Khrushchev: from worker to leader of a nuclear superpower

154
Khrushchev: from worker to leader of a nuclear superpower

During the years of Gorbachev’s perestroika and the reforms of the 1990s, liberal democratic circles tried to create the image of a reformer, almost a hero, who tried to get rid of the “bloody” Stalinist legacy. The era of Khrushchev's rule was called the "thaw". In fact, he started the first perestroika in the USSR and almost collapsed the USSR.

Ox driver, revolutionary and head of Moscow


Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev was born on April 3 (15), 1894 in the village of Kalinovka, Olkhovsky volost, Dmitrievsky district, Kursk province, into a working-class family. Nikita Khrushchev all his life did not even know the exact date of his birth, he wrote in questionnaires and celebrated his birthday on April 17. Only after his death did historians clarify the date according to the church metric book - April 15.



I worked from an early age. Already at the age of 9, his father sent him to work in the fields. “I learned to count to 30 (at a parochial school - Author’s note), and my father decided that I had had enough of teaching,” recalled Nikita Sergeevich. “All you need is to learn to count money, but you’ll never have more than thirty rubles anyway.”

He worked as a shepherd, cleaned steam boilers, was a shoemaker's apprentice and a salesman in a shop, and at the age of 14 he became an apprentice mechanic at the machine-building and iron foundry plant of E. T. Bosse. Since 1912, he worked as a mechanic at a mine and, as a miner, was not mobilized to the front in 1914.

Khrushchev himself recalled: “I began to work as soon as I learned to walk. Until I was 15 years old, I herded calves. I grazed sheep for a landowner, I grazed cows for a capitalist - all this before I was 15 years old. Then I worked at a factory for the Germans, for the French in mines, for the Belgians in chemical plants.”

The first part of Khrushchev’s life is the working life of a young proletarian, revolutionary, commissar during the Civil War. There were many thousands of such biographies in that era. Its peculiarity is its connection with the Donetsk basin. Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs: “I spent my childhood there, and for me Donbass is my native element, I missed the miners...”

Khrushchev also studied a lot and persistently. Party school at the political department of the 9th Army during the Civil War, working faculty of Dontechnikum (future Donetsk University) in Yuzovka. Industrial Academy in Moscow (1929), where he met academy student Nadezhda Alliluyeva, wife of I. Stalin. Khrushchev considered this acquaintance a lucky “lottery ticket.” Khrushchev did not become an academician, but for his era he was an educated person. Although he was hiding behind a deliberately rustic appearance.

From 1931 to 1938, Khrushchev worked in Moscow, and for several years he was the first person in the Soviet capital. Since 1934 he was the first secretary of the Moscow City Committee, and since 1935 he simultaneously held the position of first secretary of the Moscow Committee, replacing Lazar Kaganovich in both positions. Khrushchev held these positions until February 1938.

L. M. Kaganovich recalled: “I nominated him. I thought he was capable. But he was a Trotskyist. And I reported to Stalin that he was a Trotskyist. I spoke when they elected him to MK. Stalin asks: “What about now?” I say: “He is fighting the Trotskyists. Actively performs. He fights sincerely."

Khrushchev carried out party “purges” in Moscow. Built the metro. Later he recalled: “As a matter of fact, I gave 80% of my time to the metro then. I walked to and from work in the city committee through the metro mines. It’s simply difficult to say what kind of working day we really had. I don’t even know how long we slept. We simply spent a minimum of time on sleep, and devoted all the remaining hours to work...”

As a Moscow leader, Nikita Sergeevich solved a variety of problems. This is how he described Stalin’s call in his memoirs with the words: “Comrade Khrushchev, I have heard rumors that the situation with toilets in Moscow is not going well...” Khrushchev then had to urgently build a network of public restrooms in the city. The capital's prosperity began with the work of the Bolsheviks, Nikita Sergeevich also made a serious contribution.


Stalin and Khrushchev at the presidium of the session of the USSR Central Executive Committee (January 1936)

"A plump man with a simple smile"


In 1938, Khrushchev became the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Ukraine, and a candidate member of the Politburo, and a year later - a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (b). While occupying these positions, he showed himself as a fighter against “enemies of the people.” Khrushchev played a significant role in the repressions of 1937–1939. in Ukraine.

During the Great Patriotic War, Khrushchev was a member of the military councils of the Southwestern direction, the Southwestern, Stalingrad, Southern, Voronezh and 1st Ukrainian fronts.

From the memoirs of General Semyon Ivanov, who fought at Stalingrad in 1942 as chief of staff of the 1st Guards Army:

“This short, plump man with a simple smile always remained, so to speak, a stabilizer of the situation within the circle of military leaders who led the troops in the Battle of Stalingrad. The situation was tense, everyone worked literally to the point of exhaustion, so nervous breakdowns often occurred and relationships became strained. Nikita Sergeevich, it seems, foresaw the occurrence of such moments and immediately found the right tone to calm those in conflict...

He also did a lot in organizing the supply of products to the fronts from Stalingrad plants and factories. He was constantly in work teams, helping to quickly resolve issues of interaction between enterprises and all city services. Khrushchev was distinguished by inexhaustible optimism. He had a sense of humor and knew how to lighten the mood in the most critical circumstances.”

Khrushchev knew how to work, establish contacts with people and groups, and direct their activities for the purposes he needed. This allowed him to reach the pinnacle of power.

General Ivanov noted an interesting characteristic of Khrushchev:

“During negotiations with Stalin, Khrushchev was completely transformed. His feigned simplicity disappeared; he did not allow himself a single extra word. He spoke clearly and concisely, showing his knowledge of all front-line affairs.”


Portrait of Soviet Lieutenant General N. S. Khrushchev. 1943

Jester of the Red Emperor


Often, publicists and researchers make Khrushchev into a kind of fool, a buffoon under Stalin, who can only knock on the podium with his shoe and promise to show Kuzkin’s mother to the Americans. They say, he was a fool, he created and did not give an account to himself of what and why. This is a mistake or deliberate deception. Close-mindedness and a certain simplicity were just an image, a kind of cover behind which Khrushchev’s true nature was hidden.

