Orenburg Cadet Corps and the fact that he was the strongest business executive in the district. At the same time, the communists forgot that the school in which they taught their children was built by his father.

            His father was a carpenter or a bricklayer, didn't he build schools? And how could a son study at a cadet school?
            1. 0
              8 March 2023 20: 32
              The son of a peasant could well study in the Orenburg Cadet Corps ... There were not such harsh admission conditions for children of non-noble origin, as in the Omsk Corps ...
          4. +8
            8 March 2023 15: 04
            Quote: insafufa
            For three days they tortured the old man and beat him so that he would sign a sincere confession of anti-Soviet activities, the last teeth were whitened, his hands were broken.

            it is unlikely that great-grandfather would be proud of the illiteracy of his descendant
          5. +2
            8 March 2023 19: 16

            insafufa (Insaf)

            Your work brings IT closer) is it really scary?)))
          6. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        9 May 2023 18: 06
        There is no future for those who live in the past. And normal people have both the present and the future. Well, the Stalinist gopota can only whine and moan for the ghoul and ghoul Dzhugashvili.
    2. +24
      6 March 2023 06: 08
      Hated by those who are insignificant, who by chance became the head of the State. I think Stalin's biggest mistake was that he did not underestimate the meanness of a native of Ukraine, a court jester with the mentality of an illiterate eccentric peasant, and that he did not see Beria. When we achieve what Stalin did, then maybe we will understand the full magnitude of his personality in history. Today we are part of the country that Stalin built. Personally, I don’t understand why the current leadership of the country did not bashfully come to honor his memory on this day, not for the sake of love, but for the sake of paying tribute to justice, because their descendants will once be judged by their deeds.
      1. +22
        6 March 2023 09: 55
        They didn’t honor the memory, because the current leadership has a rating like Stalin’s shoe laces. It's like a pug barking at an elephant.
      2. +1
        6 March 2023 10: 29
        Yes, calm down already, Khrushchev is Russian by nationality and comes from the Kursk region. A native of the Ukrainian SSR Brezhnev.
        1. 0
          6 March 2023 22: 28
          The Brezhnev family also has roots in the territory of the modern Kursk region.
        2. +5
          7 March 2023 10: 29
          Khrushchev is Russian by nationality
          - but the mentality hoh ..., sorry, Ukrainian
        3. +1
          11 March 2023 12: 00
          Nikitkina nationality- vyrus. Without any war devastated the center of Russia.
        4. +4
          April 10 2023 20: 58
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          Yes, calm down already, Khrushchev is Russian by nationality and comes from the Kursk region. A native of the Ukrainian SSR Brezhnev.

          A Russian would never wear an embroidered shirt! This is their ritual dress. A Russian would never give them Crimea. And a Russian would never marry a Banderovka.
      3. +28
        6 March 2023 11: 30
        Quote from Silver99
        he did not see Beria.

        He "saw" him and gave him the opportunity to work for the good of the people.
        "Achievements of Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria. Not all of them are known. Briefly about the main ones:

        1. L.P. Beria stopped guerrilla wars against the USSR in the Caucasus. (In the 20s).
        2. He made the Caucasus a breadbasket, a health resort and an industrialized region.
        3. Established oil production for the country.
        4. Destroyed the fifth column in the NKVD and diplomacy.
        5. Stopped Yezhov's repressions. Conducted rehabilitation of the military and technicians.
        6. Created archives, each document was saved.
        7. Developed the most efficient labor system: Method of improving labor efficiency - MPE.
        The collective of the artel (collective farm, brigade, design bureau, or others) received an order from the state. structures, for a specific cost. Earnings were distributed equally among the participants, or with a coefficient of participation - all issues were decided by the team, and not by the director or "owner".
        8. Introduced a new advanced communication in the army and government. (Before the war).
        9. Started building factories in the Urals. He prepared sites for factories in the Urals, bringing electricity to them. (Before the war).
        10. Oversaw the extraction of gold, minerals, the construction of strategic factories, for example, for the production of rubber.
        11. He excellently established foreign reconnaissance, organizing overflights over the border strip in June 1941.
        12. He led the border guards, who, almost all of them died, detained the Nazis in the first days of the war. The defenders of the Brest Fortress are also border guards subordinate to Beria.
        13. Organized the operational transportation of factories to the Urals, in a war.
        14. Organized the formation and transfer of troops near Smolensk. Forcing Hitler to withdraw troops from other directions, including from Leningrad.
        15. Created the first sniper business. (Before the war). He sent his snipers from the NKVD to the army and, having shown their effectiveness in battle, managed to prove to the generals the effectiveness of snipers in the army.
        16. Led the defense of the Caucasus. Stopped and pushed back the Germans. At a time when Stalin was engaged in Stalingrad.
        17. Supervised the supply of the army and work in the rear.
        18. He brought to naught all Nazi sabotage work in the rear of the USSR.
        19. Supervised sabotage work in the rear of the Germans.
        20. Created our nuclear shield.
        21. Created rocket science.
        22. Laid the foundations of the space industry.
        23. Laid the foundations for the development of the peaceful atom.
        24. Shaped the appearance of the famous Moscow skyscrapers.
        25. Laid the foundation for Stalinist architecture. (Stalin's houses). Not only external, but also internal, houses with spacious rooms, high ceilings, wide windows - apartments in which it is comfortable and convenient to live.
        26. Prepared, and was one step away from the start of the grandiose construction of a new generation of Stalinist housing, throughout the USSR.
        27. With great enthusiasm, he took on the Stalin task, and made it his goal: to reduce the working day to 20 hours in 5 years, while organizing the availability of advanced polytechnic education and labor qualifications.

        28. Investigated and found the killers of Stalin. And he was killed..." https://golova2uha.livejournal.com/2089707.html

        L.P. Beria is one of two in history (with Kurchatov) HONORARY CITIZEN OF THE USSR.
        1. +7
          7 March 2023 21: 41
          L.P. Beria is one of two in history (with Kurchatov) HONORARY CITIZEN OF THE USSR.

          And, perhaps, one of the most slandered people from that "Stalinist" cohort of leaders.
          Yes, and the beginning of this lie was laid by the "maize" Khrushchev at the XNUMXth Congress. because he was terribly afraid of this man.
          And Stalin ... In 1965, my father, a front-line soldier, born 22, who met the “nemchura” in Belarus, while serving urgently, met at our house with his guys from that call, those who survived. 20 years of Victory...
          They drank, smoked, remembered - and sang ... "Let's drink for the Motherland, let's drink for Stalin! Let's drink - and pour again ...!
          Even though I was a kid then, I still remember the words to this song.
          Does anyone remember the portraits of Stalin under the windows of cars?
          And further. Maybe off topic, but...

          And another reminder of his prophecy

          1. -2
            8 March 2023 15: 18
            Quote: Dingo
            Yes, and the beginning of this lie was laid by the "maize" Khrushchev at the XNUMXth Congress. because he was terribly afraid of this man.

            And what was he afraid of the dead? I am now more and more interested in the question: what did Khrushchev do that made him to blame for the current situation in Russia? Is it really only the 20th congress? It is curious that the achievements of the period of his reign are considered not thanks to him, but almost in spite of him. In general, these are the achievements of Stalin, which Khrushchev did not have time to destroy?! Khrushchev became the most slandered politician on a par with Stalin (whom he certainly tried to denigrate) and Beria, whose merits, of course, were, as well as black deeds. Is it really only thanks to Samsonov that Khrushchev became the culprit of all the troubles?! Someone is pushing this version?! The patriot Khrushchev, who did a lot for the USSR (along with stupid things), is equated with the traitor Yeltsin. Who needs it?
        2. 0
          April 16 2023 07: 47
          There are no objections from the word at all !!!!!!!
      4. +12
        6 March 2023 13: 49
        I don't understand why they didn't come!? Because Stalin fought with people like them - he fought with the oligarchs and their political puppets, he fought with hucksters and speculators, in the country he built they had no place !!! And modern politicians, flesh and blood representatives of the interests of capitalism, and you want them to bring flowers to someone who destroyed people like them?
      5. +4
        7 March 2023 05: 57
        Khrushcha, in my opinion, did not underestimate Beria.
      6. +4
        7 March 2023 12: 21
        Stalin's biggest mistake is that he did not prepare a successor for himself, unfortunately (I don't presume to judge why). And this eventually led to the catastrophe of everything that he managed to create in his life. It is a shame and a pity to look at the modern rulers of our country (they are not ashamed). Sadness...
    3. +8
      6 March 2023 06: 51
      Quote: andrewkor
      The best pro-Stalinist, patriotic work, alternative, unfortunately, is the cycle "Sea Wolf" by Vlad Savin.

      Konyushevsky cycle "Attempt to return" is also suitable. But since such works appear, then HE is really needed.
      1. +1
        6 March 2023 20: 12
        Quote: Egoza
        Konyushevsky cycle "Attempt to return" is also suitable.
        I highly recommend The Swiss by Zlotnikov. The beginning is somewhat burdensome, but the cycle itself is fire, plus it is extremely historical, touches on topics that are not raised in other populist novels.
    4. +3
      7 March 2023 21: 15
      "As you know," Stalin raised a toast on May 24 to the Great Russian people in commemoration of the victory over the plague of the West - fascism. It is less known that he addressed the theme of the greatness of the Russian people before. At least since 1917.
      What I found in a collection of Stalin's works (not all volumes were available, unfortunately) and in other sources.

      "On the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies"
      In order to smash the old regime, a temporary alliance of the insurgent workers and soldiers was enough. For it goes without saying that the strength of the Russian revolution lies in the alliance of workers and peasants dressed in soldier's overcoats.<…>
      For it is clear to all that the guarantee of the final victory of the Russian revolution lies in the strengthening of the alliance between the revolutionary worker and the revolutionary soldier. <…>
      Soldiers! Organize your unions and gather around the Russian people, the only true ally of the Russian revolutionary army! <…>
      “Truth” No. 8,
      14 March 1917 city
      Signature: K. Stalin
      ***
      Back in March 1917, a few months before the October Revolution, Stalin wrote in one of his articles that the great Russian people are the most faithful and best ally of the progressive revolutionary forces, and only the Russian people can finally solve the question of Marxism. About the victory of Marxism.
      Source
      ***
      In 1933, at a meeting with participants in the May Day military parade, he said:
      “Russians are the main nationality of the world, they were the first to raise the flag of the Soviets ... The Russian nation is the most talented nation in the world. Russians used to be beaten by everyone - the Turks and even the Tatars, who attacked for 200 years, and they did not manage to take possession of the Russians, although they were poorly armed. If the Russians are armed with tanks, aircraft, navy, they are invincible.”
      Source
      ***
      1939 November From a conversation with Kollontai:
      Basically, the conversation was about the situation with Finland. Stalin advised to intensify the work of the Soviet embassy in studying the situation in the Scandinavian countries in connection with the penetration of Germany into these countries in order to attract the governments of Norway and Sweden and influence Finland in order to prevent a conflict. And, as if concluding, he said that
      “if it is not possible to prevent it, then it will be short-lived and cost little blood. The time for "persuasions" and "negotiations" is over. We must practically prepare for a rebuff, for a war with Hitler.
      <...>
      “All this will fall on the shoulders of the Russian people. For the Russian people are a great people. The Russian people are good people. The Russian people have a clear mind. He was born to help other nations. Great courage is inherent in the Russian people, especially in difficult times, in dangerous times. He is initiative. He has a persistent character. He is a dreamy people. He has a goal. Therefore, it is harder for him than other nations. You can rely on him for any trouble. The Russian people are irresistible, inexhaustible. ”

      Stalin I.V. Compositions. - T. 18. - Tver: Information-
      Soyuz Publishing Center, 2006. S. 606–611 (appendix).
      Source
      ***
      And, on May 24, 1945, at a reception in the Kremlin on the occasion of the Great Victory. Stalin made the famous toast "For the health of the Russian people!"

