Military Review

The end of the left opposition. How Stalin Trotsky beat

The end of the left opposition. How Stalin Trotsky beatFrom 2 to 19 December 1927, the 15th congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was held in Moscow. The delegates, consisting of 1669 people, made a number of crucial decisions concerning the further development of the country. Thus, directives were drawn up on the first five-year plan for the development of the national economy. In addition, delegates decided on collectivization in the countryside. At the congress was finally crushed by the so-called. “Left Opposition” (another name is “Trotsky-Zinoviev anti-party bloc”), which included various groups based on supporters of Lev Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev.

1. "Exclusive" forum

The oppositionists were accused of trying to create something like a special party. In the Political Report of the Central Committee, Secretary General Joseph Stalin described the situation as follows: “You ask what, after all, are the differences between the party and the opposition, on what issues do these differences lie? For all questions, comrades. (Voices: “That's right!”) Recently, I read the statement of one non-party worker in Moscow who is joining or has already joined the party. Here is how he formulates the question of disagreements between the party and the opposition: “We used to look for differences between the party and the opposition. And now you will not find in what she agrees with the party. (Laughter, applause.) Opposition against the party on all issues, therefore, if I were a supporter of the opposition, I would not have joined the party. ” (Laughter, applause). This is what workers sometimes are able to express accurately and briefly at the same time. I think that this is the most accurate and correct description of the attitude of the opposition to the party, to its ideology, to its program, to its tactics. It is precisely because the opposition disagrees with the party on all issues, that is why the opposition is a group with its own ideology, with its program, with its tactics, with its organizational principles. All that is necessary for the new party, all this is in the opposition. All that is missing is “little things”; there is not enough strength for that. (Laughter. Applause.) "

Organizational measures were taken directly at the congress - delegates excluded from the CPSU (b) participants of the left opposition (75 "Trotskyites-Zinovievtsi"), putting a bold line under the many years of intra-party struggle, which sharply spread on different sides of the leading representatives of the "Leninist Guard". So what happened, why the opposition had to apply such drastic measures? To answer this question you need to refer to the beginning of the conflict.

2. In the struggle for the inheritance of Ilyich

The factional struggle in the party flared constantly, but in 1923, the situation became sharply aggravated. And here, Vladimir Lenin's illness affected the hopes of the leaders, to whom a hypothetical opportunity to take his place of the “leader of the world proletariat” opened up. The Left itself started the battle - actually the supporters of L. Trotsky and the so-called. “Democratic centralists” (Andrei Bubnov, and others), advocating the freedom of all groups and factions. They tried to stun the party masses with the “letter 46”, in which they attacked the “conservative bureaucracy” of the leadership.

At that time, the party and the country were led by a triumvirate consisting of the chairman of the Leningrad executive committee and the executive committee of the Comintern G. Zinoviev, the chairman of the Moscow executive committee L. Kamenev and the general secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union (B) J. Stalin.

Trotsky readily supported the opposition in his article "The New Deal". After all, in fact, we are talking about shifting the party elite under the leadership of the “demon of the revolution” itself. The left quickly gained popularity among young people (especially students), skillfully using its inherent non-conformism, multiplied by the unheard of fever of the revolutionary years. However, they considered the army to be their main support, which, strictly speaking, was headed by the Commissariat of Defense and the pre-Revolutionary Military Council Trotsky. However, the Trotskyists occupied many leading posts in the Red Army - as its Political Directorate was headed by Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko, who issued a special circular in which the party army organizations were ordered to support the "new course" of their idol. The commander of the Moscow Military District, Nikolai Muralov, went even further, expressly proposing the use of Red Army units to dislodge the party leadership. At the same time, the Trotskyists tried to win over some "neutral" commanders - for example, the commander of the Western Front, Mikhail Tukhachevsky. In general, the smell was already a military conspiracy, which was threatened by the “inner-party discussion”.

Under these conditions, the party leadership launched a personnel counterattack, removing a number of leading Trotskyists from their posts (in particular, the same Antonov-Ovseenko). But the most interesting thing happened in the region, as they would say now, PR and anti-PR. The quarreling leaders decided to find out which of them is “more mother stories valuable. " Well, of course, they turned to the history of the October Revolution (by the way, the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks was then called that, officially). Trotsky was remembered that he had become a Bolshevik several months before October, before often speaking in favor of compromising with the Mensheviks. Of course, Trotsky did not remain in debt and slashed the truth about the way Zinoviev and Kamenev behaved, who issued (in print) to the Provisional Government as much as the plan of an armed uprising.