Khrushchev was able to convince even Stalin that he was a kind of “shirt guy”, a man of the plow, and many political subtleties were beyond his understanding. Therefore, Stalin did not notice the threat from Khrushchev. He deceived Beria too. Lavrenty Pavlovich did not understand Khrushchev, even considered him a friend for a long time. Beria helped the “simple guy” in a comradely way. When Beria figured out the true essence of Khrushchev, it was already too late. “The Jester” outplayed everyone and reached the top of the Soviet Olympus, eliminating all competitors.

At the same time, Khrushchev should not be considered a genius of court behind-the-scenes games, who defeated everyone in the court struggle. He was a cunning man, but he did not have the mind of Stalin or Beria, other Soviet statesmen and technocrats. If you take his biography, you get the impression that he was often led by other, much smarter and more powerful forces and people. They needed such a person at or on the throne. With the help of Khrushchev, it was possible to deal a strong blow to the Soviet empire. By nature he was a battering ram.

At the start of his career, Khrushchev was a repentant Trotskyist. In the early 1920s, he was almost purged from the party because he had “become philistine,” that is, he was carried away by personal enrichment. Khrushchev repented of his sins to Kaganovich, who became his first patron. Then his career was promoted by Stalin’s wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva. The rise of Khrushchev took place against the backdrop of purges of Trotskyists and Zinovievites. In 1935, Khrushchev headed the Moscow party organization and fully demonstrated his brutal nature in the “Great Terror” campaigns in Moscow and then in Ukraine.

Khrushchev was not a sadist or a pathological killer, like some representatives of the “Leninist Guard,” but he was a soulless careerist who was ready to go over his head for personal gain. An interesting fact is that many similar figures who “went too far” in those years paid for it and themselves became “victims” of Stalin’s repressions. Khrushchev passed this fate.

And in the future, Khrushchev was distinguished by a strange “unsinkability”. So, in 1942, Khrushchev, being a member of the Military Council of the front along with Marshal Timoshenko, proposed attacking near Kharkov from the Barvenkovsky ledge. The General Staff objected, believing that an attack from the ledge of an almost finished cauldron was dangerous. Khrushchev insisted on his own and convinced Stalin. It all ended in disaster for the entire southern strategic direction. The German armies were stopped only in Stalingrad and the North Caucasus. Others paid for such mistakes with their heads, careers, or at least reductions in rank. Khrushchev was not harmed at all. In 1943, he even received the rank of lieutenant general.

In 1946–1947 Khrushchev is again in Ukraine, heading the Communist Party of the Ukrainian SSR. With his ill-considered actions, he worsened the work of agriculture and seriously aggravated the situation. There was a bad harvest at that time. Hunger began. Khrushchev seemed to fall into disgrace, but immediately became the head of agriculture. He screwed up here too with his experiments and “reforms.” However, Khrushchev is not only not punished, but is also appointed first secretary of the Moscow regional party committee and secretary of the Central Committee.


Member of the Military Council of the 1st Ukrainian Front, Lieutenant General Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev (1894–1971), addresses the residents of liberated Lvov from the rostrum. Those gathered are near the Lviv Opera House. August 1944

De-Stalinization


Khrushchev took part in the conspiracy against Stalin. It is clear that he himself could not come up with this matter. But he took advantage of the general sentiment. During this period, the “old guard” (except for Beria) feared a new “purge.” The USSR and the party were on the verge of tremendous changes. Stalin planned to “refresh the blood” of the party and state elite. The process of changing personnel was gaining momentum and threatened the “old guard” with the loss of warm places and feeding grounds.

Moreover, Stalin planned to radically change the entire system: to create, along with the “vertical of power”, led by the “horizontal” party - the Soviets. The party was supposed to become the “Order of the Sword” - responsible for creating the image of the future, ideology, personnel, for educating society, losing real power. Management was to pass into the hands of elected Soviet bodies. This prospect greatly frightened most of the "old guard". In its depths a conspiracy was born that led to the elimination of Stalin and Beria.

The premature death of Stalin, and then the murder of Beria (Why was Beria killed?) became the first steps in the restructuring of the USSR.

The second terrible blow to the future of the USSR was Khrushchev’s report on Stalin’s personality cult at the 1956th Congress of the USSR Communist Party in February 1991. This report became a kind of starting point for the restructuring of the USSR, the abolition of the Stalinist course, which led to the construction of a qualitatively different society of creation and service. Anti-socialist and anti-people reforms began, which ultimately destroyed the USSR in XNUMX. Also, anti-Stalin hysteria within the country undermined trust in Moscow on the part of members of the socialist camp. Thus, relations with China, where respect for Stalin was very great, with Albania, etc., were spoiled.

De-Stalinization dealt a terrible blow to the society of knowledge, service and creation that Stalin built. Soviet civilization is turning off the main path of development into a dead end, which ultimately led to the civilizational and state catastrophe of 1985–1993.


Georgy Zhukov and Nikita Khrushchev

First optimization


Khrushchev's perestroika dealt a powerful blow to the Soviet Armed Forces and security agencies. It should be noted that Khrushchev initially used the generals for his own purposes. First, to eliminate Beria. Zhukov helped him a lot in this matter. Beria was dangerous because he planned to continue the Stalinist course and uncovered an anti-Stalinist conspiracy. True, I didn’t have time to do anything. He was simply killed, without trial or investigation. The appearance of an investigation and trial was organized after the murder. At the same time, under the cover of the “Beria case,” a wave of terror swept among diplomats, intelligence officers and in scientific institutions that Beria supervised.

Khrushchev and his masters struck a blow at the Soviet security system. Dekanozov and Kobulov were shot as “Beria’s executioners.” Although they had no relation to the punitive authorities, but were engaged in diplomacy and intelligence. Scientific institutions were cleared. The strategic intelligence system, which helped us win the Great Patriotic War and get ahead in the field of advanced technologies, was purposefully destroyed. The best specialists in this field - Raikhman, Sudoplatov, Eitingon, Meshik, Zarubin, Korotkov and others - fell under the steamroller of repression. Some were liquidated, others were imprisoned, and others were fired. Those who survived then worked for a long time about rehabilitation.

By gradually eliminating his former allies, Khrushchev was able to gain full power. Malenkov was removed from the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers. The military also helped bring him down. Defense Minister Bulganin received the post of head of government, and Zhukov became defense minister. Then the “anti-party group” - Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich and their supporters - lost their posts.