      “Comrades, let me raise another, last toast.
      As a representative of our Soviet Government, I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, above all, the Russian people.
      I drink, above all, for the health of the Russian people because it is the most prominent nation of all the nations that make up the Soviet Union.
      I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people because they have earned in this war and earlier earned the title, if you like, of the leading force of our Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country.
      I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people, not only because they are the leading people, but also because they have common sense, general political common sense and patience.
      Our government had many mistakes, we had moments of desperate situation in 1941 - 42, when our army retreated, left our native villages and cities of Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, the Leningrad Region, the Karelian-Finnish Republic, left because there weren’t another way out. Some other people could say: you did not live up to our hopes, we will set up another government that will conclude peace with Germany and provide us with peace. This could happen, keep in mind.
      But the Russian people did not agree to this, the Russian people did not compromise, they showed unlimited trust in our government. I repeat, we had mistakes, the first two years our army was forced to retreat, it turned out that we did not master the events, did not cope with the situation. However, the Russian people believed, endured, waited and hoped that we would cope with events.
      It is for this trust in our government that the Russian people have shown us, thank you very much!
      For the health of the Russian people! ”
    5. 0
      7 March 2023 21: 25
      More than four hundred years ago, the famous soothsayer Michel Nostradamus mentioned the emergence of the “Grand Duke of Armenia,” the third ruler of the new era (probably after Kerensky and Lenin), who would rule Russia for a long time after a revolution broke out there. "Grand Duke" is, of course, a metaphor for supreme power. But why does “Armenia”, after all, know that Stalin, who is meant by this, was a Georgian?
      Absolutely incredible hypotheses regarding this statement of Nostradamus are put forward by Alexander Lapshin in his book “The Fatal Fight”.
      Why did Nostradamus call Stalin the “Grand Duke of Armenia”?
      Joseph's mother, Ekaterina Georgievna Geladze (Keto or Keka), was born and raised in a poor Armenian family in Gori. Why in Armenian, if she had a Georgian surname? From time immemorial, it was Armenians (up to 90%) who lived in this place in Georgia (up to 3%), over time they became Georgians, losing their language, customs, names and surnames. For example, such well-known cultural figures as V. Muradeli (Muryadyan), Z. Paliashvili (Palyan) and others could consider themselves Georgians of Armenian origin. Similar processes took place in Russia. For example, the famous Russian historian Karamzin came from the Armenian Karamzyanov family. The Russian surnames "Lazarev" (the beginning of this surname is an Armenian merchant from Astrakhan ...), "Aivazovsky", "Serebryakov", "Suvorov" - also have Armenian roots. ..
      So, Stalin's mother Keto was an Armenian with a Georgian surname. Being poor, from a young age she earned her living by serving the homes of the rich as a cook, cleaner, dishwasher or seamstress. belonged there to the Armenians. In the house of one of these wealthy Armenians - the shoe manufacturer Adelkhanov - Keto served. From him she gave birth to Joseph.
      More recently, an official court document was discovered, from which it is clear that at the age of 15 the future leader was suing for the inheritance of Adelkhanov, trying to prove that he was his true father, thus hoping to take over part of the state of his already deceased parent. However, the impudent Joseph, entering into a fight with the influential heirs of Adelkhanov, was then still clearly naive, and he was not destined to win this case.
      It can be assumed that when Keto could no longer hide her sin from prying eyes, she turned with prayers or threats to Adelkhanov, who dishonored her, so that he would somehow help her avoid human shame. The manufacturer, apparently, did not want publicity for his adultery with the servants, and therefore urgently found a husband for her - a worker in his factory, also an Armenian, shoemaker Vissarion Dzhugoev, whom he paid a decent amount for marrying the pregnant Keto. So Stalin, who received the surname Dzhugoev at birth, was an Armenian - both by mother and father, not only real, but also dummy. Vissarion Dzhugoev
      And Nostradamus, calling him the “Grand Duke of Armenia”, was not mistaken.
      However, why was Stalin always considered a Georgian or, at worst, an Ossetian? Yes, for the reason that he himself changed not only his nationality (and, accordingly, the name Dzhugoev to Dzhugashvili), but also, according to astrologer P. Globa, the year of his birth. The Armenian Dzhugoev turned into the Georgian Dzhugashvili, apparently sometime after he was fifteen, when he lost a lawsuit in court against his real father. Why did he do it?
      By this time, Stalin had already formed into an extremely ambitious, mentally wounded and masked personality, having decided in this way to finally and irrevocably break with his more than unpleasant past. And not only with him - with his native people, from whom, as he believed, he received nothing but continuous bullying, humiliation and insults. Stalin disliked the Armenians, and then Armenia, in the destruction of which he subsequently took a direct part. First, as an underground revolutionary, he contributed to the decay of the spirit of the Armenian army during the war with the Turks, agitating the soldiers (as Lenin later did in Russia) to throw down their weapons so as not to “forge victory” for their own Armenian exploiters (here it is, revenge on the true father!), and after, when he had already entered the top of the new Bolshevik government, as they say, he tore Armenia apart. With the direct assistance of Stalin, Azerbaijan was given such ancestral lands as Nakhichevan and Nagorno-Karabakh, and in 21 the Kars region was transferred to the Turks. At first, the Turks were taken aback by such a gift from the Soviet government, because they did not win the war, and therefore, before taking these lands, they deliberated for a long time, believing that there was some kind of trick behind this. (It is curious that even now the Turks do not invest heavily in the Kars region, fearing that Armenia might demand this territory back if, for example, it joins Russia again and becomes under its protection.) But let us return to the childhood of the future leader. When Keto, shortly after the wedding, “gave” a child to Vissarion, those around him, of course, understood the reason for their hasty marriage. And, of course, they began to vied with each other to guess: who is the true parent of Joseph?
      One must think that the young family was instantly subjected to universal contempt and ridicule, including their innocent baby. From a very young age, Joseph became an outcast - his peers all over the street constantly shouted to him: “Boz Keto!” (“Prostitute-Keto”), “Boz Keto!” and did not accept in their games.
      Today, a considerable number of people write indignantly that the leader was such a monster that he treated his own parents badly. Like, he did not go to his mother's funeral, and later, often on vacation in Georgia, he never bothered to visit her grave. However, Stalin just felt a certain attachment to his mother, because although she was the cause of many childhood troubles for the future leader, she, as best she could, constantly protected him from both the neighbor's children and her shoemaker.
      She was buried in the pantheon on Mount David, where the ashes of Griboyedov and the most famous people of Georgia rested, and the leader did not object to this.
      And there is no need to talk about the father. This shoemaker, a gloomy, rough, unbridled man, often got drunk and became uncontrollably violent. Probably, Vissarion took out all his drama and dissatisfaction with the beggarly life, especially during periods of drinking bouts, on “the Keto prostitute” - he must have shouted something similar when he beat her - but most of all he took out his anger on “this geek” ( otherwise he could not call Joseph). Little Stalin, fleeing from beatings, ran away from home more than once to wait somewhere in the mountains or in the forest until Vissarion calmed down. But one day, apparently, he took the boy by surprise and brutally, almost to death, beat him with his feet. In a furious rage, the “father” broke the child’s left arm, after which Joseph became infected with blood and almost died. From that time on, Stalin became dry-handed and usually kept his sick arm half-bent in the presence of people so that there was no noticeable difference from a healthy one. (So ​​how could he treat his “father” well here - the leader, if he could, would gladly erase him from his memory.)
      The dry hand, which was added to the unenviable appearance of little Stalin, probably completely pushed him away from his peers - they had not allowed him to their games before, and now, because of his inferiority, he himself would not take part in them.
      But even this was not enough. At the age of seven, another misfortune fell on him: Joseph fell ill with smallpox. After recovery, the boy’s face forever remained marked by illness, as a result of which he received a new reason for ridicule - they began to call him “Chopur” (“Pockmarked”).
      The marriage of Keto and Vissarion ended as it inevitably should have ended: they separated, after which the shoemaker died in a rooming house in Tiflis. According to Stalin's daughter, Svetlana Alliluyeva, he died there in a drunken brawl - he was stabbed. Probably, this is exactly what happened: surely someone once again reminded him that he was a “pathetic cuckold”, and the violent Vissarion ran into someone's knife. This happened when Stalin was 10 years old. By this time, Joseph was already studying at a theological school, after which he entered the Tiflis Orthodox Theological Seminary. A considerable number of historians do not cease to be tormented by the “mystery”: how could a shoemaker’s son be accepted into it if only children of wealthy parents and priests were allowed there? .. Now it becomes quite obvious that Stalin's true father, Adelkhanov, paid for Stalin's seminary education.
    6. 0
      8 March 2023 20: 22
      Ideology, sir. the system and management system in the USSR - really was for the benefit of the MOST of the PEOPLE and FOR THE GOOD OF THE MOST of the people ... And the MOST IMPORTANT thing - the mathematics of the distribution of the produced MATERIAL benefits (+ free education (!) And medicine (!)) in the USSR - was in favor of the majority of the PEOPLE, and not in favor of a handful of rich people (I don’t mean material leveling, which is often and slyly speculated opponents of socialism in the USSR). But, at some point, Lenin realized that he had gone too far with the red terror, as well as with the terrible courts of triples and launched the NEP (New Economic Policy), which lasted no more than 6-7 years. ..And the fact that Stalin turned off the NEP and began dispossession and repression of the 30s is really overkill, too cruel and erroneous on his part. The trouble with the USSR is that after the death of Stalin - in the USSR, unfortunately, its Den Xiao Ping (the author and helmsman of the economic miracle in communist (!) China ...) did not appear, but Khrushchev appeared, who started the destructive processes in the USSR. ..But, under Stalin, there were also achievements ... We now admit that Ivan the Terrible, with all his tragic mistakes (crimes), "collected stones" (lands) for Russia and it is not known how the fate of Russia would have been if Grozny at one time he did not break the backbone of the heirs of the aggressive Golden Horde (pro-Turkish khanates in Kazan, Crimea and Astrakhan ....). By the way, even then Ottoman Turkey incited and helped (with troops, money and weapons) these khanates so that they finally broke Russia ... History repeats itself in a spiral and do not doubt that in the hands of the current "sultan" of Turkey, a dagger is hidden behind his back against Russia and he is waiting for the right moment .... But didn’t Khrushchev have his own mistakes (=crimes) ??? To give Russian Crimea is a Ukrainian. SSR and WITHOUT DEMAND from the people of Crimea-isn't that a crime??? To release several thousand Bandera bandits and thugs from the Siberian camps in the late 50s --- how do you want to understand this ??? Khrushchev could not have been unaware that during and after (!) WWII, these very Banderaites shed a sea of ​​blood of Soviet citizens and the military of the Soviet Army, but nevertheless, they liberated them ... And this step of his is also it was a TIME MINI against the USSR ... And Khrushchev’s mediocrity in agriculture and the national economy just set the teeth on edge and it’s not worth repeating about it ... By the way, as a rule - the current Russian liberal public and the too "educated" liberal journalistic fraternity - always admired and sang praises to Khrushchev (apparently for the "thaw" ...) and Gorbachev (apparently for the collapse of the USSR and moving to Germany for permanent residence .. .).Do you know why??? Because it was Khrushchev, Brezhnev (the flourishing of corruption and embezzlement ...) and Gorbachev ("perestroika" with "democratization" ...) that helped the Russian liberals and their patrons from the Western financial elite to destroy the USSR. And such leaders of Russia as I. Grozny, Peter the Great, Stalin, Putin --- in principle and a priori DO NOT SATISFIATE with the Western elite as a whole and the English secret service (which is more than 500 years old and it worked mainly AGAINST RUSSIA ... ) in particular... Do you know why?
      Admirers and lovers of Western "civilization" can tell one funny story. So: In the USA - one very influential banker (and a criminal ... by the way) - was asked the following question on his deathbed: "What is the biggest invention in the history of mankind ??" ...Answer: "Interest of usurious (bank) credit...".
      1. -2
        8 March 2023 20: 36
        In general, Voroshilov and Malenkov decided to transfer Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR, Khrushchev did not play such a role at that time ... Yes, and space exploration could not be done with him ...
        1. +2
          9 March 2023 13: 05
          Quote: Grencer81
          In general, Voroshilov and Malenkov decided to transfer Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR, Khrushchev did not play such a role at that time ... Yes, and space exploration could not be done with him ...

          In fact, the decision was made by Khrushchev as the first secretary of the secretariat of the Central Committee.
          Voroshilov and Malenkov just legitimized this decision.
  2. +18
    6 March 2023 04: 46
    But the leader's project is alive, the people keep it.
    How long will we keep?
    Isn't it time to deliver?
    1. +9
      6 March 2023 07: 00
      Stalin, like, perhaps, any historical figure, cannot be described only in black or only in white colors.
      Therefore, when I read in an article that Stalin is only accused of mass repressions, as if this is a notion of journalists and all 700+ thousand were not executed with torture, but all as one were enemies of the people, and did not stand in his way to authorities, then I’m just perplexed - is it true that the author, like the commenting colleagues, drew his knowledge from historical documents, and not from books on alternative history, which colleagues here are touched by in the comments.
      When I read that the author wrote down Trotsky as a "perestroika", TROTSKY, the main cause of contention with whom was the idea of ​​a world revolution in perestroika !!!
      When the author writes that the period from 17 to 24 was a mistake and much more - I have not read such nonsense for a long time.
      Stalin is valuable because he showed the direction of the country's development, which made it the strongest state. At the same time, he also showed in what rivers of blood this country can be drowned. The main lesson is to accept the good, abandoning the mistakes. This is the meaning of a historical personality of such a magnitude, and not that, as a complete ignoramus, hang about the fact that there were no repressions in principle ..
      Yes, and all dogs can be hung on Khrushchev, rather only in the economic plan for the introduction of the rate of return, which crossed out the Soviet economy, but for foreign policy, and in domestic policy - he is a copy of Stalin himself. The most faithful middle peasant under the leader, who, after his death, tried to destroy everyone who dared to argue with him. But already destroyed at least politically, not physically.
      Once again - figures of such a historical scale as Stalin cannot be of one shade, they are multifaceted, there are great achievements, there are also nightmarish actions. And it is these figures that show the right path and give us the opportunity to follow it without repeating their mistakes and crimes.
      And those who are now licking the same Stalin, not to mention his black side, I think, would be the first to go nuts from its occurrence. Although I may be wrong, but in this case it only says that slavery has not been knocked out of their subconscious.
      1. +22
        6 March 2023 08: 01
        any historical personality cannot be described only in black or only in white colors.
        You seem to be right, but look, now both Stalin's activities and the entire Soviet period are smeared only with mud. So someone has to talk about light. Here we are talking.
        1. 0
          7 March 2023 21: 33
          Let me disagree with you, dear, with all that you have brought here, you can simply and briefly say the goal justifies the means and sacrifices in the name of the people and the country, it costs a lot, Stalin did everything for the people, for the greatness of the country, he didn’t think about himself and his family at all.
      2. +21
        6 March 2023 09: 31
        About repression: a very controversial topic. A couple of examples.
        1. My friend, who openly declares that her father was repressed. But according to the documents, there is actually a wealthy farmer who protects his savings. And in the verdict there are massacres of Red Army soldiers.
        2. If now someone is given a life sentence for fabricated out of personal hostility, will the president be to blame?