For the broad party masses, poorly informed in history, these revelations caused something like a shock. They were already beginning to get used to the deification of their leaders, and suddenly they began to spread such terrible things about themselves.
Of course, their authority was significantly undermined.

3. Secretary General collects frames

In the most advantageous position here was Stalin, who almost did not take part in the war of compromising materials. And he did it right, because he could have something to remember. For example, about how in March 1917 of the year he spoke from “defensive” positions, recognizing the possibility of conditional support for the Provisional Government. However, this did not happen: “Stalin avoided serious blows to his authority. The combination of hardness and moderation he showed during the discussion only strengthened his prestige. ” (Yury Emelyanov "Trotsky. Myths and Personality")

So, the future leader of the USSR, and yet the General Secretary, still retained his prestige. And he did not fail to use it in political struggle, relying on the party apparatus. He paid special attention to working with the secretaries of provincial and district party organizations. Actually, the composition of delegations to the CPSU (b) congresses depended on them, which is why the painstaking work with local functionaries provided the Stalinist majority in the future, who managed to defeat left oppositionists.

Stalin collected cadres, "sharpening" them under the inner-party struggle. At the same time, he and his entourage acted according to the principle “in war as in war.” Well, and the war requires intelligence and counterintelligence, all important information was communicated (from top to bottom, and bottom to top) in the context of the strictest secrecy.
This was followed by a special body - the Secret Department of the Central Committee. But the regional bodies, which Stalin wanted to liken to the Center, also had their secret departments.

The middle of the 20-ies became a real "golden age" of the party nomenclature. In 1923 — 1927, the numerical composition of the republican Central Committee, regional committees, city committees and district committees doubled. Trotskyists and other leftist-wing oppositionists were placed in a reliable barrier, however, the strengthening of the party apparatus was accompanied by its merging with state structures. And this strengthened the bureaucracy, weakened political work in favor of purely directive leadership. And I must say that Stalin quite early noticed the abnormality of the situation. Already in June 1924 of the year, in the course of secretaries of county committees of the CPSU (b), he abruptly attacked the thesis of the "dictatorship of the party", then adopted by all the leaders. The Secretary General claimed that there was not a party dictatorship in the country, but the dictatorship of the working class. And in December 1925 of the year in the political report of the XIV Congress, Stalin emphasized that the party “is not identical with the state”, and “The Politburo is the highest body not of the state, but of the party”. These were the first, cautious steps towards the weakening of the partocracy. Well, after the defeat of the "Left" they attempted to reform the party. In December 1927 of the year, at the plenum of the Central Committee, held after the XV Congress, he proposed liquidating the post of general secretary. Iosif Vissarionovich said the following: “If Lenin came to the need to put forward the question of establishing the institution of the Secretary General, I believe that he was guided by the special conditions that we had after the Tenth Congress, when a more or less strong and organized opposition was created within the party. But now these conditions are no longer in the party, for the opposition is utterly broken. Therefore, it would be possible to abolish this institution ... ”

At the same time, Stalin offered himself to the position of chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, clearly indicating where the center of political power should be. However, the participants in the plenum refused to support Joseph Vissarionovich.

4. How Trotsky himself has become too smart

Zinoviev and Kamenev, with their denial of “national limitation”, were much closer to Trotsky than Stalin and Pravda’s editor Nikolai Bukharin, who recognized the possibility of building socialism in one single country. And, nevertheless, Lev Davidovich at first abstained from an alliance with this binary. He hoped that both groups would weaken each other, and he, at the right moment, would act as an arbitrator.

Perhaps Trotsky would have gone into an alliance with Zinoviev and Kamenev right away, but he had been in pain with the creepy “counter” earlier with them. In the 1924 year, Zinoviev even proposed to arrest Trotsky, and the requirement to exclude the “demon of the revolution” from the party was almost constant.

Stalin, on the other hand, considered it necessary to maintain the image of a party liberal, opposing repressive measures against Trotsky, whom he hated.
And the latter, of course, could not ignore this circumstance, drawing from it incorrect conclusions about the more gentle general secretary. It is curious that in the Trotsky faction there were even supporters of an alliance with Joseph Vissarionovich - in particular, this view was held by Karl Radek. (In the future, he will repent of his Trotskyism and become the head of the Central Committee’s Foreign Relations Bureau, which was something like party intelligence. It was in that capacity that Radek made great efforts to get closer to Germany in the 1930s.)