Again Khrushchev was supported by Zhukov, who was the real leader of the army. However, he soon paid for his poor judgment. Khrushchev was afraid of the popular and strong-willed marshal, who could become an obstacle to the “optimization” of the armed forces. Just four months after the victory over the “anti-party group,” when the Minister of Defense went abroad, Khrushchev pushed through a resolution “on Zhukov’s cult of personality and his penchant for adventurism, opening the way to Bonapartism.” The marshal was fired from all positions and sent into retirement. Then Khrushchev removed Bulganin as well, becoming head of government.

Having received full power, Khrushchev showed himself in all his glory. The armed forces were "optimized". Priority was given to ballistic missiles, nuclear arms. The remaining types and types of troops underwent a serious reduction. Moreover, they cut them alive, massively reduced the most experienced combat personnel. Destroyed the Stalinist program for the construction of the most powerful ocean naval fleet. Even the ships already ready or at various stages of construction were safely sent for scrap. The rest remained on paper.

The Air Force was also dealt a powerful blow. Khrushchev believed that a certain number of ballistic missiles was enough. Under Stalin, a huge amount of work was done to create an aircraft industry. The most important industry, without which the country’s full sovereignty is impossible, was created practically from scratch. More than a dozen different design bureaus appeared, where they designed excellent domestic fighters, attack aircraft and front-line bombers. The best scientists and engineers of the country worked in these design bureaus. After the war, strategic bombers began to be created.

Dozens of people worked in the Union aviation factories, engine-building enterprises and aircraft alloy smelting plants. Khrushchev struck at this magnificent heritage. Many pilots then recalled with tears in their eyes how hundreds of excellent aircraft were scrapped. A number of promising programs were closed.

Thus, Khrushchev’s military reform closely resembles the reforms of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, when they reduced the “excess power” of the Soviet superpower. But in fact, they crushed the only superpower that restrained the predatory appetites of the collective West.

Khrushchev's reforms were chaotic and disorderly, and at the same time they were systemic. The essence of this system is destruction. For all their apparent confusion and disorder, for all the widest range of Khrushchev’s undertakings, one general pattern can always be identified. All reforms led to degradation and the possible collapse of the Soviet Union.


On the cover of American Time magazine in 1953. Signed "Superbombs and fit shoes"

To be continued ...
154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    April 27 2024 04: 39
    Khrushchev: from worker to leader of a nuclear superpower

    In our USSR, 99% of the Central Committee were from workers or from the plow.
    Surely the rule of the National Assembly was the first stick in the wheel of the history of the first socialist state.
    It’s difficult to even imagine how the USSR could have developed under the continuation of Stalin’s leadership...
    Crimea and amnesty for Bandera's followers...How to get past this?
    Without Russian territories, Ukraine would be a second Moldova...
    1. -8
      April 27 2024 07: 19
      It seems that Khrushchev himself was not a person, but simply a pawn who was promoted to queen by SOMEONE and for some purpose. For what?
      Firstly, Khrushchev’s crimes. In Ukraine, where are the documents that Khrushchev signed orders for repressions in Ukraine in 38-39? What kind of repressions were these? In relation to the peasantry of Ukraine, Khrushchev had nothing to do with the Holodomor since “collectivization” took place before him in 32.
      Here we need to go into more detail, and not lump everything into a heap.
      The shooting of workers in Novocherkassk in 62 is a completely murky story. They shot at a peaceful rally, it can’t be that way, there’s something this story doesn’t tell us.
      1. -8
        April 27 2024 09: 38
        It seems that Khrushchev himself was not a person, but simply a pawn who was promoted to queen by SOMEONE and for some purpose. For what?
        Firstly, Khrushchev’s crimes. In Ukraine, where are the documents that Khrushchev signed orders for repressions in Ukraine in 38-39? What kind of repressions were these? In relation to the peasantry of Ukraine, Khrushchev had nothing to do with the Holodomor since “collectivization” took place before him in 32.
        Here we need to go into more detail, and not lump everything into a heap.
        The shooting of workers in Novocherkassk in 62 is a completely murky story. They shot at a peaceful rally, it can’t be that way, there’s something this story doesn’t tell us.

        That's right. Khrushchev is almost the only people's leader of Russia in history. A quarter of the population was moved into separate apartments within a few years. An unthinkable thing for this country!

        In Novochek, too, they tried to resolve everything peacefully until the last moment, when the criminals had already begun to snatch weapons from the soldiers’ hands, then they opened fire.

        They're pinning the corn company on him. What's wrong with that? What has rotted a lot are questions to the State Planning Committee; Khrushchev cannot be responsible for everything, his job is to determine the strategic position.
        Now eat Bonduelle without getting wet.

        There is nothing to say about the fact that he removed the noose from people’s throats. hi
        1. -7
          April 27 2024 11: 02
          Quote: Arzt
          A quarter of the population was moved into separate apartments within a few years.


          Some people here are already talking about “Stalin’s foundation,” but Stalin somehow cared more about his cultivated “cultural figures” and built Stalinist high-rise buildings for them, but Nikita just began to build mass housing in which the majority of us live.
          -Under Khrushchev, the space industry developed, we became the FIRST everywhere, our mechanical engineering was advanced and Volga and Muscovites took prizes at the Brussels exhibition.
          -Our computers were advanced, we had FIVE computers and our own operating systems, and it all developed.
          The traitor Brezhnev covered it all up.
          Agriculture was a BLACK HOLE. And Khrushchev could not do anything here because it was the party’s policy - to take everything away, dispossess it, socialize it, “collectivize it,” and destroy the market between city and countryside. In fact, the destruction of Russian collectivism was the task of the revolution.
          1. +7
            April 27 2024 13: 04
            For agriculture. The adventure with the virgin lands was still the same. Firstly, this is the second coming to the virgin lands, the first attempt was in the 30s, and ended predictably - with executions.
            Secondly, read the same “Virgin Land” by Brezhnev. From what pocket did they get the equipment and people who went to explore the virgin lands? That's right, from the collective farms of the European part of the country, the consequences are massive purchases of grain from the USSR. Lysenko, by the way, was against virgin lands, he proposed investing the same funds in our collective farms in the European part, establishing order there and only then... For this he was removed and slandered.
            1. 0
              4 May 2024 16: 39
              By the way, Lysenko enjoyed enormous influence under Khrushchev. But under Brezhnev his career declined.
          2. +6
            April 27 2024 13: 23
            Khrushchev has little to do with space. The groundwork was made under Stalin. In 1953-1956, Khrushchev fought for power; there was no time for space. Well, in 1957 the satellite flew, took away power - and then everything coincided. There has been no one worse for many years, a tyrant in power is a terrible thing.
            1. -2
              April 27 2024 15: 32
              Quote: Glagol1
              Khrushchev has little to do with space. The groundwork was made under Stalin. In 1953-1956, Khrushchev fought for power; there was no time for space. Well, in 1957 the satellite flew, took away power - and then everything coincided. There has been no one worse for many years, a tyrant in power is a terrible thing.


              from Memoirs of Khrushchev in relation to the designer Chelomey.