        This, for example, reminds those who scream loudly that all traffic cops are bribe-takers, but only because he and others like him prefer to drive without compliance and give bribes. In the system of corruption, first of all, not those who grab, climbing to the top, but those who allow and stimulate, envying and hoping for something similar to themselves, are to blame. As well as in the drug trade, black transplantation, etc.: the performers are just small dirt, and the real culprits are the consumers-customers. But the main customers, as well as manufacturers, are high at the top, which is why small performers are purged to demonstrate the fight against what is unacceptable to the majority.

        Accordingly, no doubt, during the years of the reign of Joseph Vissarionovich there were "personal scores", but this must be considered in general, both from the side of the struggle for power (protecting one's power and one's country), and historically (it was before, it was after, it is now ).
        And the general mass is either criminals (if someone now attacks a policeman, in most countries this will be considered the last thing as a political protest), or victims of the personal accounts of their own neighbors.
        Plus, do not forget that the Civil War ended formally, but in fact the consequences of this "clean up" for decades.

        Therefore, one should be skeptical about "billions innocently repressed personally by Stalin". First of all, evaluating the "source". A well-known phrase from a well-known contemporary can clearly work here: "An anti-Soviet is always a Russophobe!"

        So, I agree with "figures of such a historical scale as Stalin cannot be of the same shade" - ideal people do not exist. But I want to recall another famous phrase of the leader under discussion: "If our enemies scold us, then we are doing everything right"
        1. +1
          6 March 2023 11: 24
          Therefore, treat "billions innocently repressed personally by Stalin"

          We will leave the fiction about billions on your conscience. It's probably convenient to come up with something absurd and attribute it to someone.
          And what about the 4,5 million officially rehabilitated, including back in Soviet times? Put everyone back, who's still alive?
          1. +5
            6 March 2023 13: 11
            1. About billions - specially took sarcasm in quotation marks. For there are no clear figures, and the declared ones, depending on the source, differ by orders of magnitude. Those. there are official statements about such numbers of those who were repressed, how many people simply did not live in the territory.
            2. Regarding the rehabilitated. As an adult, you must understand that just like that, "a person from the street" will not be sent to the zone and will not be returned from the zone. Accordingly, one should not forget about forgeries (in this case, rehabilitation to reveal innocence) and simply amnesties. Now in the Russian Federation, almost every year, amnesties are granted "for the holidays" - does this mean that the amnestied were convicted for political reasons and are innocent?
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. +6
          6 March 2023 11: 33
          Yezhov conducted double reporting and sent other data "to the top".
          Much was revealed only after his arrest and verification of all the ins and outs.
        3. +7
          6 March 2023 13: 00
          I completely agree that the civil war did not end with active hostilities. Not only did there remain a lot of unresolved issues between the "Reds", "Whites", "Greens" and others, and in each such grouping there were many contradictions and grievances inside. For example, at one time Tukhachevsky almost shot Budyonny. In the Red Army, after the civil one, there were at least 2 large groups that were implicitly hostile - conditionally Tukhachevsky and Budyonny. After the New Economic Policy, tensions were added when the same former soldiers of the Red Army found themselves on opposite sides. And internal party divisions added. And the methods of solution after the civil war have changed little.
          And I think that Stalin did not organize and did not carry out any repressions. He only at some point gave the groupings an opportunity to "sort it out" among themselves in order to eventually come to some common denominator. The scale of the showdown was huge, and many "third-party" people suffered among them.
          In the Russian Federation in the 90s, in the midst of gang warfare, a lot of random people also fell "under distribution"
        4. +6
          6 March 2023 16: 51
          I would also add that the more anti-Soviet a person is, the more he is a fascist in his convictions.
      3. +5
        6 March 2023 13: 55
        700 is not entirely true: 000) so many sentences were handed down, it’s far from a fact that they were all carried out 1) some defendants went through several departments, so that the same 2-700 times can be entered into these 2 thousand. 3) Yezhov and the team, the conspirators during interrogations said that they had deliberately arranged such a mess in order to cut off the ends by removing dangerous people, to put their own in the place of the removed ones, + the innocent were stipulated in order to complicate the investigation, and in the future it was planned to arrange the so-called "3 "a year, with hanging all the blame on Stalin for everything that happened, and the restoration of capitalism. Now imagine they did it, and in 1991 "1938" came for the country, and then Hitler was on the way.
  3. +35
    6 March 2023 05: 07
    Only one reason is clear to me why Stalin is hated. Stalin was an opponent of the system in which we live. Everyone cites the Second World War as an example. For me, the surprisingly quick restoration of the national economy in 1945-1950. Thousands of destroyed cities and villages had to be restored in this short time. And given that it was necessary to deal with the consequences of the Ashgabat earthquake in 1949, there is no end to the surprise. , for some time they did a lot of useful things for the country. Were there any mistakes? Of course. When building a new one, there are always mistakes. And sometimes they hit people hard. Most importantly, do not increase the number of errors to cosmic numbers.
    1. +26
      6 March 2023 05: 48
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      For me, the surprisingly quick restoration of the national economy in 1945-1950. Thousands of destroyed cities and villages had to be restored in this short time. And if you consider that it was necessary to deal with the consequences of the Ashgabat earthquake in 1949, then there is no end to surprise

      And considering the most important
      1) Millions of the most passionate, young and able-bodied were knocked out by the war. Millions of others have become handicapped with limited abilities.
      2) The absence of any material assistance from the outside. In financial ruin.
      -----------
      Surprise turns into amazement.
      1. +16
        6 March 2023 06: 30
        Quote: ammunition
        1) Millions of the most passionate, young and able-bodied were knocked out by the war. Millions of others became disabled with

        There was a very high birth rate + good upbringing of the youth. Some from the age of 12 have already stood at the machine, and not just "stood", but worked, they worked conscientiously. Therefore, the next generation quickly and firmly took the banner into their hands.
        Quote: ammunition
        Lack of any financial assistance from outside. In financial ruin.

        Most of them sincerely gave their all to work for the good of the Motherland, often quite disinterestedly. Yes, and the time was serious, they did not tolerate relaxation and poor-quality work, they quickly determined where to go ... Everyone knew this, from the collective farmer to the minister.
        1. +12
          6 March 2023 07: 21
          Quote: Doccor18
          There was a very high birth rate + good upbringing of youth

          I remembered by association -
          Proverbs of Solomon 29:2 SYNOD
          When the righteous multiply, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.
    2. +10
      6 March 2023 06: 43
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      Surprisingly fast recovery for me

      sad
      Now, 33 years later (counting from 1990), we still have not reached that level of industrial production. And in high-tech industries, they rolled back many times .. and even dozens of times. We even produce less oil than 33 years ago. What can we say about the aircraft industry or machine tool industry.
      What happens? Then they created, built, educated and treated, cared for and loved.
      .. It turns out that the last 33 years, basically robbed and destroyed, ..and accustomed to sin .. like "according to concepts." So it turns out? .. well, if now MTLB (development of the 50s) is the most workhorse, then it turns out that it is. Or not ?
    3. +1
      6 March 2023 09: 02
      Only one reason is clear to me why Stalin is hated. Stalin was an opponent of the system in which we live

      But why, for example, hate Grozny? Although it would seem - by no means the most mediocre Russian Tsar ..
      1. +10
        6 March 2023 10: 21
        But why, for example, hate Grozny?

        hate

        All? Or just a part?
        In general, it is possible because he was an opponent of the West.
        And some of us look to the west.
        1. +4
          6 March 2023 17: 09
          What does the West have to do with it, they don’t like Grozny because he pressed the elite to the nail. In the same England (I don’t remember the names), one queen executed several tens of thousands of peasants and she is great, the other executed a couple of dozen nobles and she is bloody in their history
    4. +13
      6 March 2023 10: 32
      surprisingly fast recovery of the national economy in 1945-1950.

      And when you consider
      And if you consider that so much oil and gas was not produced then ..
  4. +12
    6 March 2023 05: 22
    Why hate Stalin
    . This is a nonentity is treated by no one and in no way, and a significant person, envious haters, as a rule, has quite a few.
    A person who has shown himself in a difficult, critical period in the history of the state will always have both fans and haters.
    About deeds, milestones, actions, and so on ... different and treat them differently.
    1. +8
      6 March 2023 05: 49
      The eternal desire for power, wealth and their inheritance.
      Here they also concern "differently". Samsonov answered himself and you that this desire is eternal. They were, and always will be...
  5. +17
    6 March 2023 05: 43
    Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
    The personnel created by Stalin did a lot of useful things for the country for some time. Were there any mistakes?

    Stalin valued effective and successful people, evaluated them by their deeds and not by promises .... and punished them accordingly as severely ... a person failed, did not keep his word ... be kind, stand up to the wall and get punished.
    Against this background, the punishment for our modern effective managers looks like a mockery of common sense ... Comrade Chubais would have lived under Stalin for three days for his empty promises ... Arrest, tribunal, execution in the basement ... three days is just right for him.
    Comrade Kozyrev in Florida would be nice to send Mercarder with a gift from the Motherland that he betrayed ... and now he is enjoying himself on the beaches near the ocean.
    Such an imbalance between the times of Stalin and the current Kremlin is clearly felt.
  6. +9
    6 March 2023 05: 44
    This is the code-matrix of the Russian super-ethnos - truth, justice, ethics of conscience.

    Perhaps this phrase contains the whole "homemade truth" about Stalin.
    I would correct only one thing in this phrase (so that there are no rumors) - "all the peoples of the Russian superethnos"
    1. -1
      6 March 2023 17: 14
      When talking about a "super-ethnos", it immediately smacks of Nazism
      1. +1
        6 March 2023 23: 17
        When talking about a "super-ethnos", it immediately smacks of Nazism

        The term "superethnos" was coined by Gumilyov. It smacks of ignorance here.
  7. -1
    6 March 2023 05: 59
    Kanesh, V.I. Lenin separately, Stalin separately. smile Lenin plunged Russia into the abyss of the Civil War, but then Stalin appeared and ruined everything. smile Khrushchev is a secret "Trotskyist." And how did his Trotskyism manifest itself? Then, Khrushchev is not a secret "Trotskyist", but an agent of imperialism and capitalism. If only because in the West, they speak negatively about two Soviet leaders: Lenin and Stalin, but positively about two: Khrushchev and Gorbachev. The first began the collapse of the country, the second one finished.
    1. +2
      6 March 2023 06: 48
      Quote: parusnik
      Khrushchev is a secret "Trotskyist." And how did his Trotskyism manifest itself?

      Not at all secret. And it manifested itself in the fact that he proclaimed a "return to Leninist principles" i.e. building socialism throughout the world. Unlike Stalin, who built socialism in a single country. It was precisely the principle of building socialism throughout the world that distinguished Trotskyism. And when we returned to him under Khrushchev, we successfully overstrained ourselves by feeding pseudo-communists around the world. Well, the lack of responsibility of the "elite" proclaimed by Khrushchev certainly did its job.
      1. +8
        6 March 2023 07: 25
        Quote: NDR-791
        Not at all secret. And it manifested itself in the fact that he proclaimed a "return to Leninist principles" i.e. building socialism throughout the world.
        It is a shame not to know that it was Lenin who proved the possibility of building socialism in a single country.
        Unlike Stalin, who built socialism in a single country. It was precisely the principle of building socialism throughout the world that distinguished Trotskyism.
        Nothing like this. Trotskyism is ordinary Menshevism embellished with loud slogans. Socialism in a single country is a stage in building socialism throughout the world.
      2. +8
        6 March 2023 09: 05
        What exactly is Trotskyism? What are its main postulates? The first is, of course, a permanent revolution, the thesis that peaceful coexistence with capitalism is impossible. Either he or we. The second is the thesis about the degeneration of the workers' state in the USSR with the inevitable transformation of the party nomenklatura into a new class of exploiters and a rollback to capitalism.

        AND?? What was Comrade Trotsky wrong about? It would seem to us, who survived the collapse of the Union and understand its causes, that his rightness should be obvious ...

        I’ll tell you more - Trotsky probably didn’t even have strategic disagreements with Comrade Stalin .. Trotsky just wanted everything at once, and Joseph Vissarionovich clearly understood the obvious things.
        Firstly, in order to engage in a world revolution, one must have a powerful socialist state behind one's back. You can't crush the bourgeois on a cart. Secondly, in order to transfer real power to the Soviets, one must first educate those who will participate in them. And those who will choose there. What the hell can be Soviets with almost all the illiterate population?? They will tell you .. Moreover, it is obvious who will crawl there right there. Well - as now in deputies. How many workers have you seen there? From something. This means that the dictatorship of the proletariat is headed precisely by the party. At the initial period. And only so. Until you get people's brains right.