Trotsky greatly miscalculated - without his support, Zinoviev and Kamenev were in a very difficult position and could not withstand the organizational pressure of Stalin. At the XIV Congress of the CPSU (b), held in 1925, all delegations, except the Leningrad proper, came out against them. As a result, the leaders of the "new opposition" lost their leading positions. And here Trotsky realized that he could not become an arbiter. He went on a rapprochement with Zinoviev and Kamenev, which ended with the creation of a powerful left-wing coalition. She proposed her own program of super-industrialization of the country, involving the implementation of the "big leap". It is believed that it was this program that Stalin realized, whose disagreements with the opposition allegedly concerned exclusively the question of power. However, to reduce everything to the struggle for power is not worth it, the differences were precisely substantial.

The left opposition was, above all, against the "national limitation", the country's withdrawal into "isolation." According to the left oppositionists, the USSR had to fully support the revolutionary movement in other countries, but at the same time integrate into the world (capitalist) economy system. Thus, the Trotskyist plan for industrialization provided for long-term imports of Western equipment (up to 50% of all capacities), for which it was intended to actively use Western loans. It is clear that this would make the USSR dependent on the leading Western powers. At the same time, the support of the revolutionary movement would be used by the same West to put pressure on the national elites of the third world countries and their own "reactionary nationalist elements." But Stalin's industrialization, on the contrary, was accompanied by a constant and steady reduction in imports of Western technology - with the active use of highly paid labor by foreign specialists. That is, the difference is quite obvious, therefore, Stalin and his “left” opponents cannot be put on the same footing in any way.

It turns out that the left opposition, in spite of all its r-revolutionary phraseology, worked for the bourgeois West? Yes, that's exactly what happens if you compare many, by the way, fairly well-known facts.

(At one time, the author of these lines had to write about the connections of the “demon of revolution” with Western democracies) For example, the most interesting observation made by the historian Nikolai Starikov: “The opposition to the Stalinist course at different times composed different programs. Only one thing united them: accept such a program and the party will very quickly have nothing left of the country. In words it sounds beautiful, like the famous “83's platform” ... We compare the dates, when did the Trotskyists write this platform? It turns out in May 1927. And on May 27 of the year 1927, the United Kingdom broke off diplomatic relations with the USSR! Do you believe in such accidents? For our research, the very fact of such a quick break in relations is important: in February, 1924 was recognized, in May 1927 was no longer wanted to know. Why? Because Stalin’s victory over Trotsky was already becoming obvious, and the United Kingdom was not ashamed to clearly demonstrate its position. The hint is very transparent: the Stalinist course will finally prevail - the consequences will be sad for the Soviet country. ” ("Who made Hitler attack Stalin?")

The united left opposition launched a decisive attack. Meanwhile, time was already lost forever. Stalin established lasting control over party structures. And the ubiquitous Agitprop was brainwashed by the party (and non-party) "mass." However, this “mass” itself over the years of the NEP got rid of revolutionary fever and was already focused on peaceful construction.

5. Failed revolution

Having suffered a defeat in the party elections, the Trotskyists and other left-wing opposition members certainly did not reconcile. They began to prepare for mass actions, for which they formed parallel party committees, created secret printing presses and developed a plan of demonstrations dedicated to the 10 anniversary of the October Revolution. Trotsky had at his disposal a group of young activists who were ready to take control of the street. He also had a “spare armored train”, a group of personally loyal military men. One of them, the division commander Dmitry Schmidt, shortly before the November events openly threatened General Secretary Stalin with physical violence.

Of course, Stalin also prepared for the decisive battle for power. And he also made a bet on the street and the army (special services played their part, but they didn’t push themselves too much.) Young Stalinist students were organized into shock brigades led by the Technical Secretary of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee George Malenkov ( he received this position without having any revolutionary merit - Stalin was pushing new people to power.) These mobile units crashed into a crowd of Trotsky's supporters, who came out for a festive demonstration, and thereby upset the ranks of the "left".

At the same time, the commander of the Moscow Military District, a non-partisan military expert Boris Shaposhnikov, brought armored cars to the streets of the capital, thus blocking a possible attempt by Trotsky military troops.

On the day of November 7, Trotsky traveled by car through the capital and addressed the demonstrators. He tried to speak in front of the demonstrators from the balcony of the National Hotel, but he was given a very brutal obstruction. A carefully planned seizure of power was foiled.