              I consider it necessary to talk about this, because Chelomey played, and still plays, an important role in the issue of arming our country with missiles. I told Chelomey that I like his idea, we will discuss it with the management, and then I will inform about the decision made. I asked him: who knows him among the political leadership? He referred to the fact that Bulganin received him. (Chelomey addressed Bulganin while he was still the Minister of Defense.) I told Bulganin that the design engineer Chelomey, known to him, had made an interesting proposal about missiles, which did not compete with the ideas of Yangel and Korolev and was very useful for arming our troops. However, Bulganin reacted negatively: “Yes, I know him,” and then he expressed himself very rudely towards Chelomey as an unreliable person who only knows how to talk, and advised me: “Keep him in the neck! Stalin drove him away. He had been running around with his ideas before. He was given the opportunity to prove himself, but he did nothing.” It jarred me. “Nikolai Alexandrovich, your reference to the fact that Stalin drove Chelomey away does not mean anything,” I objected. – Stalin’s authority in matters of technology is small. Let us listen to him, raise the issue at a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee, let him report to us. You base your attitude towards him only on the words of Stalin, but he showed me his model, that is, an idea already constructively formed. The model works and he is close to producing a natural rocket.”


              The creation of missile weapons was gaining momentum. Korolev, Yangel, Chelomey... They all worked on long-range missiles with large payloads and large charges. Several brands of such missiles were created. Other talented designers developed jet weapons for use against tanks, anti-aircraft missiles and short-range missiles. Chelomey literally bombarded us with new proposals: global missiles, intercontinental missiles, ship-to-ground and ground-to-ship missiles. He managed to make an ampulized instantaneous intercontinental missile UR-100[984]. We adopted it instead of some of Yangel's.

              At one of the meetings, Chelomey, like a peddler who pulls out chintz, beads, and other goods from a box, unfolded his projects in front of us. I remember how Korolev grumbled then: Chelomey and this, Chelomey and that, Chelomey is taking everything into his own hands. But his proposals really turned out to be universal and, moreover, the most profitable both economically and in terms of mobilization combat readiness. Then he proposed the UR-500 Proton heavy rocket, which lifted more cargo into space than the Korolev rocket. She still flies now. Here Korolev proposed creating a new rocket, the super-powerful N-1. Now Chelomei began to insist that his design included more realism. Creative competition continued.


              Are you saying that “Khrushchev had nothing to do with space”? But this is not true: it was under Khrushchev and even, as we see, at the instigation of Khrushchev, that new rocket technology came from Korolev. Yangel, and Chelomey generally took place precisely under Khrushchev, and contrary to Stalin’s opinion about him.
              And it was under Khrushchev that the famous N-1 was laid down.
              1. +4
                April 28 2024 19: 48
                Khrushchev's memoirs are a very objective source.
            2. 0
              April 27 2024 23: 00
              . Khrushchev has little to do with space. The groundwork was made under Stalin

              For better or for worse, it was Khrushchev who took full credit for Soviet primacy in space. Rockets, engines, other systems - the Americans had all this much better. But it was Khrushchev who authorized the use of enormous resources for space - while Eisenhower forbade von Braun from using military rockets for space launches.
              1. +2
                April 29 2024 09: 20
                Quote: Negro
                Rockets, engines, other systems - the Americans had all this much better.


                It’s not clear which side you’re on. Our R7 rocket launched a satellite that flew AROUND the Earth, Gagarin also flew around the Earth, but so what? They jumped up and landed at the same point, why were their rockets better?
                1. +1
                  April 29 2024 10: 04
                  . It's not clear which side you're on

                  In what sense?

                  The Soviet space program was as much a waste of money as Apollo. With the significant difference that for Kennedy the issue of milk and meat was resolved long ago, but for Khrushchev it was not. Nevertheless, if we consider the Soviet cosmonautics an achievement, then this is an achievement of Khrushchev personally.
                  The R7 rocket launched a satellite that flew AROUND the Earth, Gagarin also flew around the Earth, but so what? They jumped up and landed at the same point, why were their rockets better?

                  American, of course. This wouldn't be news to you if you were even a little in the know. In the case of the Americans, the question is not “why did the Sturmbannführer fuss for 15 years,” but “who forbade the Sturmbannführer to launch rockets into space for 15 years.”

                  Personally, Eisenhower hated two things: the American military-industrial complex and the SS. While he was in power, American space exploration by the Air Force and military contractors under the leadership of the Sturmbannfuehrer was impossible.

                  The Seven in the Sputnik version weighed 270 tons, in the Gagarin version (Vostok-K) - even more. The Vanguard rocket, which the Americans sawed off to launch their first satellite separately from military programs (and which carried out a successful launch in ’58), weighed 10 tons. Glenn's Atlas-109 (three-orbital flight, February '62) weighed 120 tons. That is, the orbital launch of a person cost the Americans 2,5 times less launch weight than the USSR.
                  Redstone, the rocket of Sheppard and the first American satellite, which was urgently taken from the military and the Sturmbannfuhrer to respond to the communists, weighed 30 tons. 30 tons versus 270. That is, von Braun’s rocket was 9 times more effective than the royal one.
                  1. -2
                    April 29 2024 10: 20
                    Quote: Negro
                    The Soviet space program was as much a waste of money as Apollo. With the significant difference that for Kennedy the issue of milk and meat was resolved long ago, but for Khrushchev it was not. Nevertheless, if we consider the Soviet cosmonautics an achievement, then this is an achievement of Khrushchev personally.



                    What you wrote here needs analysis of every word, the whole meaning is at random, and much more.

                    Why are Earth satellites made? For communications, for georeconnaissance, why is this “throwing”?