        And what Trotsky proposed was absolutely correct, but absolutely and not timely. deprived of a real basis. And that means - leading only to defeat with immediate implementation. That's why he lost the party struggle - Comrade Stalin offered a much more sane alternative ..
        1. +8
          6 March 2023 10: 02
          It’s just that Trotsky wanted everything at once, and Joseph Vissarionovich clearly understood the obvious things.
          Plus, personal ambitions with the right to interpret Lenin as he sees fit. He didn’t tolerate someone else’s opinion, after the split of the RSDLP, into the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, he joined the first, left them, didn’t stick to the second, tried to create his own faction, it didn’t work out . And only in 1917, he joined the Bolsheviks. Stalin, unlike Trotsky, did not rush about, adhered to Lenin's views.
      3. +2
        6 March 2023 17: 12
        Trotskyism is 90% Menshevism, that's why petty left-wing bourgeois love Trotsky
        1. 0
          7 March 2023 19: 53
          Trotskyism is 90% Menshevism,
          Michael, you are wrong. The division of the unified RSDLP into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks took place in 1903. The Mensheviks recognized only the parliamentary form of struggle, the Bolsheviks - both parliamentary and non-parliamentary. And by the way, the Socialist-Revolutionaries - only non-parliamentary.
      4. 0
        6 March 2023 22: 35
        Didn't the countries of people's democracy (which later began to be called socialist countries) appear under Stalin? And under Stalin they were given enormous economic assistance.
    2. +13
      6 March 2023 07: 45
      Yeltsin plunged Russia into the abyss of the 90s, but then Putin appeared and ruined everything
      Isn't that what you say? Although it's not a secret to anyone. Putin is a faithful successor of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin cause. Take Artemovsk for months. nothing bothers you?
      1. +17
        6 March 2023 10: 36
        faithful successor of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin cause
        Flowers laid and regular visits to the eCenter point to this.
    3. +10
      6 March 2023 08: 28
      Khrushchev is a secret "Trotskyist." And how did his Trotskyism manifest itself?
      Alexey, the Trotskyism of Khrushch Kukuruzny manifested itself in the fact that his plans were based not on the laws of the development of society, but on personal wishes. Announced the coming of communism in 1980, which only compromised the idea. Instead of a comprehensive plan for the transformation of nature (reclamation of the Non-Black Earth Region), he announced a failed virgin lands epic, which, in fact, could also be done, but with scientific study (non-moldboard plowing, etc.). generally beyond reason. He messed up so much that the five-year plan had to be fulfilled for seven years. Trotskyism is when the objective laws of development are ignored.
      1. +1
        6 March 2023 22: 39
        The economic councils also played a positive role; this was not denied after their abolition. And soon after their creation, sectoral production state committees were created, which were, in fact, weakened sectoral ministries.
        1. +1
          7 March 2023 19: 56
          branch production state committees were created, which were, in fact, weakened branch ministries.
          The sectoral ministries were recreated in full, they did not suffer from any "weakenings". There were also state committees, but they coordinated the actions of the ministries.
    4. +7
      6 March 2023 11: 39
      Lenin, plunged Russia into the abyss of the Civil War
      - ooh... another historian. It was not the Soviets (Bolsheviks) who started the civil war. Like the "iron curtain" hung the West and not the USSR.
      Under Stalin they created a great country. The rest of the "residents" only used what was created.
      And do not forget that there was a different time (in the west at that time they were not silk) as well as the fact that it was necessary to build a new country out of nothing.
  8. +12
    6 March 2023 06: 18
    Great people need great successors. Lenin - Stalin and rise for 30 years. And then everything. Conclusion - you need to prepare yourself a worthy shift before it's too late. And then it will be too late and the Chubais will return with Urgants, and maybe someone worse will come.
    1. +1
      6 March 2023 06: 24
      Let me disagree, I think it is erroneous to say that Stalin was the successor of Lenin's cause, they had a different vision of socialism. Just look at their relationship, tough controversy and almost a break in relations, the result of Lenin's letter to the government. Again, the purges of the "Leninist guard", it was a ballast in the construction of an industrial Power, about Trotsky, the right hand of Lenin and the favorite of the party, Bukharin, is a separate song. Stalin had his own vision of building a state, and the role of the party was not the main one there, he put the councils of people's deputies higher.
      1. +1
        6 March 2023 06: 39
        Stalin, not a Leninist "guardsman"? He is from the "Gatchinsky". Stalin, supported Lenin, on the issue of the Brest Peace, Stalin, after Lenin's death, did not turn his course in national politics and did not continue his "autonomization", well, etc. .
      2. +1
        6 March 2023 06: 40
        Stalin would have sent you far and for a long time for such words. And he would do the right thing. You praise him without respecting his political position. What an abomination.....
      3. -5
        6 March 2023 06: 41
        That's right, Lenin was essentially the same Trotskyist with his ideas of world revolution. The communist idea itself is vicious and is a latent form of ordinary Zionism. Yes, and the communist idea was developed by ordinary, banal, Zionists in the person of Marx and Engels. More ardent Russophobes still need to be looked for.
        1. +9
          6 March 2023 07: 46
          Quote: 2112vda
          That's right, Lenin was essentially the same Trotskyist with his ideas of world revolution.
          Perestroika bullshit.
          The communist idea itself is vicious and is a latent form of ordinary Zionism.
          It is vicious only for lackeys of capital.
          1. 0
            6 March 2023 11: 35
            Perestroika bullshit.

            And how is that?

            Revolutions around the world have never been removed from the agenda of the Bolsheviks, the question was not in strategy, but in tactics - either to do them in all countries at the same time, or one by one, as an opportune moment arises.
            1. 0
              7 March 2023 06: 22
              Well, Tonga already call communism, the first sign of globalism.
        2. +4
          6 March 2023 08: 16
          Yes, and the communist idea was developed by ordinary, banal, Zionists in the person of Marx and Engels.
          Marx, at the peak of his hatred for Russia, also learned the Russian language in order to read newspapers in Russian and Russian literature. laughing
          1. +6
            6 March 2023 09: 33
            It's not about what you read and in what language. The fact is that these theorists wrote about the Russian people.
            When someone is preparing for combat, he also actively learns the language of the future enemy.
            1. +4
              6 March 2023 09: 46
              But theorists did not write especially about the Russian people, but wrote about Russian state power. About tsarism.
            2. +4
              6 March 2023 16: 00
              Quote: 2112vda
              It's not about what you read and in what language. The fact is that these theorists wrote about the Russian people.
              When someone is preparing for combat, he also actively learns the language of the future enemy.

              Is this a new brain disease now?
      4. +3
        6 March 2023 07: 40
        Quote from Silver99
        Let me disagree, I think it is erroneous to say that Stalin was the successor of Lenin's cause, they had a different vision of socialism.
        Anti-Sovietists are afraid that the growth of Stalin's popularity will inevitably increase the popularity of Lenin.
        Just look at their relationship, tough controversy and almost a break in relations, the result of Lenin's letter to the government.
        Horror. It turns out that there was room for discussion in the Bolshevik Party.
        Again, the purges of the "Leninist guard"
        The Marxist-Leninist Stalin forgot to purge himself. They cleaned those who were sour.
        Stalin had his own vision of building a state, and the role of the party was not the main one there, he put the councils of people's deputies higher.
        Lenin believed that the Soviets were the real embodiment of democracy.
        1. +5
          6 March 2023 08: 12
          Horror. It turns out that there is room for discussion in the Bolshevik Party.
          So it was. But there was a strict party discipline, during the discussion, the decision of the majority is made and it must be carried out, not hindered. Trotsky and all the other "victims" believed that the decisions of the party and congresses were not for them. In principle, for which they paid.
      5. +6
        6 March 2023 09: 10
        the role of the party was not the main one there, he put the councils of people's deputies higher.

        In fact, Lenin, too, as it is not surprising, was for the Soviets .. Strange, right? And the party - for him was only a necessary tool for the transition to Soviet power.
        1. +4
          6 March 2023 09: 54
          Actually - Lenin, too, as it is not surprising, was for the Soviets ..
          "Communism, there is Soviet power, plus electrification, of the whole country!"
      6. +4
        6 March 2023 09: 52
        Again, the purges of the "Leninist guard"
        The term "Leninist guard" was introduced by L.D. Trotsky, he himself decided who was a "guardsman" and who was not. Trotsky, Stalin, did not rank as a "Leninist guard", like Voroshilov and Molotov, Kalinin and all those who was not next to him, although he was the oldest member of the party.
        1. +1
          6 March 2023 16: 04
          Quote: kor1vet1974
          Again, the purges of the "Leninist guard"
          The term "Leninist guard" was introduced by L.D. Trotsky, he himself decided who was a "guardsman" and who was not. Trotsky, Stalin, did not rank as a "Leninist guard", like Voroshilov and Molotov, Kalinin and all those who was not next to him, although he was the oldest member of the party.

          In, another connoisseur of the innermost thoughts of all historical figures!
          The first in the "Leninist Guard" was Stalin. Head of two people's commissariats in Lenin's government and since 1922 a member of the Central Committee and the General Sec. parties.
    2. +8
      6 March 2023 13: 17
      This "who is worse" has been at the helm since the beginning of 2000. What's worse? The fact that he made me believe that he was his. It supports the optimal system of robbery of the country, but taking into account that the people do not rest, so that there is some kind of "food base" for the ghouls in the form of a population in the controlled territory.
  9. +6
    6 March 2023 06: 48
    Stalin rebuilt the national economy, created new, advanced industries, modernized and re-equipped the Armed Forces (army and navy). He brought up a new generation of Soviet people, selflessly devoted to the Motherland and socialism, the Great Cause. In essence, a cultural revolution has taken place. Education and health care have become advanced, accessible to the common people.

    It would be more correct to say that it was not he who did, but under his leadership the Soviet people did.
    1. +9
      6 March 2023 08: 31
      It would be more correct to say that he did not and under his leadership made by the Soviet people.
      This is the main function of a leader.
  10. +5
    6 March 2023 06: 55
    Stalin valued effective and successful people, evaluated them by their deeds and not by promises .... and punished them accordingly as severely ... a person failed, did not keep his word ... be kind, stand up to the wall and get punished.
    Against this background, the punishment for our modern effective managers looks like a mockery of common sense.


    I agree.Of this We don't lack it, we just don't have it.
    If we don't fix it, we'll die as a "Great Power"
  11. +4
    6 March 2023 06: 59
    It is very important to understand why the Bolsheviks, after the death of Lenin, the leader of the country
    elected, appointed Stalin, and the communists, after Stalin's death, elected the leader of the country, appointed Khrushchev. From here and my thought from yesterday's comment that it is obvious that Stalin either put a little against the wall, or put a little of the wrong ones against the wall ... So then the "sixties" adapted to Khrushchev's slush appeared and they hated the USSR for fifty years, destroyed Stalin's foundation of the country in the "intellectual and intelligent" community. Read Pelevin's statements on this subject, there is in youtube.
    As for the political community of the country, when it was possible to figure it out and publicly condemn Khrushchev for treason, at the same time recognizing Stalin as the Great Leader of the Country, then the main ideologist of the country Suslov and Brezhnev was appointed to replace Khrushchev by the communists more than once did not hint publicly that Khrushchev should be tried " For the betrayal of Stalin's ideals - betrayal of the Motherland, "and Stalin himself should be publicly rehabilitated as the greatest leader in the entire history of Russia.
    Even now, neither Stalin nor Beria have been rehabilitated. They tried to portray the great business executive Beria as a truly outstanding leader in two films "Bomb" and "Chief of Intelligence". but as in the reviews of this, the liberal howled, how she howled !!! .
    1. +9
      6 March 2023 07: 41
      and after the death of Stalin, the communists elected the leader of the country, appointed Khrushchev.

      I think that Khrushchev was appointed not by the communists, but by the party nomenclature, to which Nikita Sergeevich, among other things, promised to return some privileges of the material order.
      1. +4
        6 March 2023 08: 00
        and the party nomenklatura, to which Nikita Sergeevich, among other things, promised to return some privileges of the material order.
        So it was, when Malenkov, at the party conference, while still chairman of the Council of Ministers, proposed to cancel the "envelopes" and return to the party maximum, Khrushchev opposed, having received support, the entire party nomenclature. And these are republican, regional secretaries.
      2. +5
        6 March 2023 13: 24
        And returned it! This pots ordered the KGB not to supervise party functionaries. Here comes the joy! The country for some time developed by inertia, but the process of its destruction was launched just then .. Here they talked about Chubais. About your own, which they don’t leave, and they won’t leave. And they will NEVER be touched. He didn't run away. He was simply evacuated when it became clear that he had fulfilled his role as a lookout, and it became clear that the process of disposing of the Russian Federation could no longer be stopped.
        1. 0
          6 March 2023 22: 45
          In fact, even during Stalin's lifetime, after the removal and arrest of Abakumov and the appointment of the party worker Ignatiev as Minister of State Security, a number of resolutions of the Central Committee were adopted on strengthening party control over the state security agencies.
      3. -4
        6 March 2023 16: 09
        Quote: yuriy1863
        and after the death of Stalin, the communists elected the leader of the country, appointed Khrushchev.

        I think that Khrushchev was appointed not by the communists, but by the party nomenclature, to which Nikita Sergeevich, among other things, promised to return some privileges of the material order.

        The dissident writer and Jew Voslensky taught you the word "party nomenklatura" - and you rush about with it like with a hand-written sack. But in fact, in the CPSU, all positions were elective. That is, if you follow the Charter, there simply could not be any nomenclature.
        1. +1
          8 March 2023 09: 09
          Heads of departments of the Central Committee, regional committees, city committees, district committees, instructors, inspectors of different levels were not elected, but appointed.
      4. -2
        6 March 2023 22: 47
        Khrushchev promised to return just those privileges that were in the last years of Stalin's life and which Malenkov canceled. It turns out that Khrushchev returned the practice that had developed under Stalin.
    2. +3
      6 March 2023 09: 42
      The collapse of the USSR was made precisely by the top of the CPSU, all of them ardent communists and true Leninists. The same Gaidar worked in the magazine "Young Communist". The party and Komsomol nomenklatura then became oligarchs, this is a normal example of communist ideology in action. People, can you start turning your heads on? No one will give us deliverance, not God, not the king and not the hero. Any party, no matter what direction, is inherently a criminal totalitarian sect and nothing more. That is why Stalin wanted to move the party away from the leadership of the state, giving it the functions of an ideological body.
      1. +1
        6 March 2023 10: 47
        The collapse of the USSR was made precisely by the top of the CPSU
        And you won’t believe it, this is a natural historical process. Approximately in a similar way, democracy died in Athens, the Hussite movement in the Czech Republic subsided, the Taiping state was defeated. The leaders of the Western socialist and social democratic movement, having become full, betrayed the interests of the working class, began to convince that the proletariat does not need power, that the existing elite will satisfy its needs anyway, and there are many such examples. The Soviet Union is no exception. years are not enough.
      2. +2
        6 March 2023 16: 11
        Quote: 2112vda
        The collapse of the USSR was made precisely by the top of the CPSU, all of them ardent communists and true Leninists.