The further fate of the left opposition was predetermined. After losing the election and election campaign, she expected a devastating party congress.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mda
    mda 21 December 2012 14: 15
    Very interesting, thanks for the article.
    1. bask
      bask 21 December 2012 15: 27
      The article has been verified historically +. On the topic .. If Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. Didn’t outstep the Sotsky .. In Russia the genocide of the Cossacks continued, with the complete destruction of the Russian Church, culture, history. And the whole of Russian ... Everything would be banned. Thanks to Comrade I.S. Stalin for saving the entire Russian people from ........ genocide ... !!!!!
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 21 December 2012 16: 53
        Well, Trotsky has enough admirers and successors in Russia, so Tolik Chubais came to bow
        1. strannik595
          strannik595 21 December 2012 17: 06
          tactics, with their organizational principles. All that is necessary for the new party, all this is available to the opposition. Only the “little things” are lacking; there is not enough strength for this. (Laughter. Applause.) "....................... but Stalin and Silushka were doing fine, and their heads worked ahead of opponents .......... which life did not last very long, the hydra of the revolution is she, toothy
        2. hrych
          hrych 21 December 2012 17: 36
          Well, an ice ax to him between the horns.
          1. donchepano
            donchepano 21 December 2012 21: 38
            Quote: hrych
            Well, an ice ax to him between the horns.

            coma, redhead7))
            1. hrych
              hrych 22 December 2012 09: 15
              Himself, redhead.
              1. hrych
                hrych 31 December 2012 15: 13
                [media = http: //
                v & OBT_fname = clinton-in-ilk-tepkisi-wow.flv]
        3. Grenz
          Grenz 21 December 2012 18: 38
          That would be with these symbols Chubais on the head and eggs !!!
          We still had the correct coat of arms
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 21 December 2012 20: 48
            Quote: grenz
            We still had the correct coat of arms

        4. donchepano
          donchepano 23 December 2012 13: 56
          then it is part of the clan of the destroyers of Russia
          Quote: Vadivak
          here Tolik Chubais came to bow
      2. Ross
        Ross 23 December 2012 01: 52
        Great written bask.
    2. webdog
      webdog 21 December 2012 17: 23
      I apologize for being off topic, but this is interesting:
      In early December, the forces of the American fleet and their allies advanced into the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. NATO’s common naval forces in the region were very substantial. And the first fiddle in them, of course, was played by the American carrier strike group led by the Eisenhower aircraft carrier.

      In response, Russia also strengthened the strength of its fleet in the Mediterranean. A group of ships of the Black Sea Fleet canceled the order to return to the base in Sevastopol and gave the command to continue combat duty due to the "change in the operational situation."

      At the same time, the landing ships “Novocherkassk” and “Saratov” that were part of the group entered the Syrian port in Tartus - officially, to replenish their reserves.

      At the same time, powerful reinforcing groups were moved to strengthen the squadron already existing in the Mediterranean. On Wednesday, December 19, a source at the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces said that the inter-naval combined group of the Russian Navy, consisting of ships of the Northern, Baltic and Black Sea Fleets, will begin joint tasks off the coast of Syria by the end of December, ITAR-TASS reports.

      “In the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea, where a group of ships of the Black Sea Fleet is already operating, warships of the Northern and Baltic Fleets are sent. Until the end of December, they will meet in the Eastern Mediterranean to jointly resolve combat missions. Ships and ships, in particular, will have to make repeated calls at the naval logistics point located in the Syrian port of Tartus, ”a source in the General Staff said.

      It should be noted that a detachment of Pacific Fleet ships consisting of the large anti-submarine ship Marshal Shaposhnikov, the Irkut tanker and the rescue tug Alatau are now located in the Indian Ocean near the Persian Gulf, where they carry out combat and special missions. If necessary, this squadron can quickly pass through Suez and also end up in the eastern Mediterranean.

      It seems that the Americans felt that a direct confrontation with the Russian fleet is too dangerous and therefore decided to withdraw their carrier group from the area of ​​growing tension. And this means that the threat of direct military intervention from the United States and NATO is removed at least - in the near future.
      like that))))
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 22 December 2012 00: 06
        Give something to God!
    3. Deniska999
      Deniska999 21 December 2012 17: 26
      If Trotsky had won, Russia would have been surrendered and sold. And Stalin, indeed, became the savior of the people from annihilation.
  2. psv_company
    psv_company 21 December 2012 15: 26
    The struggle of Stalin and Trotsky, in fact, was a struggle for the national wealth of the USSR. If Trotsky had won, then the entire territory of the USSR would have been covered with concessions. Stalin, however, advocated the creation of a possible independent state than Trotsky and Lenin, with their pro-azero-germanoliberal idea.
    1. mda
      mda 21 December 2012 16: 30
      Quote: psv_company
      If Trotsky had won, then the entire territory of the USSR would have been covered with concessions. Stalin, however, advocated the creation of a possible independent state than Trotsky and Lenin, with their pro-azero-germanoliberal idea.