                    It was not Kenodi and Khrushchev who decided on milk, but the USA and the USSR. Agriculture in the USSR was ruined under Lenin-Stalin and Khrushchev could not stop this destructive process, and the United States almost did not fight, but they got all the carrots, how can you even talk about this? That it was necessary to join the fight for milk and only after that start space programs? This is stupid. At the forum level.


                    Quote: Negro
                    American, of course. This wouldn't be news to you if you were even a little in the know. In the case of the Americans, the question is not “why did the Sturmbannführer fuss for 15 years,” but “who forbade the Sturmbannführer to launch rockets into space for 15 years.”

                    Personally, Eisenhower hated two things: the American military-industrial complex and the SS. While he was in power, American space exploration by the Air Force and military contractors under the leadership of the Sturmbannfuehrer was impossible.



                    Well, you probably know the American internal political situation better than anyone else.
                    But this is not the main thing.
                  2. +3
                    April 29 2024 10: 45
                    Quote: Negro
                    The Seven in the Sputnik version weighed 270 tons, in the Gagarin version (Vostok-K) - even more. The Vanguard rocket, which the Americans sawed off to launch their first satellite (and which carried out a successful launch in ’58), weighed 10 tons


                    Damn, I even wrote here in non-Russian, not Vengard, Avangard1, which according to Wikipedia was an unsuccessful rocket, and if you have already started comparing rockets, then you have to be completely honest.
                    -P7 was heavy, but it accomplished the REAL task of launching the EARTH SATELLITE -84kg.
                    -Avangard1 was a light, unreliable racket and carried out even a micro and a nanosatellite -1.5kg. They couldn’t even put normal batteries in there. This was pure propaganda in order to compare their dubious merits with real Soviet achievements.

                    Quote: Negro
                    Glenn's Atlas 109 (three orbital flight) weighed 120 tons. That is, the orbital launch of a person cost the Americans 2,5 times less launch weight than the USSR.


                    The P7 is still flying, it’s the Soyuz, but where are your Atlases and Redstones? Far into the history of insolvency.
                    Your Atlas-109 (Google doesn’t even know what it is) it was a racket for suborbital flight, i.e. jump without going to FIRST SPACE SPEED and splash back to the same point.

                    What you said here about “the best missiles moved” these same ones whose fuel is protecting them from deserved assessments is your American propaganda.
                    It has long been known what kind of rocket scientists Americans are and how they got their deceitful “achievements.”
                    1. +1
                      April 29 2024 12: 02
                      My friend, where are you going with such knowledge? More precisely, their complete absence.
                      . which according to Wikipedia was a failed rocket

                      Yes, the rocket is made from Mr. and sticks quickly and cheaply to solve a single specific problem. In current astronautics, this traditional American approach to design is represented by the Antares rocket and its future successor, which is created specifically and only to make at most 5 Signus launches, but rather 2 or 3.
                      It was pure propaganda

                      Yes, it was a purely advertising project with a minimal budget and, even worse, with a direct ban on the use of military technologies.
                      with real Soviet achievements

                      When the Americans started the satellite project, no Soviet achievements could even have occurred to them. That’s why I’m emphasizing Khrushchev’s personal merit: a more balanced person simply would not have done this.
                      The P7 is still flying, it’s the Soyuz, but where are your Atlases and Redstones?

                      For a long time in museums, of course. Where is the place for seven?
                      Your Atlas-109 (Google doesn’t even know what it is) it was a racket for suborbital flight

                      Lord, what a spherical astronautics enthusiast in a vacuum. They wrote to you in Russian that Atlas is Glenn’s flight, an orbital three-orbit flight, February ’62. Plop is Sheppard's flight, a month after Gagarin, on a Redstone rocket. The rocket weighs 30 tons, that is, almost 10 times less than Gagarin’s. Yes, 30 tons is not enough for a habitable capsule returning to orbit, even now.
                      Why are Earth satellites made? For communications, for georeconnaissance, why is this “throwing”?...even a microsatellite, but a nanosatellite - 1.5 kg. They couldn’t even fit normal batteries in there.

                      Lack of knowledge is letting you down again. Sputnik-1 is a primitive tweeter, its weight again speaks of Soviet technical backwardness. Both Americans, Explorer and Vanguard, are scientific instruments; they discovered, in particular, the Van Allen belts. Yes, the Americans crammed much more into their one and a half kilograms than the USSR did in its 80s.

                      Of course, the country that had more developed electronics, radio technology, optics, etc. began to benefit from space. - that is, in all cases, America. Communications, reconnaissance, meteorology - the Americans were the first to do all this naturally. Moreover, the Corona project appeared in the mid-50s, so around 60 the Americans would have started orbital launches anyway, serial ones at that. Khrushchev here made a fuss in the launch schedule and imposed a purely propaganda competition.
                      American domestic political alignments are probably familiar to you better than anyone.

                      Cough cough. Better not start. Yes, I am, so to speak, an Eisenhower fan.
                      That it was necessary to join the fight for milk and only after that start space programs?

                      By itself. I will say more, the space programs did not burn out at all.
                      1. -3
                        April 29 2024 13: 23
                        Quote: Negro
                        My friend, where are you going with such knowledge? More precisely, their complete absence.


                        “You are not my friend, black-assed gentleman.” - quote.
                        Negro is not my friend.

                        you're making up some nonsense
                        At first he said that Amer’s rockets were better than ours, although they were all weaker than the P7, and this despite the fact that all the achievements, the first satellite, the first man, the first spacewalk, are all ours, not your Negroes.

                        You wouldn’t be a Negro boasting about your American “knowledge”; the Soviet satellite was not primitive, if only because it was launched into low-Earth orbit and had the first escape velocity and weighed 100 times more, unlike the Pindo-Soviet exuploer. What your amers attributed to it some achievements do not at all mean that this was actually the case.

                        And now about the operation of electronics in an environment that is obviously unknown and unexplored. Any electronics, and then these were lamps, must comply with natural environmental conditions - this is the presence of an atmosphere and the presence of an appropriate temperature and pressure in the atmosphere.