        In ... in .. and one of the disciples betrayed Christ. Well, then what? And who is to blame? It is not in vain that the French say that they "betray only their own".
      3. 0
        8 March 2023 09: 11
        Gaidar worked on the editorial board of the Kommunist magazine. That is, in a publication for mature communists.)
  12. +5
    6 March 2023 07: 02
    Because Stalin today is the initiation of criminal cases, lawsuits, For some, a military tribunal and demonstrative executions.
    It is possible that the court-martial.
    For very, very many lustrations. Confiscations.
    Real control of export of raw materials and export of currency. Nationalization of part of the industry. Industrial recovery. Available credit.
    Measures to prevent the extinction of the country.
    At the same time, I do not idealize Stalin.
  13. +6
    6 March 2023 07: 14
    "In fact, the UN is now not so much a world organization as an organization for the Americans, acting at the behest of the American aggressors"

    From the conversation comrade. Stalin I.V. with a Pravda correspondent, 1951. It only remains to repeat what has already been said "Exactly one hundred years from now": with all the difficulties of the current moment, a lot could be resolved if there were analysts of this level in the Kremlin. Even without a law degree from Leningrad State University and work experience at Gazprom ...
  14. +6
    6 March 2023 07: 15
    Why hate Stalin
    Because he turned out to be that "media person", the leader of the country, at the moment of a hard demolition of the old system while building a new one, with all the excesses, mistakes, experiments and successes. But all this went through a huge number of human destinies.
    Why they love Stalin, for the same reason, he gave a huge number not only hope for a bright future and confidence in the future, he showed them that with joint work everything can be achieved ...
  15. -5
    6 March 2023 07: 23
    Author!
    You write a lot. Sometimes I agree with you. But now...

    Russian socialism... How can you write like that? Soviet. Or just socialism.

    How could Khrushchev be both a Trotskyist and a supporter of "perestroika" at the same time?

    The catastrophe of 1991 is no longer Gorbachev, although it was he who contributed to this earlier.

    the project of the leader is alive, it is kept by the people. This is the code-matrix of the Russian super-ethnos - truth, justice, ethics of conscience.
    That is, you directly say that the head of state should not think about the preservation and development of the state?
    Truth, justice, ethics of conscience?
    Do we have SVO? What part of the income from the export of resources is directed to R & D, not related to the closed sections of the budget; what part for the production of means of production?
  16. +2
    6 March 2023 07: 54
    The author sweeps away historical garbage from the grave of Stalin and his period and sweeps it over the rest of the Soviet period.
  17. +7
    6 March 2023 08: 19
    I don’t remember which of the leaders in China, on the issue of slandering and excessive ascension of Mao and his times, in order to smooth out the systemic srach in society, spoke out: "Comrade Mao was 70 percent right"!
    That's how I would about Stalin. Comrade Stalin was 70 percent right. And there were bloody decisions, and outstanding positive ones.
    Our country officially condemned repressions, other forms of coercion and violence, opened archives (not completely), issued a law on rehabilitation. Books published, films made. Are there many examples of this in history on the planet? The nasty "30 percent" are openly condemned.
    What happened to 70 percent? Rolled up under cloth. The path from the plow to electricity, industry, industrialization, railways and transport, to science, medicine, the Army, to ideas, great victories not only of the people, but also of the Supreme Commander. And I made NOTHING for myself, I didn’t acquire it. An ascetic in the highest state post. It looks like Fidel is the same way.
    Yes, there is an insurmountable contradiction between 30 and 70. But there are no obstacles to talk about the pluses, keeping the minuses in mind.
    Take the best of the Stalin era, and remember all sides. 30% wrong, 70% right.
    Each of us in life is involved in evil and good in the proportions of 30:70, 20:80, 10:90. Take any proportion.
    1. 0
      6 March 2023 22: 50
      Mao said Stalin was 70 percent right. And Deng said that Mao was 70 percent right.
  18. +4
    6 March 2023 09: 28
    Quote: NDR-791
    It was precisely the principle of building socialism throughout the world that distinguished Trotskyism.


    Trotskyism did not set the task of building something at all. Purely negative energy of rebellion and "permanent revolution".
    "Building socialism in one country" is precisely Lenin's thesis.
    1. +3
      6 March 2023 09: 43
      Trotskyism did not set itself the task of building something
      The term "Leninist Guard" was introduced by L.D. Trotsky, and now he is being manipulated.
    2. +2
      6 March 2023 10: 01
      "Building socialism in one country" is precisely Lenin's thesis.
      Correct, but there is only a continuation: Lenin considered building socialism in one single country impossible.
      Trotsky spoke in exactly the same way, after the revolution he had no disagreements with Lenin, they were both Marxists

      By the way, any article about Stalin on VO is 100% success - 500 views and 000 comments are obviously provided
      Samsonov quickly picked up the baton thrown by Frolov laughing
      1. +4
        6 March 2023 16: 20
        Quote: Lewww
        : Lenin considered building socialism in one single country impossible.
        Trotsky spoke in exactly the same way, after the revolution he had no disagreements with Lenin, they were both Marxists
        :

        And when you lie, please jump up! Back in 1915, Lenin wrote an article "on the slogan of the United States of Europe", and if you were a little more literate, you would know that it was there that he developed the idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbbuilding socialism in one country that would still collide with these "United States" .
        And in March 1918, Lenin just strongly disagreed with Trotsky on the question of the World Revolution. When he proposed this idea to screw up and sign the Brest Peace with the Germans. To buy time to create the Red Army.

        Everyone is making themselves so smart that there is nowhere to spit, so as not to get into a smart guy, and they don’t ... know the history of Russia.
        1. 0
          7 March 2023 10: 28
          "And when you lie, please jump up! Back in 1915, Lenin wrote an article" about the slogan of the United States of Europe ", and if you were a little more literate, you would know what exactly there he developed the idea of ​​building socialism in one country, which will still collide with these "united states".
          And in March 1918, Lenin just strongly disagreed with Trotsky on the question of the World Revolution. "
          Colleague, if you present a historical document where clearly and unambiguously statedthat in 1918 (or in another year) Lenin renounce his postulatethat building socialism in one single country is IMPOSSIBLE, and stated that it was possible I will be very grateful.
          Until presented, your argument is in style " trust me - I know" wink
          1. +1
            7 March 2023 11: 05
            if you submit a historical document... and stated that it is possible, I will be very grateful.
            In the meantime, not presented, your argument is in the style of "trust me - I know"

            The colleague pointed out a specific document - the article "On the slogan of the United States of Europe"
            1. -2
              7 March 2023 15: 35
              OK, give me a snippet from the mentioned article where you found the word CONSTRUCTION.
              It seems that you, like your "colleague", do not even understand what is at stake and what was the main disagreement between the Marxist-Leninists and Stalin and his followers.
              Wikipedia doesn't really get it.
              1. +1
                7 March 2023 16: 31
                OK, give me a snippet from the mentioned article where you found the word CONSTRUCTION.

                This is the most primitive type of manipulation - to demand something SPECIFIC (for example, a specific word). If you don't see that in the above article Lenin is talking about the possibility of building socialism in a separate country, then this is definitely not my problem.
                1. -1
                  7 March 2023 18: 09
                  If you do not see that in the above article Lenin is talking about the possibility of building socialism in a single country,
                  Oh God, how everything is running then laughing
                  dearest, demand word accuracy this is the main requirement in conducting scientific debate, because specific words identify specific concepts.

                  OK, I'll explain.
                  Before the revolution, the Bolsheviks discussed whether it was possible THE VICTORY OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION in a separate country without its occurrence in other countries (without the presence of a world revolution).
                  Lenin believed that VICTORY was possible, which was already in conflict with classical Marxism.

                  After the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia, the following question arose: is it possible BUILDING SOCIALISM IN A SINGLE COUNTRY without world revolution. Those. is it possible to build a socialist state-va surrounded by cap. states.

                  Lenin believed that construction is not possible, you need to fan the world fire - organize a world revolutionotherwise socialism in Russia cannot be built. In this he was supported by Trotsky, who, like Lenin, was a fanatic of the world revolution.
                  Yes, and Stalin initially agreed with them, and in 1924 he wrote:
                  ... to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie and establish the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean ensuring the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism—the organization of socialist production—remains yet to come. Is it possible to resolve this issue is it possible to achieve the final victory of socialism in one country without the joint efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? To overthrow the bourgeoisie, the efforts of one country are enough - the history of our revolution tells us about this. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, especially such a peasant country as Russia, are no longer enough, this requires the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries.
                  Those. it is necessary to have a victory of the social. revolutions IN SEVERAL MORE COUNTRIES

                  But after the death of Lenin, when it turned out that the world revolution would most likely not take place, and something needed to be done further, Stalin revised his position and put forward a new doctrine that the BUILDING of socialism in a separate country (without the victory of social revolutions in other countries) is quite possible.
                  The further he moved away from classical Marxism and even from the opinion of Lenin.
                  And on this issue, he and Trotsky had a major disagreement, for Trotsky was an orthodox Marxist and a fanatic of the world revolution - the victory of the proletariat throughout the world.

                  That's it, the lecture is over - if someone doesn't understand, it's not my fault, study the theory of socialism, or at least a short course in the history of the CPSU
                  1. -1
                    9 March 2023 10: 32
                    the requirement for the accuracy of words is the main requirement in the conduct of scientific controversy, because specific words identify specific concepts.

                    What does this have to do with the requirement of having a specific word ("give me a fragment from the mentioned article where you found the word CONSTRUCTION") for accepting (or not accepting in case of its absence) the thesis as an argument? This is a direct distortion of the law of identity.
                    OK, I'll explain.

                    You are failing.
                    That's it, the lecture is over.

                    She wasn't there. The funny thing is that you are quoting a specific work and do not understand at the same time that its content contradicts what you postulated in the "lecture".
                    1. 0
                      9 March 2023 10: 52
                      What does this have to do with the requirement of having a specific word ("give me a fragment from the mentioned article where you found the word CONSTRUCTION") for accepting (or not accepting in case of its absence) the thesis as an argument?
                      Do you really not understand or have you decided to engage in demagogy?

                      OK, on ​​the fingers - I wrote
                      Lenin considered building socialism in one single country is impossible.
                      Trotsky said the same


                      The man replied:
                      And when you lie, please jump up! Back in 1915, Lenin wrote an article "on the slogan of the United States of Europe", and if you were a little more literate, you would know that it was there that he developed the idea building socialism in one country,
                      Since this article does not say anything about the possibility BUILDINGS socialism in a single country, but it is said about VICTORY socialism, i.e. about the possibility of carrying out a socialist revolution, I turned to a person with a proposal
                      Colleague, if you present a historical document, where it is clearly and unambiguously recorded that in 1918 (or in another year) Lenin renounced his postulate that building socialism in one single country is IMPOSSIBLE, and stated that it is possible, I will be very grateful.
                      Here you entered the discussion by writing:
                      The colleague pointed out a specific document - the article "On the slogan of the United States of Europe"
                      Since this article says nothing about the possibility of building socialism, I also turned to you with a specific proposal:
                      OK, give me an excerpt from the mentioned article where you found the word CONSTRUCTION.
                      In response, you wrote a frankly demagogic excuse:
                      This is the most primitive type of manipulation - to demand something SPECIFIC (for example, a specific word).
                      To which I replied:
                      My dear, the requirement for the accuracy of words is the main requirement when conducting a scientific debate, because specific words identify specific concepts.
                      And then he explained in detail that in those years there were disputes on TWO theoretical issues:
                      1. the possibility of VICTORY of the socialist revolution in a separate country;
                      2. the possibility of building socialism in a single country after the victory (socialist revolution).
                      Lenin in his article "On the slogan of the United States of Europe" expressed his opinion on the FIRST question, but did not write anything about the SECOND question.

                      I hope that now those who wanted to understand will understand
                      1. -3
                        9 March 2023 11: 43
                        Do you really not understand or have you decided to engage in demagogy?

                        I really don't understand why you are demagogy.
  19. +11
    6 March 2023 10: 02
    Quote: A. Samsonov
    Why hate Stalin

    Because he cut prices. Don't be too quick to laugh.

    Almost everyone has heard of the surplus product. So, under capitalism, candy wrappers are printed for the amount of this product, which causes the amount of money supply to increase, which ultimately leads to inflation, which makes the poor become poorer.

    For the first time in the history of mankind, Stalin did not start printing money, but reduced prices for a part of the surplus product, which increased the purchasing power of citizens. The poor got richer.

    Each citizen was interested in increasing the surplus product, which allowed the agrarian country to become the first economy in the world in a short time and win the bloodiest war of the last century.