      Before Stalin, Russia's wealth was exported abroad. Trotsky wanted to exchange the Cyrillic alphabet for the Latin alphabet. So, you are right
      1. Piligrim
        Piligrim 21 December 2012 23: 21
        Before Stalin, Russia exported wealth, you are right !!!
        But already with your "idol" people put their teeth on the shelf and laid it out!
        1. bart74
          bart74 22 December 2012 01: 21
          You should give in the teeth. Yes, I just think you have no teeth. Instead, stumps. Sorry for people like you. Yes, they only deserve it themselves!
  3. boris.radevitch
    boris.radevitch 21 December 2012 15: 41
    Forest chopped wood fly fly used to say Uncle Joe! hi
  4. Vlaleks48
    Vlaleks48 21 December 2012 15: 49
    And the victory today is celebrated by the same Leva Bronstein (Trotsky)!
    The country that Koba preserved and collected along historical imperial borders is no longer there!
    Stalin "died" and his place was taken by the Trotskyist Khrushchev, and off it went.
    So Trotsky celebrates victory today! Because everything that was in the country, now "national" property! I won’t even talk about this nation!
    1. Piligrim
      Piligrim 21 December 2012 23: 23
      Why don’t you start your assessment earlier? From the Russian Empire?
      Let's objectively dance from the stove!
  5. Committee
    Committee 21 December 2012 15: 51
    They would not have pushed Trotsky and others like him - today the Russian people would not have existed.
    1. Piligrim
      Piligrim 21 December 2012 23: 24
      "Oh, these storytellers!"
  6. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 21 December 2012 16: 04
    Thanks to Stalin for not letting this Jew go to power ....
    1. Committee
      Committee 21 December 2012 16: 10
      Yes, but he managed to lay ours down, but the ice ax got him anyway!
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 21 December 2012 16: 21
        Well, if it pleases you so much, do not forget to thank Naum Eitingon.
        1. Committee
          Committee 21 December 2012 16: 30
          Dear, who are you? Your name is somehow strange and your flag is not ours. Are you one of those who love Russia very much, but only at a distance?
          1. Aaron Zawi
            Aaron Zawi 21 December 2012 16: 35
            As for the flag to the moderators. Already tired of explaining. Secondly, I have nothing to do with Russia, I just speak Russian, and the name is standard for a Jew.
            1. Committee
              Committee 21 December 2012 16: 41
              Clear. But answer (only no offense), are you a Jew living in Germany? In a country that exterminated Jews in gas chambers? And do you live there?
              1. Aaron Zawi
                Aaron Zawi 21 December 2012 17: 35
                No, I live in Israel, like most Jews writing on this forum, but by the strange whim of the moderators, the Israeli flag is replaced by the German one. Why German, for example, not American? Who knows, maybe this is a subtle irony of moderators.
        2. Committee
          Committee 21 December 2012 16: 50
          If Naum Eitington, on the orders of Stalin, clearly planned and flawlessly carried out the operation to destroy the enemy of the Russian people No. 2 of Trotsky, many thanks to him from the whole Russian people for this!
          1. Aaron Zawi
            Aaron Zawi 21 December 2012 17: 36
            By the way, from the Jewish one too. For there was no more cruel enemy of the Zionists than the Trotskyists.
            1. the polar
              the polar 21 December 2012 19: 12
              Nevertheless, in the "Jewish encyclopedia" L. Trotsky is certified as "the greatest commander of all times and peoples." Are the Zionists against?
              1. Aaron Zawi
                Aaron Zawi 21 December 2012 20: 08
                the polar Well, why lie Where is it written there? And then, well, of course he was a native Jew, but he had nothing to do with Zionism. For his ideology of internationalism did not intersect with the ideas of Zionism as a national Jewish movement.
          2. Piligrim
            Piligrim 21 December 2012 23: 29
            Only here for all it is not necessary!
            hell then had to choose between Stalin and Trotsky! The same as between the plague and the chalera.
            I have not read a single argument and fact here, why would Trotsky be worse than Stalin? Would people shoot more and sit in the camps?
            give at least a couple of facts in your belief.
            1. ISO
              ISO 22 December 2012 00: 18
              Well, in vain this minus something, he begs for it ...
              Well, supposedly people do not see. the difference between Trotsky breaking the navel of the country to fanning the world fire of revolution and Dzhugashvili's construction of a self-sufficient economy to spite the Jewish Masons. All the same, the sons of Israel terribly got Izya with their boring stories in the theological seminary. And when Leva, instead of continuing the glorious business of concessions a la Lena mines, began to move shelves to Europe and Iran, feeling himself cooler than his Entente sponsors, here he was fed like a "not distant" spiritual seminarian ... I don't know of course how it was in fact, but very real that Stalin cleaned up those who were fed through the "Red Cross" from the embassies of England, France and America. As the Bible says, it is necessary to judge by deeds and not by words. And things are such that Churchill admired Stalin. Stalin began to rule the country, which was a gateway for all kinds of adventurers, there was practically nothing from industrial production, but left the country with an atomic bomb, satellite and almost complete absence of spies. Until now, our rulers are squeezing out the backlog of the Stalinist fosterling Kosygin who, during the Second World War, poured resources into oil exploration ...
              There was a cult, but what a PERSONALITY!
        3. Rezun
          Rezun 21 December 2012 21: 19
          And we all remember Sudoplatov and Mercader ...
    2. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 21 December 2012 16: 19
      sasha 19871987
      What kind of Jew do you mean? Because it was in Stalin's time that Jews entered the ruling elite of the USSR.
      1. mda
        mda 21 December 2012 16: 31
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        What kind of Jew do you mean? Because it was in Stalin's time that Jews entered the ruling elite of the USSR.