                        So it was necessary to make lamps such that they would work in a space environment without air, respectively, without an appropriate heat sink. The radio transmitter worked for several weeks until the battery ran out. Since it all worked, ours didn’t screw up.
                        In short, an enemy. Your fabrications are a snot-covered handkerchief with which you wipe yourself when you need to say something about how smart they are and how ours are not fools.
                        And your Apollo program is a lie from the first rocket to the last.
                      2. 0
                        April 29 2024 13: 35
                        as well as your Gemini and your Epas.
                      3. 0
                        April 29 2024 15: 05
                        . At first he said that Amer’s missiles were better than ours, although they were all weaker than the P7

                        Hand face fpg. I wrote that all the same tasks, with a difference of several months from the USSR, were carried out by the Americans on rockets that were several times or even an order of magnitude smaller in mass. As for heavy rockets, the first Proton-class rocket flew with the Americans in 61. Proton, for reference, in '65. Oh yes.
                        your Apollo program is a lie from the first rocket to the last.

                        You canceled the Saturn-Apollo program. Well then, yes, it turns out that only the Shuttle and the third Titan were heavy. Before this, we somehow managed without them, the Pioneers launched to Saturn.

                        Speaking of Pioneers and Atlas rockets in museums. In 62, a year after Gagarin, the first unsuccessful launch of the Centaur upper stage, just on the Atlas rocket. By 65, it had been polished to perfection. It has been flying ever since, and will continue to fly for decades to come (Vulcan-Centauri rocket)
                        Centaurus is an absolute technical masterpiece. The Soviet/Russian analogue of the American product of 1965 - KVTK - has not yet been created.
                        all achievements, the first satellite, the first man, the first spacewalk - all ours

                        Therefore, it is worth giving Khrushchev his due: he imposed on the Americans a stupid flag race, which ended for them in an extremely expensive and, on the whole, not particularly useful lunar program. More precisely, it could have ended, but you canceled it. Saved Americans a lot of money.
                        The fact that your amers attributed some achievements to him does not at all mean that it really was so.

                        Vanguard was launched into high orbit (by that same worthless 10-ton rocket), so it is still flying. Catch it and sort it out.
                      4. 0
                        April 29 2024 17: 30
                        It's time to end the stupid argument about which "good missiles the Americans have."
                        So we were the first in EVERYTHING.
                        The Americans were the first in the WORLD DECEPTION.
                        There are studies of what these Geminis were like, how the vigorous astronomers climbed out of the twins’ vessel after several days and not only did not fall, but danced and took pictures smiling at the whole world, how good they were, although Titov already said after the second orbit that they were feeling bad.
                        So the Americans have no faith and you don’t either.
                        How could all these “successful” rockets leave America without rockets, so that they had to fly for 20 years on the “ancient” R7-Soyuz? it’s unclear. According to you, they had everything, but in reality they had nothing.
                        Pin-dos didn’t even know what color the real Moon was and jumped on the cement dusty Moon.
                        Once you lie, who will believe you?
                      5. 0
                        April 29 2024 21: 28
                        . It's time to end the stupid argument about what "good missiles the Americans have"

                        Where are you going?
                        How could all these “successful” rockets leave America without rockets, so that they had to fly for 20 years on the “ancient” R7-Soyuz? unclear

                        Of course you don't understand. You don’t even know that these 9 (not twenty) years the problems were not with missiles at all.
                        There is no such thing that officials cannot screw up. Even American ones, who are considered not the worst among officials (although from the point of view of a healthy person, American officials are a difficult sight to bear). It’s a miracle that Roscosmos hasn’t killed anyone in these 9 years. In the case of MS-10, they walked along the edge.
                        Once you lie, who will believe you?

                        Yeah.
                        Witnesses to the lunar conspiracy have always had one problem: organizing a conspiracy of this magnitude and maintaining it for 50 years is obviously more difficult than flying to the moon. By the way, you canceled the entire Saturn-Apollo program: that is, both Skylab visible to the naked eye from Earth and the Soyuz-Apollo flight. But now, when only the lazy (and Roscosmos) do not fly to the Moon, and accordingly the junk left there by the Americans is being photographed by more and more missions independent of the Americans, your clownery has finally moved into the genre of the Special Olympics.
              2. 0
                April 29 2024 12: 35
                But it was Khrushchev who authorized the use of enormous resources for space - while Eisenhower forbade von Braun from using military rockets for space launches.

                It was possible to go further - and begin to supply commercial Soviet space products to the Soviet satellites - telecommunications and communications services, data for weather and crop forecasts, global navigation, geological exploration and a computer network. It would be interesting if the technology race in space initially unfolded in the applied direction. In fact, this is something useful that both the Americans and the USSR missed in their recent history and which one can regret today and think about how to avoid again.
                1. +1
                  April 29 2024 12: 44
                  Answered above. With the level of Soviet electrical engineering, it was impossible to race with the Americans. The ATS countries did not really need Zenit data, and the Americans supplied communications, meteorology, and later GPS (this is already the 80s, so a little out of topic) to the whole world on a commercial basis: the USSR had nothing special to catch here.

                  And by the way, I don’t see what the Americans missed that was so useful and practical. For them, the manned program was a luxury, and they did everything useful that they could come up with.

                  As for what's useful, it's hard to say. We postulate that abandoning expensive manned programs would make it possible to spend this money wisely on Earth - and frankly, no one has ever guaranteed this to us. The enemy of the people, Korolev, took money from the Soviet military, not collective farmers. If there were no space, these resources would rather be spent on some other whim, like battleships, and not on milk and meat.
                  1. -3
                    April 29 2024 13: 37
                    Quote: Negro
                    With the level of Soviet electrical engineering it was impossible to race with the Americans


                    It’s good that we don’t live with blacks, otherwise it would be like Africa has no space or milk.
                  2. 0
                    April 29 2024 16: 25
                    If there were no space, these resources would most likely be spent on some other whim, like battleships


                    The battleships could be sold or leased. And not to the “African kings” but to solvent countries such as the GDR or China. For example, exchange for household goods. This is exactly what the Americans are doing now, when they exchange the products of their military-industrial complex for dollars and give the dollars on credit. And you need to organize races precisely to improve your economic weaknesses - the opponent will not want and cannot afford to lose the initiative, which means he will also be forced to participate in economic races.
          3. +7
            April 27 2024 17: 23
            -Under Khrushchev, the space industry developed
            And with whom did it begin? Khrushchev Kukuruzny has just come to a head-to-head analysis to collect the achievements of this industry, founded under Stalin.
            1. -4
              April 27 2024 18: 17
              Quote: Aviator_
              with whom did it begin? Khrushchev Kukuruzny has just come to a head-to-head analysis to collect the achievements of this industry, founded



              under Alexander2 Kibalchich.
              1. +3
                April 27 2024 18: 32
                Quote: Trinitrotoluene
                under Alexander2 Kibalchich