    All capitalists and economists know this, and they hate him for it. This does not fit into their concept of human-to-human exploitation.
  20. +1
    6 March 2023 10: 10
    Quote: Gardamir
    Yeltsin plunged Russia into the abyss of the 90s, but then Putin appeared and ruined everything
    Isn't that what you say? Although it's not a secret to anyone. Putin is a faithful successor of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin cause. Take Artemovsk for months. nothing bothers you?

    Scoundrels, Artyomovsk won't take everything.. And you still took Mudanjiang, so go to Prigozhin, show him how to take him in two days.
    1. +5
      6 March 2023 10: 27
      It is much more important to know and remember not "why they hate Stalin", who hates.
  21. +3
    6 March 2023 11: 23
    To honor the memory of Joseph Vissarionovich means to agree with his ideas. And who will allow them if Russia has an American constitution.
  22. +6
    6 March 2023 11: 43
    Exactly 3 reasons.
    No. 1. Having received a destroyed country managed to make it a superpower
    No. 2 In the course of this, I didn’t fill my pockets with loot myself and didn’t let others grab everything and everything.
    No. 3 . Failure was followed by immediate and severe punishment. I had to work, not to cut yachts with heifers
  23. -5
    6 March 2023 12: 03
    Yesterday, for some time, I watched Mr. Prilepin's craft on TV, in which the figure of Joseph Vissarionovich was once again repainted, repainted and tuned in every possible way. "Leatherhead" was helped by a few experts, and the general message was clear after 5 minutes of watching "this". The activation of some motives of "neo-Stalinism" is a completely logical flirtation of the authorities with the most radical, centrist-leftist sentiments of the voters. If in the 90s it was necessary to mold a spectacular "bogey" out of Stalin, now they are molding a "super-efficient manager" out of him. Even in my lifetime, all these alterations of one particular person to the needs of the time have already happened more than once, and this is not a pluralism of opinions at all. Like many things in our history, certain events or personalities are used in the interests of brainwashing with some kind of semi-religious or near-mystical overtones. How everything was “really” no one (or almost no one) has been floating for a long time, and the philistine mind soooo tends to cling to the paths of crumbs, which are diligently laid for him among the mess of being (or events long gone).
    Now in one direction .. then in another .. then in the third ... And the layman runs like an ant pleased with himself.
    The art of managing and directing, vile and disgusting)

    Stalin .. well, you know, for someone in life, a harsh dad-with-a-belt is a straight top. And for some, the image of a “straight topchik” is somewhat different - this is some kind of dad who will share his life experience, and advise a good book, and listen and support, etc. In our country, most of the population sincerely believes that "simple decisions rule life", and that a sort of dad with a belt is a panacea for all worries and unnecessary fluctuations of matter and mind. It is quite logical that for this category of people the figure of Stalin acquires a certain sacred meaning, similar to the god-father of the Jews. The logic here is simple - if you are a righteous person, then you will never be fried by lightning. And if it's fried, then you're not a righteous man, right?) For this category of people, according to a similar "logic" - any sacrifice is necessary. Ie - the more hardcore, the more epic wines. The question of "measures" and even more so of some kind of humanism is not worth it for them, because each of them fancies himself a righteous man, and puts only dirt on the other side of the barricades. Like kids, if they don't get burned, they don't understand what it's like - due to little experience or an insufficiently developed imagination (mind). They have no desire to present their pitiful carcass "on the other side of the barricades", especially since they do not think that they could well be there. Simply because the motherland would need more coal or pilnyak, or some stupid tunnel to Sakhalin from g and sticks (like the transarctic highway).

    With his activities, Stalin clearly divided people into two categories - on one side of the barricades and on the other. For one, life was generally progressive, although they were sheared like sheep, God forbid, and their life was hardcore, without joy, to be frank. There was no life at all for the other :-) They stupidly burned like candles, some for the cause, some by chance, some for the company. And no positivity.
    Before praising Joseph Vissarionovich, think about how fun both of them lived at that time. What they could and what they couldn't. What surrounded them. And then think - would you be comfortable?
    Is this exactly what you want?)
    Many people, fantasizing on the theme of "tsarist times," always imagine themselves to be nobles or, to the extreme, rich philistines. But no one presents himself as a hay wench or a serf. But the statistics say that the majority of them were "unlucky". So with the question of Stalinism - why did you decide that you would then be "lucky"? That you wouldn’t have been bombed by a lid from communal apartments or another monetary reform or from politoty - and you wouldn’t have complained to your friends about life, and then you wouldn’t have been “in the millstone” for 20 years for this. Well, or because in their youth they were an essayist, for example. Or because your dad was with noble roots.
    Click! And you would be "on the other side of the barricades" - without lawyers, appeals, without rights. You would become that "Maxwell's demon" that drags atoms back and forth, tirelessly.

    Well, I’ll finish the thought - I have nothing against industrialization or collectivization. Necessary, no alternative. But the bloody, stupid trash without a shadow of humanism, which they staged over people - I condemn and will condemn. Together with the water from the trough, the child was almost thrown out, and more than once.
    1. 0
      6 March 2023 22: 56
      Now, if less used teenage-computer-gaming slang, then the price of your reasoning would be much greater. Probably, after all, they left the pimply age a long time ago? It's all superfluous, you're quite normal reasoning without this nonsense.
    2. +1
      6 March 2023 23: 07
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      With his activities, Stalin clearly divided people into two categories - on one side of the barricades and on the other.

      Mistake. There was also a third side of the barricades.
    3. +5
      7 March 2023 07: 41
      In this way, all historical milestones can be bent. As it should. I didn’t read about the advantages of the USSR, Stalin. Only moral negativity. My grandparents got screwed. And not from Stalin, but from the type of corn workers who cover their ass, but allegedly were under Stalin's command. And they never spoke badly about Stalin at home. Even when it was fashionable.
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. +4
    6 March 2023 13: 17
    Quote from shikin
    In the Russian Federation in the 90s, in the midst of gang warfare, a lot of random people also fell "under distribution"

    ... and in 10 years the descendants of the "non-random" will be in the same group with the descendants of the "random" screaming about repression, innocence, political orders, and so on.
    And it will not be the “corrupt neighbors” who want to steal an apartment / car or how to earn / benefit, but only the government that will be to blame ...
  26. +7
    6 March 2023 13: 24
    The article is good and correct! And most of the comments too! It's nice that people remember and honor I.V. STALIN as the greatest statesman and political figure who changed Russia and created the USSR, which became an example for the entire world community! A modest man of Georgian nationality, not striving not for glory, not for personal wealth, he created the most powerful and invincible state in the world and a great people capable of creating miracles of creativity and great accomplishments! The processes of upbringing and education have been brought to perfection! And science, culture and technology have been brought to the level of the best world standards! After his death, people who were less capable of managing such a powerful state association as the USSR came to power! With their shortcomings and ambitions, which played a negative role in the management of the state and peoples, which ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR and the collapse of socialist countries. commonwealth, with the Warsaw Pact as a whole! Therefore, who can hate Stalin?! Only enemies of him, our people and our state! And the simple hardworking people of Stalin loved, loves and will love!
  27. +4
    6 March 2023 13: 27
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    So with the question of Stalinism - why did you decide that you would then be "lucky"? That you wouldn’t have been bombed by a lid from communal apartments or another monetary reform or from politoty - and you wouldn’t have complained to your friends about life, and then you wouldn’t have been “in the millstone” for 20 years for this.

    Probably because even if I am a low-skilled bring-give, I will have medical care, housing, my children will study for free and without additional fees, I will be proud of my work, and the gopota who has seized on easy money "will be embarrassed to dissect in raspberry jackets on behahs with shooting". Accordingly, it will turn out not that a lot or a little was repressed, but that the system actually fought for the self-respect of the population and against the obvious widespread advertising of corruption, tried to get away from the slave system.
    1. -2
      6 March 2023 13: 56
      A person always pays for everything))) There are no "mystical golems" that pay for this very thing, free of charge. A product or service is not taken from nowhere, and the system can either organize it with minimal "parasitic" costs, or it does not collect an appropriate share of taxes for this, and this begins to be regulated purely by the market (which still has certain regulatory mechanisms from the state) .
      So - NO FREE. There is an effective or inefficient system of veiled fees to pay for this "free" money, and there is a system that does not (almost) carry out these fees, in which you pay directly for the services that you use, and at market rates.
      When people fall for such a thing as "cashback", they think it's cool when the system returns their money to them. But in fact they are enjoying the usual discount, ALREADY included in the extra price of what they buy. Also, this "free" is never free.
      Under Stalin, there were no "youth on beha with shooting", because people had few cars at all) People were, how to say it .. beggars, yes. There was no fat. But don't be so quick to sing about the "sanctity of poverty" - the absence of ostentatious chic did not mean the absence of access segregation. Because people had different opportunities in the Soviet system. Someone, conditionally, could save up and buy (if it was), and someone could "get" something that could not be bought. And in the conditions of a generally poor life, this very "behu with shooting" was replaced by courage with much smaller things. He attended. The same personal apartments, as opposed to communal ones. Foreign or tailor-made from "familiar private traders" things as opposed to local ones. Now it may seem insignificant, but it burned a little less for contemporaries than it does for you now, for example, dissecting on "beha".

      the system actually fought for the self-respect of the population

      I’m looking at old photos from the time of some 30s and I see that poorly dressed people with sad faces are calling for shooting and killing others, some kind of enemies of the people, pests, Trotskyists, kulaks, sub-kulakists .. and other, other, spisochiks then there ogo what was. And yes, everyone needs to be nailed down "like a vermin", where without this epithet. The fact that yesterday they greeted these people, shook them a crab and ate in the same canteen, did not prevent them from "angrily stigmatizing" tomorrow, blacking out from photos and writing denunciations "where they should" on the delinquent homies. What kind of respect are we talking about?)) Is this "respect"?) Yes, to hell with this "self-respect of the population", this is some kind of press hut across the country.

      Well, yes, they tried to get out of the slave system - the work of political prisoners is, of course, attempts. Cheliks were imprisoned as not every cannibal maniac is imprisoned now, stupidly because they collected some grains for themselves in the field so as not to die of hunger or because they were discussing something, that's how we are with you now. And there they wiped their feet about them, about not criminals in fact, in a way that not every slave farm in ancient Rome wiped. At the same time, other "free people" were driven to collective farms and stuck there without passports, like "nigri" in fact. Work or die, comrade)))
      No, it was an attempt..
      1. +6
        6 March 2023 15: 05
        Foreign or tailored from "familiar private traders" things as opposed to local

        The difference is that people who bought/got a VCR, "living in the old way", gathered companies to watch movies in the evenings, and "living in a new way" organized paid video halls. Those. "fashionable clothes" that is, but here is the relation of its application to others ...
        And the rest - there was no mass cult of consumption: I had enough chewing gum at 15 kopecks per kilo and Belarusian knitwear instead of "turbos" for a ruble thing and fashionably brewed jeans.
        I look at old photos from some 30s and see that poorly dressed people with sad faces call for shooting and killing others

        I won’t say for the 30s, but from the photo 60+ and personal feelings later (both in cities and in villages, and in remote garrison settlements), I remember only smiling faces, kindness and responsiveness; about the fact that no one would pass by a person lying on the street, and so on.
        At the same time, other "free people" were driven to collective farms and stuck there without passports, like "nigri" in fact. Work or die

        Another anti-Soviet PR.
        1. Until the 72nd, criminal liability was in effect for an attempt by local authorities and collective farm organizations to prevent the departure of peasants.
        2. Permission from the chairman of the collective farm was needed to protect against the "cunning", who left before spring to work, and returned at the end of autumn demanding their share of what was collected by the collective farm. It is obvious that there were abuses, but this, as previously stated, is at the level of the "neighbors", and not the General Secretary.
        3. If until the 70s obtaining a certificate was a right, not an obligation, then from 74 all citizens were already required to obtain passports.
        1. -6
          6 March 2023 17: 06
          I realized a long time ago that Stalinism of the brain is incurable in principle, but in case you are still at least a little sane person: https://weekend.rambler.ru/read/47200731-pochemu-kolhoznikam-v-sssr-ne-vydavali -passporta/?ysclid=lewvtw4tqp423330581
          The link clarifies the question "how it was", but if you were too lazy to read, it was like this - you are assigned to the collective farm like "part of the ship-part of the team" and it’s not good for you to leave there for more than 30 days, and it’s up to you whether to leave or not some uncle who can say "go ahead Kondrat in the forest", in which he will be fully supported by the entire layer of Soviet law enforcement agencies.
          Why not serf (enslaving) law? No, well, of course, in your world of red horses it was completely different ..
          In general, I smiled that you immediately rushed to torment me like a Pecheneg, having little thought that what was written refers primarily to the STALIN period of the USSR. You see, what a thing, Stalin was already dead in the 20s for the 70th year, which you write about. After all, we are talking about Stalin, right? And the Stalinist rules.
          I am not faced with the task of PR - I'm just freaking out at what a dull porridge-baby is in people's heads, where agitprop of different decades is tightly mixed into some kind of near-religious game. Was Stalin productive? Yep, productive, I won't deny it.
          But for example, now society will be fierce, writhing furiously if someone takes it and "fucks up" or shoots even half a lama of citizens, and you will be in the forefront of packing your children and making eyes wide, talking in a whisper in the kitchens. But when we start talking about that time, you and your kind don’t feel sorry for those people and citizens - chots, these are some kind of collective farmers, they live for themselves and live in their scruffy collective farms. Well, or some kind of "enemies of the people", "why should you feel sorry for them?" , just like I see this expression! The same people as you were, they also loved to eat delicious food and go shopping.
          1. +4
            6 March 2023 18: 52
            I followed the link, read how it was ... for someone. And I mentioned it above.
            And here are my alaverdi about the laws in force under Stalin:
            1. Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of March 16.03.1930, XNUMX "On the elimination of obstacles to the free departure of peasants for seasonal work and seasonal work"
            2. Decree of the Central Executive Committee and Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of December 27, 1932 "On the establishment of a unified passport system" and "Regulations on passports"
            3. Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On the issuance of passports to citizens of the USSR on the territory of the USSR" of April 28, 1933

            And if now your passport is taken away from you on the street, taken out and sold into slavery, this is not enough for the historical fact of the legalized slave trade in Russia in 2023.
            That's just under our current laws, the slave trade is illegal and prohibited. That doesn't completely rule it out.