        do you twist the bored record again?
        1. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi 21 December 2012 16: 37
          And what is wrong? Mehlis, Kaganovich, Vannikov, etc. is this not an elite?
      2. Committee
        Committee 21 December 2012 16: 36
        Yes, but thanks to Stalin, they "came" for them at the end of the 30s. Almost everyone who was involved in one way or another in the genocide of the Russian people. Look carefully at everyone arrested in the late 30s and you will see that everyone took part, whether it was Ukraine, the South of Russia, or elsewhere. And then they came for them. Why should I cry if he cut off his ears, gouged out his eyes, ripped off the skin alive to white RUSSIAN officers in 1919 in the Crimea, and then they came for him in 37 ?! Why should I feel sorry for his illness ?! Say Ay-yay yay Stalin the executioner ?! Retribution is inevitable.
        1. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi 21 December 2012 17: 49
          Who did they come for? Stalin himself, being the representative of the Central Committee on the Southern Front, practically implemented the policy of decossackization. By the way, it was not the "foreigners" who distinguished themselves most in this, but the units of the Red Army, formed from the so-called "nonresident". It was these Russian peasants who felt themselves the most discriminated against Cossack benefits. And in the government of Stalin in 1940-48, every fifth was a Jew. I am not even talking about Jews in the army, in science and in other leadership positions. So, unlike the empty whining of some gentlemen, I do not see any anti-Jewish policy in Stalin until 1949, but then (IMHO) Stalin was already old and sick and he was often used in the dark. Suffice it to recall the "Leningrad affair".
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 21 December 2012 19: 14
            Quote: Aron Zaavi
            and parts of the Red Army, formed from the so-called "nonresident".

            And here I do not agree
            Mehlis - a telegram to the head of the Main Directorate for the Formation and Staffing of Shchadenko.

            I ask you to send it at a special speed, to give replenishment precisely to the Russian and trained, for it will go immediately to work on February 16, 1942. He demanded that the “Caucasians” be cleared of the divisions and replaced with Russian servicemen. ”
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 21 December 2012 19: 32
              It was not about 1942, but about 1919
              1. Vadivak
                Vadivak 21 December 2012 20: 49
                Quote: Aron Zaavi
                It was not about 1942, but about 1919