                Under Ioann Vasilyevich. Remember - “I put him on a keg of gunpowder, let him fly”?
            2. +1
              April 27 2024 21: 30
              [Quote]who did it start with?[/ quote]
              In my opinion, Sergey hi, at the last Plenum, which took place during Stalin’s lifetime, there was a Resolution on the Space Program....
              The surprising thing is that Khrushchev did not nullify this matter, just as he nullified Stalin’s other Megaprojects
              1. +1
                4 May 2024 19: 52
                Probably not about space, but about rocket. Find the link if you can. Undoubtedly, our entire space is the merit of Stalin. I'm in Crimea now.
          4. 0
            April 28 2024 19: 44
            This is a match.... Horses and people mixed together...
        2. +2
          April 28 2024 19: 49
          It’s hard to imagine greater harm to the country than the rule of Nikita Sergeich, but about relocation to apartments, however, there are only nuances; during the restructuring of the system, all construction in the country practically stopped for two years! And thanks to his light hand, the country lost a quarter of its income by dispersing consumer cooperation and artels, etc.
          1. -1
            April 29 2024 09: 28
            Quote: 78bor1973
            And thanks to his light hand, the country lost a quarter of its income by dispersing consumer cooperation and artels, etc.


            the destruction of the estates of the Republic of Ingushetia was the policy of the party. Under Lenin, the nobility, merchants, and clergy were destroyed. Under Stalin, the peasantry and Cossacks as an estate were destroyed (destruction of the market). But under Stalin, the petty bourgeoisie remained, i.e. urban artisans, Stalin did not touch them, which is also strange, because artisans no less give rise to a petty-bourgeois environment, according to Lenin, than the peasantry, but you left behind.
            But the philistinism had already been destroyed by Khrushchev, which says that Khrushchev strictly followed the party’s course and, by and large, cannot be blamed for this.
            1. +1
              April 29 2024 10: 38
              Do you believe this? I’m not, because Nikita Sergeevich personally got involved in all matters under the guise of this course, and secondly, there are documents that he personally did this after the reduction of military orders, instructing factories to produce consumer goods. Whatever the collegiality of the Central Committee, the role of the individual in our country has not yet been canceled. The fact that Stalin did not do this is not strange, he had a different approach to management, moreover, it was deeper and more experienced, and the classes were destroyed as part of the fight against terror in the late 20s and early 30s.
              1. 0
                April 29 2024 10: 57
                Quote: 78bor1973
                because Nikita Sergeevich personally got involved in all matters under the guise of this course, and secondly, there are documents that he personally did this after the reduction of military orders, instructing factories to produce consumer goods


                Well, why shouldn’t the first person in the country get involved in everything?
                The fact that after the war it was necessary to reduce military production - those weapons that were used to fight in WW2 were no longer suitable for a new future war, and the fact that he paid more attention to missiles rather than airplanes is also correct, because planes could not reach the United States, but missiles could . And the fact that Khrushchev destroyed the aircraft industry is also some kind of nonsense: Khrushchev, one might say, created the Myasishchev Design Bureau and its bombers were released and were even in service for some time, and only after being convinced of the incompetence of Myasishchev’s bombers did they not receive further development.
                Under Khrushchev, one of the FIRST turbojet passenger aircraft was created, following the English Comet, which was an emergency. It was the famous TU-104, which flew for a long time.
                1. +1
                  April 29 2024 12: 38
                  Not really, Myasishchev received the plant in Fili as a base for the OKB in 1951, and directly on the instructions of I.V. Stalin. You are refuting yourself - it’s not his fault because this is the party line when they dispersed consumer cooperation, then why shouldn’t the first person intervene in the aircraft industry, well at least he didn’t design the planes himself. By the way, the heyday of the aircraft industry occurred precisely during the years of Brezhnev’s rule. By the way, what was the point of Khrushchev closing the project for landscaping the south of Russia? And this is because Stalin’s project. Small, worthless, vindictive little man Khrushchev.
                  1. -2
                    April 29 2024 14: 33
                    Quote: 78bor1973
                    Not really, Myasishchev received the plant in Fili as a base for the OKB in 1951, and directly on the instructions of I.V. Stalin.


                    yes, he started under Stalin, but worked under Khrushchev until 60. When it became clear that this bomber had no prospects, the design bureau was closed.



                    Quote: 78bor1973
                    You are refuting yourself - it’s not his fault because this was the party line when they dispersed consumer cooperation, then why shouldn’t the first person intervene in the aircraft industry, well at least he didn’t design it himself


                    What's the contradiction here? As the first person in the state, he should know what was happening in the country, so he knew why missiles were better than airplanes and drew conclusions, but the fact that the party line to disperse the philistinism was the party line, then Khrushchev, as a communist, simply adhered to it, what can you do? unclear?

                    Quote: 78bor1973
                    By the way, the heyday of the aircraft industry occurred precisely during the years of Brezhnev’s rule. By the way, what was the point of Khrushchev closing the project for landscaping the south of Russia? And this is because Stalin’s project. Small, worthless, vindictive little man Khrushchev.



                    just pile everything up and sort it out as you want.
                    Such questions need to be studied, and not thrown around in bunches of phrases.
                    How could Khrushchev be petty when he was in control of BILLIONS of public funds?
                    So just blurt it out?
                    1. +1
                      April 29 2024 14: 42
                      So it’s you who blurt out, but even a small person can manage BILLIONS, who’s stopping you from studying, study!
                  2. 0
                    4 May 2024 16: 54
                    Do not confuse consumer cooperation, which no one touched, and industrial cooperation.
              2. -2
                April 29 2024 11: 03
                Quote: 78bor1973
                , and classes were destroyed as part of the fight against terror in the late 20s and early 30s.