            As for my "red horses" after Stalin's death: what I found - that's what I'm writing about. But I found this, including thanks to Joseph Vissarionovich. As well as good memories from those times - including his legacy.

            And, once again, I do not idealize the figure, but against slander. And if the position has already gone: spy or intelligence officer / terrorist or saboteur - then I prefer to rely on facts and logic. And therefore, the laws of the USSR that were widely used during Stalin's time are a greater argument for me than a custom (?) private article, even without indicating authorship and references to sources.
          2. 0
            6 March 2023 23: 05
            My grandmother had seven children, including my father. Of these, only her son remained in his native village. Five children went to the cities, including two to the Far East. Another one, my father, stayed to work in agriculture, but in a different area. And that was all in the 50s and 60s. Although, for the sake of truth, the life of my relatives improved under Khrushchev and Brezhnev. Under Stalin, it was still hard.
            1. 0
              9 March 2023 13: 49
              It was so "hard" because under Comrade Stalin it had just ended, and in some places not quite, the civil war and the country was in ruins, the period of its restoration, to the original and further forward, until 1941, like about 20 years from the end civil, but not so much, then the Great Patriotic War and again destroyed to restore to the original and move on, since the new enemy - the SGA, who grew fat in the war, were and are in some cases worse than Germany. hi
        2. +1
          9 March 2023 13: 21
          Quote: JcVai
          Foreign or tailored from "familiar private traders" things as opposed to local

          The difference is that people who bought/got a VCR, "living in the old way", gathered companies to watch movies in the evenings, and "living in a new way" organized paid video halls. Those. "fashionable clothes" that is, but here is the relation of its application to others ...
          And the rest - there was no mass cult of consumption: I had enough chewing gum at 15 kopecks per kilo and Belarusian knitwear instead of "turbos" for a ruble thing and fashionably brewed jeans.
          I look at old photos from some 30s and see that poorly dressed people with sad faces call for shooting and killing others

          I won’t say for the 30s, but from the photo 60+ and personal feelings later (both in cities and in villages, and in remote garrison settlements), I remember only smiling faces, kindness and responsiveness; about the fact that no one would pass by a person lying on the street, and so on.
          At the same time, other "free people" were driven to collective farms and stuck there without passports, like "nigri" in fact. Work or die

          Another anti-Soviet PR.
          1. Until the 72nd, criminal liability was in effect for an attempt by local authorities and collective farm organizations to prevent the departure of peasants.
          2. Permission from the chairman of the collective farm was needed to protect against the "cunning", who left before spring to work, and returned at the end of autumn demanding their share of what was collected by the collective farm. It is obvious that there were abuses, but this, as previously stated, is at the level of the "neighbors", and not the General Secretary.
          3. If until the 70s obtaining a certificate was a right, not an obligation, then from 74 all citizens were already required to obtain passports.

          Earlier. We had one secondary school in our district and children from the village studied there.
          I graduated in 73. All the rural guys had passports. So they received them in the 71-72nd.
          My older sister graduated from school 5 years earlier and all her rural classmates also received passports at the age of 16. That is, in the 66-67 year.
          Passports were issued not by the collective farm, but by the Soviet government. That is, the Village Council.
  28. +4
    6 March 2023 14: 06
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    So with the question of Stalinism - why did you decide that you would then be "lucky"? That you wouldn’t have been bombed by a lid from communal apartments or another monetary reform or from politoty - and you wouldn’t have complained to your friends about life, and then you wouldn’t have been “in the millstone” for 20 years for this. Well, or because in their youth they were an essayist, for example. Or because your dad was with noble roots.


    You see, not everyone is like you, who looks at everything through the prism of an infantile like-dislike.
    Yes, it is possible for each individual individual, in an unfavorable situation, would have had a hard time.
    And what to do?
    There is such a very adult word - "must". And then you have to "do not like" to push into the far corner, but if this is not done, it will be very bad and very many.

    Was it different before? You yourself correctly noticed that before not everyone crunched their rolls to the tune of Schubert's waltzes. And later, in our time, for example? Are you very concerned about the problems of the "poor" or the working conditions and existence of some guest workers? Can't you go to sleep in peace from the current injustice or inequality? Or is it still not, if for garlic? After all, your darling, by and large, is only concerned about your own well-being, and the rest - do not care about the skyscraper.
    As you yourself again noticed, there was no acceptable alternative to industrialization. And, with a lack of positive incentives, it was necessary to use negative ones. Nothing new, Peter the Great also leaned more on the whip than on the gingerbread.
    When there was an opportunity, IVS willingly used gingerbread. In particular, by paying cash bonuses for front-line successes (destroyed tanks, aircraft, etc.).
    1. -4
      6 March 2023 14: 43
      Dad-with-a-belt approves)))
      There is such a very adult word - "must"

      And on this adult word "necessary" the entire trained system did not reach communism, but until 1991. The party was right, such as you "adult serious uncles" did not doubt - and the train took "where it was taking you". After all, according to your logic, the super-rights of the system are compensated by some super-result in the future? Well, here it is the result) We live in it.
      Yes, it is possible for each individual individual, in an unfavorable situation, would have had a hard time.

      If these lists included exclusively philosophizing Stalinists like you, I have nothing against it! For the rest, I leave the right to live as they like. The system should be beneficial to EVERYONE and not to some, albeit a large group. Otherwise, it is a discriminatory system, the success of which is due to the suppression of one group of people - another group. How does this differ from serfdom in construction? Adherents of serfdom also said that they "protect the peasants", considering them unreasonable undead, incapable of anything constructive, and therefore dangerous to themselves. The same logic of things continued under Stalinism, as did the logic of "the tsar is good and the boyars are bad", in which Stalin was fucking wise and perspicacious, but his work was ruined and ruined by his satraps, all as one insidious and petty little people.
      After all, your darling, by and large, cares only about your own well-being, and the rest - spit from a skyscraper

      And you, probably, are a happy teacher of 20 orphanage children, volunteering in your free time? Or maybe you are St. Paul, who saw the truth "how to live" and with his golden finger shows us, miserable cockroaches, swarming in the mud of their own petty-bourgeois delusions? Your "persuaders" are your own business, 1/8 of the truth. In them, you, however, think that someone is not good enough to beat him for the truth, but I don’t think so. The thing about humor is that through the wall from you there may be people who, perhaps, believe that it will be you who will need to be nailed for the common good. Not for you, sir, and not for him, and not for Stalin, to decide how to live. Everyone decides for himself.
      1. +3
        6 March 2023 18: 32
        Infantilism in every message cannot be hidden even behind jargon. Well, this is generally his quintessence
        The system should be beneficial to EVERYONE and not to some, albeit a large group. Otherwise, it is a discriminatory system, the success of which is due to the suppression of one group of people - another group.
  29. +5
    6 March 2023 14: 19
    Alas. No numbers, no data, just general reasoning ....
    About nothing.

    But really - here are all the statements of the GDP about Stalin? Medvedev? Data during and after ...
    compare at least one industry under him and now? Name the name of the main haters in power??

    Weakly ... so as not to repeat the Unnamed, everyone does without a full name ....
    1. 0
      9 March 2023 13: 54
      Yes, because in terms of repression, today's Russian Federation has not gone far from the USSR and even surpassed it in some moments, but the USSR was at least more honest, since there were so-called "political" articles, and now for criticizing the authorities, you, as in those but the SGA, from whom they probably learned, not a political, but a completely general criminal article, will be "soldered" and you will be a simple criminal and no one else.
  30. +3
    6 March 2023 14: 22
    Quote: Lewww
    That's right, but there is only a continuation: Lenin considered the construction of socialism in one single country impossible.
    Trotsky spoke in exactly the same way, after the revolution he had no disagreements with Lenin, they were both Marxists


    1. Therefore, Lenin began to build socialism in Russia?
    Stalin took full power only in 1929, the construction of socialism was already in full swing.
    2. By and large, neither Lenin nor Trotsky were Marxists. The most consistent Marxist in Russia is Plekhanov.
    However, Marx himself once remarked that he was not a Marxist. laughing
    3. Socialism "according to Marx" in Russia was not possible either then or now. Marxism is for Europe, but we are not Europe. This means that we need a different socialism.
  31. +2
    6 March 2023 14: 27
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    No, it was an attempt..


    But this "attempt" was made possible and in demand by such predecessors as the corrupt tsarist government and the liberal Februaryists.
    And now the ground for a new "Stalinism" is being prepared by the liberal democrats, who, with their market experiments, let go to the wind what, at the cost of considerable labor (and losses too), was created in the Stalin era.
    It is you, gentlemen - the liberals who create the conditions for the implementation of a new "attempt".
    So if you want to see a "stalinist" - look in the mirror.

    "Thou art the man who did these things."
    1. -5
      6 March 2023 14: 51
      "We, gentlemen liberals," point out to you, gentlemen who lost the USSR, that the liberal gentlemen grew up in the third generation of the builders of communism, who were saturated with such "holy things" as Soviet education, morality and humanism. And basically yes, "not from the plow", but from the very top of the system.
      When people like you, puffing out their cheeks, talk about where the trends of 1991 came from, they talk as if Gaidar, Chubais and Burbulis flew in from Mars and captured everything. No, sir, these people grew up in "such an awesome, such a cool system", the base for which was built by "such a perspicacious, such a cool" Iosif Vissarionovich and Co. And it was in THIS system that they were able to crawl into power, calmly bypassing all of its "protection from a fool and contra", and do what they wanted.

      If Stalin was so cool, why did he miss Khrushchev? Why didn't you leave the receiver? Why did the whole system slip so quickly to "late Brezhnev", in less than one generation? Yes, in fact, with the characters who grew up under Stalin, she slipped to such a state :-)
      You have no answers to this other than the traditional leftist dull demagoguery. And now you won't surprise me with anything.
      1. +1
        7 March 2023 09: 14
        Quote: Knell Wardenheart
        When people like you, puffing out their cheeks, talk about where the trends of 1991 came from, they talk as if Gaidar, Chubais and Burbulis flew in from Mars and captured everything. No, sir, these people grew up in "such an awesome, such a cool system", the base for which was built by "such a perspicacious, such a cool" Iosif Vissarionovich and Co. And it was in THIS system that they were able to crawl into power, calmly bypassing all of its "protection from a fool and contra", and do what they wanted.


        You are not very original and quite predictable.
        Alas, the "new world" had to be built from the ruins of the old, from the human material that was available. And these "fragments", the most developed and far-sighted, fit perfectly into the new system, even at the grassroots level. Those kulaks that were dumber took sawn-off shotguns and killed members of the village council, while those that were more cunning joined collective farms and state farms themselves and made a career, became bosses. Well, on higher floors - a similar picture. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, despite the change in the ideological course, our country in terms of mental, spiritual, cultural, educational, etc. was too attached to the West, its traditions and values. After all, Marxism did not come to us from Tibet, as it were. Alas, this connection has not yet been blocked, although such a dependence in the future is preparing a new catastrophe for us.
        The system collapsed precisely because, in fact, the "Iron Curtain" turned out to be largely a myth. Both Chubais and Gaidar and other burbulis were formed as individuals thanks to Western influence, since it was for the "elite", "intelligentsia" that the West with its values ​​was quite accessible (unlike ordinary citizens).

        Any system can be destroyed from the inside, alas. If you think Western democracies are invulnerable, you are wrong. It is very easy to transform any "democracy" into a real totalitarian dictatorship (like the Weimar Republic and many "young democracies" of interwar Europe). There's just no motivation for that... yet.