                Sorry, sorry
          2. polly
            polly 21 December 2012 19: 26
            If we talk about every fifth member of Stalin's government, then one cannot but recall the Bund (General Jewish Workers' Union in Lithuania, Poland and Russia), as an independent party that became part of the RSDLP at the IV Congress.
            in 1906, already numbering about 37 thousand members. Here she is the real party of the "non-party" Leiba! Lenin urged his supporters to fight the "Bund" back in 1903, of course, only by ideological methods. And also add here 2-3 hundreds of fellow tribesmen brought from America by Bronstein in the summer of 1917, who did not speak Russian and were represented by the Balts, who were later assigned to all Russian surnames. And what does Stalin have to do with it in 1948? He inherited them ...
            1. Aaron Zawi
              Aaron Zawi 21 December 2012 19: 49
              polly Well, what is the connection between the Bund and Trotsky? And then, well, feel free to insult the Russians so, or you might think that the not difficult social and economic problems accumulated in Russia led to the Revolution, which influenced the development of the World no less than the Great French, and a handful of Jews and even those who did not speak Russian, somehow unexplained millions of Russians and other representatives of the peoples of the Republic of Ingushetia carried away with them in a way.
              1. ISO
                ISO 22 December 2012 00: 24
                Gee, I beg you, you still pretend to be sho do not know such effective methods as propaganda, agitation, black PR, yellow media and so on. non-Russian speakers raised their rating in Boris’s last election too ...
              2. polly
                polly 22 December 2012 01: 04
                Aron, but you don’t need to juggle: we are not talking about the reasons for the 1917 revolution (although everything is not so clear here!), But about the presence of people of a certain nationality in the Stalin government. And then again, with a blue eye, say that Bronstein didn’t know such a word, the Bund! And do not try to become holier than the Pope: the Russians do not need your protection, especially from me - I have the same blood. However, how talented you have perverted my words and turned inside out ...
                1. Aaron Zawi
                  Aaron Zawi 22 December 2012 10: 40
                  What have I perverted? You want to say that in the Stalin government or even just in the elite of the USSR there were people whose secretary general did not know to the smallest detail. As Stalin is a little like a naive grandfather.
        2. Alexander 1958
          Alexander 1958 21 December 2012 20: 06
          Good afternoon!
          I repeat other people's words, but nonetheless .. It doesn’t matter what color the cat is, it is important that it catches mice. If people worked for the good of themselves and the USSR, I think this is good and the last thing is what nationality they are. But is it good that the Russian Gorbachev and Yeltsin destroyed both the USSR and Russia? For those who want to kick Jews or Georgians (Ossetians) I propose to answer the question - is it really important what nationality is the person who built the great country? Of course, if Gorbachev and Yeltsin were Jews, now everyone would shout - all evil is from the Jews. But they are Russian ..!
          Alexander 1958
  7. old rocket man
    old rocket man 21 December 2012 16: 10
    The article sets out the facts in sufficient detail. But, in principle, nothing new, just a repetition of the history of VKPb of the 59th edition
  8. Wertynskiy
    Wertynskiy 21 December 2012 16: 22
    The article clearly shows the organizational, tactical and strategic genius of Stalin! Everything is verified, everything is for sure, and everything worked out! No snot!
    NAV-STAR 21 December 2012 16: 30
    The history of the past years and the Russian State shows that one Great Man can organize people for the construction of a Great Power, but as it turned out, this is not enough. The people themselves must possess human mores and comradely friendships in order to prevent subhuman power to ensure the interests of individual clans.
    I.V. Stalin the Great Man, he brought up his people and achieved great results with it, the fruits of which some subhuman people have not been able to destroy to this day. We need to analyze everything that happened with our Motherland, to draw moral conclusions that will allow us to change in ourselves those vices that lead to tragic consequences and take up the construction and revival of our Great Motherland.
  10. Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 21 December 2012 16: 57
    I will not duplicate, plus.
  11. Sergg
    Sergg 21 December 2012 17: 00

    In a person with a healthy psyche and knowledge of history, the attitude to Trotsky can only be squeamish - contemptuous.

    Stalin saved Russia not only from the fascist but also from the Jewish plague.
  12. polly
    polly 21 December 2012 17: 10
    Stalin, in the fight against Trotsky, subordinated the revolution to the state - and not the other way around, which was demanded by "Trotskyist communism", which saved Russia from ruin then: while supporting Marxism in words, he was guided by expediency in the affairs of the country.
  13. Lech e-mine
    Lech e-mine 21 December 2012 18: 08
    Ice ax in a bashka is both Sha X and Mat.
  14. Apollo
    Apollo 21 December 2012 18: 10
    By the way, today is 21 December, the birthday of Stalin I.V.
    it is strange that no one remembered.
    1. polly
      polly 21 December 2012 19: 35
      As they remembered, only earlier in the "Geopolitical Mosaic ..."
    2. sergo0000
      sergo0000 21 December 2012 19: 52
      You probably do not read comments after the article. winked
      Very nice comments by the way! good
  15. Shuriken
    Shuriken 21 December 2012 18: 25
    Congratulations to all on a holiday. Not with the end of the world, but with the fact that today would be 133 years old to IV Stalin!
  16. Bumbarash59
    Bumbarash59 21 December 2012 19: 20
    Plague on both of their houses
    1. Rezun
      Rezun 21 December 2012 21: 25
      Do not remember the Name of God in vain ... and there will be peace for you ...
  17. muzhik
    muzhik 21 December 2012 22: 37
    Happy Birthday, Stalin! We are waiting for you! It’s time to restore everything that has been destroyed, it’s time to wash all the slandered from lies!
  18. wax
    wax 21 December 2012 22: 55
    Stalin was born on December 18 (6th century) December 1978, according to the entry in the register of the Gori Assumption Cathedral Church to record births and deaths. In the first part of this book, intended for registration of births, it is noted that in 1878, on December 6, the inhabitants of Gori, the Orthodox peasants Vtsesarion Ivanovich and his lawful wife Ekaterina Gavrilovna (or Georgievna?) Dzhugashvili, had a son, Joseph. On December 17 of the same year, he was baptized in this church. As it should be in such cases, the estates and surnames of the godchildren and the one who performed the "sacrament of baptism" are also indicated here.
  19. Black
    Black 21 December 2012 23: 45
    ... win the battle Bronstein .... it would probably be even worse than what happened, but to sing Dzhugashvili's asana - not to remember, or not to want to remember ...
    Summer 21 ... my great-grandfather, the gentleman of St. George, coronet, Stepan Georgievich Sher ..... was shot right behind the outskirts of the village ... comrade ...
    At 27, a great-grandmother with 6 children was taken to the Arkhangelsk province, it was allowed to take 2 "knots" with them without warm clothes.
    At 29, his great-grandfather (along the father's side) with his family was recognized as a fist (2 horses and 2 pairs of bulls- YET !!!!) and was simply expelled from the village with 3 young children in their arms on the night of February ... .and this - still mercifully, in a kindred way, others sunk into oblivion in Siberia.
    In 38, 2 uncles of grandmothers-officers of the Red Army were shot.

    They cut the forest ...... and the family is almost gone.
    1. ISO
      ISO 22 December 2012 00: 38
      There is such a phrase: "There was such a time." It is very convenient and comfortable to write off everything on Dzhugashvili - this is not me - I live like that, and eat the provisions confiscated by the ChON people. Somehow everyone suddenly forgot what a crazy time it was, what kind of garbage just didn’t float in our heads, but only not long ago they got rid of its remnants. Only in 90 years did we stop joking about a bright future that will heap us all with happiness, for the sake of which EVERYTHING is possible ...
    2. bart74
      bart74 22 December 2012 01: 28
      I think if this happened then it was not by chance. So it was for what. They didn’t shoot mine. And there are most of them. Stop whining already. It’s a pity that they didn’t finish you all, Chubais. Maybe life would be better and more fun?
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 22 December 2012 10: 43
        bart74all was. And the Queen in Kolyma had to cough up blood and Rokosoovsky broke fingers on his hands.
  20. 1goose3
    1goose3 22 December 2012 00: 01
    There was no particular choice, but Stalin did not become the worst option.
  21. Pelican
    Pelican 22 December 2012 00: 46
    There is a good book by the author of those times, "The Technology of Power" who is interested, read it.
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 22 December 2012 08: 10
      In addition to that era, there is a series of books by modern journalist, writer - historian Elena Prudnikova "Technology of the Impossible (Lenin and Stalin)" book 1, "Technology of the Impossible (Stalin. Battle for Bread)" book 2 and others.
      Analyzing those events, the author shows the inevitability and benefit for Russia of Stalin's victory I.V. and his supporters over the anti-Russian leaders of the Trotskyite persuasion, over the "Leninist guard" imprisoned for the world revolution, over Trotsky's military supporters of the 30s who were striving to seize power.
      Russia was lucky that at that time the leadership of the country was Stalin IV, and not an activist such as Gorbachev or Yeltsin.
  22. bart74
    bart74 22 December 2012 01: 17
    Historical fact. International Jewish "communism" rested in Bose, will be defeated and destroyed by J.V. Stalin. And all these screams about personnel purges in the ranks of the Armed Forces take on an understandable form for knowledgeable people.
    Thanks to the author.
    True, I would like to wish Alexander Eliseev to be bolder in assessing some obvious political events and their consequences.
    Everything has already happened.
    Do not be shy to give your own assessments of events.
    But in general, a very wonderful article! I'm only for five pluses!
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 22 December 2012 10: 46
      As for the "Jewish communism" you pushed it powerfully, but okay. As for the purges of the army, the Jews there hardly exceeded 2-4% because in the USSR in 1939 they were less than 2% of the population.
  23. Hunter
    Hunter 22 December 2012 13: 58
    The Russians, you stupid ones, are the Jew-Bronstein (according to Ukrainian spelling, unlike Russian, it is not an insult, confirmed by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine) essentially destroyed RI and created the USSR. Not Lenin and not Stalin.
    Everything else in the posters and the flight to Frida Kahlo is a statement of the betrayal of the same Jews, fascists, Russians and Georgians.
    - You have such a mess in your head - that it’s not even interesting to read you.
  24. rocketman
    rocketman 22 December 2012 22: 18
    Who cares what nationality a person is if he is a professional and works for the good of the country?
    Trotsky wanted to build "an unprecedented country of Russian white slaves," Stalin took the country with a plow, left it with an atomic bomb. Do you feel the difference?
  25. tiaman.76
    tiaman.76 2 February 2016 20: 20
    a good article ... it shows how the cunning and cruel Stalin outplayed everything in the party struggle .. as did Mao in China later