        And why the representatives of the Soviet elite decided to take a course towards the dismantling of the Soviet system is quite understandable. They were driven by "eternal universal values" - greed, selfishness, lust for power, something that they could not fully reveal under the dominance of communist ideology. So the former managers decided to become full-fledged masters by privatizing the public property.
        You can say this is quite natural, the normal order of things. As well as the increase in entropy, the triumph of death over life, or falling into the abyss under the influence of gravity. But that doesn't mean that something like this is worth striving for.
      2. 0
        8 March 2023 15: 08
        Quote: Knell Wardenheart
        When people like you puffing out their cheeks talk about where the trends came from 1991

        "People like us" will never choose the image of a "unicorn" as an avatar, knowing that it is used in the form of a chevron by a coming out army with a non-traditional sexual orientation.
        By the way, "sex-Mensheviks" do not like Stalin very much for criminal prosecution under the corresponding article of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. feel
  32. +5
    6 March 2023 14: 56
    Khrushchev-Trotskyist was removed, but Trotskyism remained. Andropov, one of them, who brought up the Gorbachevs, the Yakovlevs, the Shevardnadzes, the Gaidars and the Chubais.
  33. +4
    6 March 2023 15: 29
    Here the criterion is simple.
    Stalin is the best friend of athletes, children, women, scientists, teachers, doctors, workers and peasants of the Red Army and the Soviet police.
    This means that those who hate Stalin are the enemies of all of the above categories, which in a strange way coincides with the direction of "reforms" and all sorts of "national projects" there.
  34. +2
    6 March 2023 17: 11
    None of the rulers of Russia, from Peter to Putin, did more for the state than Joseph Vissarionovich. That's why politicians don't like him - out of envy, and simple people love him!
  35. +5
    6 March 2023 19: 02
    The ruling party of the Russian Federation did not consider it possible for itself to honor the memory of I.V. Stalin, on the day of the seventieth anniversary of his death. By this, she showed her attitude to the Great Soviet period in Russia. Fine, the masks are off. Then, she (the ruling party) should stop "showing off" at events dedicated to May 9, 1945. Her holiday is October 1993 (coup d'état). They should hold parades on golden Rolls-Royces, Maybachs and huge ocean-going yachts stuffed to the brim with green paper with portraits of US presidents.
  36. 0
    7 March 2023 10: 12
    Truth-Justice-Patriotism-Great Russia.
    Without truth there can be no justice, without truth and justice there can be no patriotism,
    without truth, justice, patriotism, there can be no Great Russia.
  37. +5
    7 March 2023 10: 58
    Interesting. The very name of Stalin acts like a cross to hell, to the admirers of the "holy market, and all foreign investors who shone in the Russian land." I have to tell the children about the past of our country, and they ask the question - why do we hear this from you, but at school they don’t tell us a word about it?
  38. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  39. +5
    7 March 2023 19: 35
    Why do they hate? Yes, because against the background of the great Stalin, all the current rulers look not only like political dwarfs - but simply like fleas!
  40. 0
    7 March 2023 19: 38
    Why everyone loves Stalin! Correct AshiBka author!
  41. +2
    7 March 2023 20: 11
    Grandfather went through the war, and a portrait of Comrade Stalin hung over the bed in a small room. And it's a big picture in a frame. Where is Comrade Stalin at the table with inkwells.
    Perhaps this is not easy?! ..
    Although, Comrade grandfather grabbed happiness in both presses ... hi
    1. 0
      8 March 2023 18: 07
      Quote: Petrol cutter

      Perhaps this is not easy?! ..
      Although, Comrade grandfather grabbed happiness in both presses ... hi

      He "grabbed both hands," I guess, not from Stalin, but from "dear Russians" - his contemporaries. But he understood that without Stalin he would have grabbed even more!
  42. +1
    7 March 2023 20: 53
    Most of him respects, appreciates and loves, if anything ...
  43. -4
    7 March 2023 21: 04
    they will say the same about Putin
  44. +1
    8 March 2023 14: 51
    Stalin is great and mighty, his deeds are immortal .., his haters are petty and insignificant, because behind each of them the purely personal interests of a petty owner loom, whose ancestors the state forced to respect the interests of both the country and the working people.
  45. +1
    8 March 2023 17: 16
    "Why do they hate Stalin" ....
    It is necessary to clarify: who hates ...
    Remember tens of thousands of flowers on Stalin's grave. Who else has received such an honor? Such Love! Such Respect!
    You can't buy it for American candy wrappers.
    And speaking of hate...
    Imagine ANY current politician against the BACKGROUND of Stalin.
    HORRIBLE Dwarfs....
    Yes, they are choking on their own shit from hatred.
  46. +2
    9 March 2023 09: 39
    Quote: Alexander_TOZ
    The very name of Stalin acts like a cross to hell, to the admirers of the "holy market, and all foreign investors who shone in the Russian land."


    The vast majority of anti-Soviet people are Westerners.
    The vast majority of Westerners are anti-Soviet.
    And for the West, Stalin and the Stalinist USSR are the biggest nightmare and challenge. It has never happened before that the West has been played on an equal footing.
    That is why they hate Russia so sincerely, they are afraid of repetition...
  47. 0
    9 March 2023 13: 56
    And, for example, Stalin is being "rinsed" for the cult of personality. But isn't Putin's licking from all sides up to "if there is no Putin, there will be no Russia"? Or if there are no large portraits and monuments on the streets, what doesn't count?
  48. 0
    9 March 2023 15: 26
    And why love this bloody ghoul and cannibal Dzhugashvili, who staged the genocide of Soviet people ?!
    1. -2
      12 March 2023 12: 46
      were those people Soviet?? That's how much you would put to the wall of the racist people sitting in power today ??? How about garlic??
  49. -2
    9 March 2023 17: 19
    Well, in principle, the answer to this question is rather banal - why do they hate Hitler? Here is the answer for you. Hitler and Stalin are twin brothers, almost everything is the same
  50. 0
    9 March 2023 19: 25
    The party was supposed to lose political power, becoming an ideological "order" that educates the people. Real power would pass to the people - the Soviets. That would be true democracy.

    Some kind of manilovism. How exactly was it supposed to look like?
  51. 0
    9 March 2023 21: 00
    Quote: 30 vis
    I had two grandfathers and an uncle, my wife’s grandmother, who were imprisoned in Stalin’s camps. Ordinary people . were declared kulaks. for hard work.

    This is how it is now - ask any prisoner - everyone is innocent and is in prison for nothing.
    laughing
  52. The comment was deleted.
  53. +2
    10 March 2023 13: 27
    Quote: SergiK
    And why love this bloody ghoul and cannibal Dzhugashvili, who staged the genocide of Soviet people ?!


    The real genocide of the Soviet people was carried out by those who fiercely hate Stalin.
  54. The comment was deleted.
  55. 0
    11 March 2023 21: 24
    Why love him? Almost every ruler has a positive side. Therefore, total denigration is as stupid as putting someone on a pedestal.
    But the fact of mass terror is a fact. Not purges of the ranks “at the top,” which are largely justified, but the destruction or sending to prison of millions on completely false suspicions. Moreover, most of them had nothing to do with politics at all... And this is not only 1937 - after the war, the returning heroes were not greeted with flowers...
    Industrialization, yes, is a great victory. But it essentially came at the price of returning serfdom to the countryside, which led to outright robbery of the working peasantry.
    1. 0
      11 March 2023 21: 51
      Quote: Alexander Tolkalin
      But the fact of mass terror is a fact. Not purges of the ranks “at the top,” which are largely justified, but the destruction or sending to prison of millions on completely false suspicions.

      Tell me about the millions of false suspicions. At least it will be more fun. If anything, my paternal great-grandfather was from the dispossessed, my maternal grandfather went through an NKVD camp. Which stuck him in a mine, where he retired at the age of 50. Tell your stories about the robbery of the working peasantry.
  56. -2
    12 March 2023 00: 40
    The persistence of the Stalinists trying to justify the tyrant is surprising.

    [Quote]Joseph Stalin accepted a completely dead, burnt-out country that experienced a civilizational, design and state catastrophe in 1917-1920. [/ Quote]

    Has anyone really forgotten that Joseph Stalin was Lenin’s militant and did everything possible to kill and burn that very country.

    Stalin rebuilt the national economy, created new, advanced industries, modernized and re-equipped the Armed Forces (army and navy). He brought up a new generation of Soviet people, selflessly devoted to the Motherland and socialism, the Great Cause. In essence, a cultural revolution has taken place. Education and health care have become advanced, accessible to the common people.


    In fact, Stalin, having destroyed the engineering corps, officers, scientific and cultural intelligentsia of the Russian Empire by the end of the 50s, fulfilled his role in the collapse of the Russian Empire, programmed the collapse of the USSR. By the end of the 50s, that insignificant layer of specialists trained during the Russian Empire died or retired, without leaving a sufficient number of trained personnel. It was the lack of qualified personnel in the post-war period that led to the collapse of the economy and the USSR. The country was destroyed by the Khrushchevs and Brezhnevs, brought to power by the narrow-minded, bloody dictator Stalin.

    During the Great Patriotic War, Stalin took full responsibility for the fate of the country. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief prepared the country and people for a big war and repelled another “crusade” of the West against the Russian world.


    Stalin, with his inexplicable prohibitions to bring troops into combat readiness and disperse them, allowed Hitler to destroy the personnel, trained units of the Red Army. Those huge human losses of the USSR were directly predetermined by Stalin’s rash decisions. All his previous activities led the country to this disaster. There was no one other than the Khrushchevs and Brezhnevs to provide an objective picture to the country’s top leadership in order to make quality decisions.

    Why in the West and here do all kinds of liberals, democrats, cosmopolitan Westerners, thieves-plutocrats, new Bandera and Vlasovites, Basmachi-jihadists and Baltic Nazis hate Stalin? The answer is simple. He was for Russia and the people.


    Stalin held onto his chair with both hands. For this purpose, he destroyed the people and built factories on their bones. Spare Russia from repeating this horror.

    At least Lenin realized that the NEP would save Russia. Stalin, with his shortsightedness, managed to ruin this initiative, and even washed the country with blood. China, by the way, precisely thanks to its careful attitude towards small businesses, has become the world's largest industrial power. Unlike the USSR. All these mistakes are somehow connected with the name of Stalin. This is a clear example of how not to run a country and what kind of people should not be allowed to power.
    It is necessary to develop an anti-Stalinist antidote, and not glorify Stalin and the Bolsheviks.
  57. The comment was deleted.
  58. +2
    15 March 2023 09: 39
    Quote from Eugene Zaboy
    Has anyone really forgotten that Joseph Stalin was Lenin’s militant and did everything possible to kill and burn that very country.


    Nikolashka and his successors, the gentlemen democrats, who dragged the country into a bloody war with Germany, which was impossible for Russia to win, killed and burned that country.

    Quote from Eugene Zaboy
    In fact, Stalin, having destroyed the engineering corps, officers, scientific and cultural intelligentsia of the Russian Empire by the end of the 50s, fulfilled his role in the collapse of the Russian Empire, programmed the collapse of the USSR. By the end of the 50s, that insignificant layer of specialists trained during the Russian Empire died or retired, without leaving a sufficient number of trained personnel.


    There was nothing to destroy. The Republic of Ingushetia produced fewer engineers per year than in Belgium, a very large European country. laughing . Obviously not a corps... a couple of battalions.
    Destruction through aging and retirement is something new, however. Even Stalin is to blame for this, well, well.
    There were, however, enough trained personnel in the USSR to explore space, create powerful military-industrial complexes and fuel and energy complexes, develop nuclear energy and much more, which few people are capable of even now.
    During the "Brezhnev stagnation" cities were erected in Siberia. Stagnation is only in the heads of the capital's assholes, who didn't really like that the development gap between the capital and the provinces began to narrow.

    Quote from Eugene Zaboy
    Stalin, with his inexplicable prohibitions to bring troops into combat readiness and disperse them, allowed Hitler to destroy the personnel, trained units of the Red Army. Those huge human losses of the USSR were directly predetermined by Stalin’s rash decisions.


    Stalin, at the beginning of the war, did not hold any military positions. It was the army leadership of that time, which Stalin, alas, did not clean up, that was to blame for the fact that the war did not start in the best way.
    However, even if the border districts had been in full combat readiness, this would have changed little; the enemy’s superiority was too great and he, as an aggressor, had the strategic initiative and was noticeably superior in mobility to our army, which was a determining factor given the nature of the battlefield .

    During the First World War, the Russian army also suffered continuous defeats from the Germans. And in World War II, the French, for whom the factor of surprise did not play a role and whose army was mobilized, also could not boast of success. Although they did not have Stalin, nor repressions, at the head of the country and the army was an experienced commander of the First World War... so what?

    The human losses of the USSR were determined by the actions of the Reich, not Stalin, since real genocide was carried out against the Soviet people. That is why civilian casualties are so high.
  59. 0
    15 March 2023 14: 52
    I read Troitsky’s memoirs, including those about Stalin. The main complaint is Stalin as the leader of the party bureaucracy, who abandoned the world revolution and at the last stage Lenin wanted to abandon him, but was unable to due to illness. Trotsky himself was unable and did not really want (including with constant disease of the tonsils) to defeat Stalin in the party struggle. He was deported and killed in Mexico in 1940. Stalin is not a saint, he is a man of his cruel time, with forms of struggle that were inherent in 2 revolutions, a civil war and 2 world wars. If we apply the Chinese formula for assessing Mao to Stalin, then Stalin was 60-80 percent right... Or maybe 90 percent. That would be more correct.
  60. 0
    April 16 2023 07: 48
    Why don't they hate STALIN??? He pinned too many balls!!!!!
  61. 0
    April 16 2023 18: 35
    Stalin has merits, but there are also serious failures: famine and collectivization of 32-33, repressions of 37-38, the unsuccessful start of the 1941 war. For the common people, Stalin is not sugar. I suspect that for Stalin, the people were simply material with which he could do whatever he wanted.
  62. 0
    April 17 2023 20: 39
    Let's not forget about the Stalinist plan for the transformation of nature, which, unfortunately, was not fully implemented.
  63. 0
    5 May 2023 10: 57
    There are flowers on his grave and 70 years have passed... Few have earned such respect and love...
  64. 0
    5 May 2023 11: 17
    Stalin is a bloody murderer and ghoul, guilty of genocide of the Soviet people.
  65. 0
    19 May 2023 18: 18
    Stalin is first and foremost a communist and a successor to Lenin's work!
  66. 0
    19 May 2023 21: 48
    Before asking a question about the reasons for hatred of Stalin, one must ask: Who are these haters? And it turns out that one people passes off their hatred as universal.
  67. 0
    24 May 2023 05: 31
    Didn’t Stalin shoot the author’s grandfather?
    Didn’t he send his grandmother away to Siberia for ten years?

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

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