                what kind of terror, robbery and robbery of the peasantry during the time of war communism is terror? Yes, terror, but only of the Bolsheviks in relation to peaceful plowmen-peasants.
                1. 0
                  April 29 2024 12: 23
                  So read the documents, in 1925 - 350 terrorist attacks, in 1927 - 850, in 1932 - more than 1500, do you need to explain what kind of terrorist attack? Peaceful plowmen did not always turn out to be peaceful, often following the instructions of former masters and other repainted underdogs. It got to the point that in the early 30s, grain supplies were periodically disrupted, which led to a serious famine, and given the outbreak of the war, measures for “collectivization” seem quite justified at least and tough!
                  1. -1
                    April 29 2024 14: 42
                    why did the plowmen need to terrorize the Bolsheviks, they should have plowed, not fought, you confused cause and effect in places.
                    Khrushchev has a statement about who controlled whom when party bodies or punitive bodies wrote reports on enemies of the people and all sorts of terrorists. So ALL paperwork on enemies of the people went through the Cheka, GPU, NKVD and all this was subordinated personally to Stalin, he created such an order .
                    1. 0
                      April 29 2024 15: 04
                      I seem to have clearly explained why! During the NEP period, the former White Guards, clergy and other criminal elements merged in the villages. Plowmen, as you call it, there is discord among the plowmen - some plowed others, engaged in counter-revolutionary sabotage, banditry, and murders of other “plowmen”! Khrushchev, by the way, during this period led the Kyiv Regional Committee and became famous for “Stakhanov’s records” in bringing down sentences, and the fact that the NKVD was doing this - he signed the sentences and supervised local authorities!
                      1. -2
                        April 29 2024 17: 15
                        what nonsense are you talking about, why should plowmen kill plowmen? Why do plowmen sabotage? Can you at least tell me what to sabotage? In the Tambov province, when there was an uprising against the Bolsheviks, what did the peasants want? What did they achieve? Why did Tukhachevsky poison them?

                        Khrushchev was at party work during the NEP period in the Stalin region and what orders did he sign during the NEP, this is 21-28? That during the NEP period, when trade was allowed, Khrushchev put a spoke in the wheels of Lenin’s decision on the new economic policy? From the age of 29, Khrushchev was already in Moscow studying, then at party work.

                        Tell us with documents about Khrushchev’s crimes, well, at least where do such rumors come from?
                      2. 0
                        4 May 2024 16: 57
                        He was primarily the First Secretary of the Central Committee in Ukraine, and concurrently the First Secretary of the Kyiv Regional Committee and City Party Committee.
                      3. 0
                        4 May 2024 18: 17
                        Well, was it already a crime?
          2. +1
            4 May 2024 16: 51
            No one has dispersed consumer cooperation; it still exists in a number of regions. You are confusing it with industrial cooperation.
      2. 0
        4 May 2024 16: 34
        Well, Spitsyn, who can’t stand Khrushchev, nevertheless proves that the victims in Novocherkassk are not the fault of the authorities.
    2. -3
      April 27 2024 11: 37
      Crimea and amnesty for Bandera's followers...How to get past this?

      This Crimea was given to you.
      Joseph in 1936 withdrew all of Kazakhstan from the RSFSR and made it an autonomous republic. And this doesn’t bother anyone, just like the “father of nations.” fellow
      1. 0
        4 May 2024 16: 58
        More precisely, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Karakalpakstan were withdrawn from the RSFSR in 1936. Kazakhstan was an autonomous republic within the RSFSR, and in 1936 it became a union one.
    3. +3
      April 28 2024 15: 34
      -from a worker.
      Illegitimate son of a Polish nobleman. Was an estate manager. Very unsuccessful.
      In 1935, Molotov said that they had not found the mine where Khrushchev worked. They laughed and forgot...
      Patron: Otto Kuusinen. Only after whose death Brezhnev and Co. decided to carry out a coup.
      I remember rye bread half and half with peas, huge queues for white loaves.
  2. +2
    April 27 2024 05: 12
    Khrushchev is an energetic person and a tireless generator of ideas. His whole problem was that he had no education, not even a basic one. And this all determined his actions. The Institute of Red Professorship does not count!
    1. +4
      April 28 2024 11: 20
      [/quote]His whole problem was that he had no education, not even a basic one. And this all determined his actions. The Institute of Red Professorship does not count[quote]

      If only for this. An envious, power-hungry, vindictive, mean-spirited, insidious and dumb-as-a-cork Ukrainophile. We are still unraveling what this bitch did in our history. The earth is glassy to him.
      1. -4
        April 29 2024 09: 30
        Quote: V Rodichev
        If only for this. An envious, power-hungry, vindictive, mean-spirited, insidious and dumb-as-a-cork Ukrainophile. We are still unraveling what this bitch did in our history. The earth is glassy to him.


        You are not Russian, criticize the American.
  3. +1
    April 27 2024 05: 25
    Stalin did not create the "horizontal". The author does not know what any schoolchild in the USSR should have known.
    The main political slogan of the Soviet government since the revolution: "All power to the councils!"
    This is the Russian version of the slogan of the Paris Commune "All power to the Council!" (city, in which there were elected city ministers and all government was elected)

    The contradiction of Russian life during the USSR is the contradiction between Soviet legislation (according to which the deputy of the USSR Supreme Council Stalin had Kalinin as his boss, and then Shvernik) - -
    and monarchical-feudal folk tradition. According to which Stalin was the Emperor.

    But once, both Soviet and party laws also worked: “Emperor Khrushchev” was kicked out from the post of General Secretary strictly according to the Charter. By an ordinary decision of the plenum of the Central Committee in October 1964.
    Wonderful things are happening in Russia.....
    1. 0
      April 29 2024 09: 35
      Quote: ivan2022
      The main political slogan of the Soviet government since the revolution: “All power to the Soviets!”


      the main slogan of the Bolsheviks is All power to the Soviets, because the main ones in the Soviets were the Bolsheviks, but how Trotsky got into the Soviets is somehow left behind the scenes. However, the Menshevik Jews simply surrendered power to the Jew Bolshevik Trotsky at some price, which we still pay we don't know.
  4. +1
    April 27 2024 05: 31
    Quote: ROSS 42
    Khrushchev: from worker to leader of a nuclear superpower

    In our USSR, 99% of the Central Committee were from workers or from the plow.
    Surely the rule of the National Assembly was the first stick in the wheel of the history of the first socialist state.
    It’s difficult to even imagine how the USSR could have developed under the continuation of Stalin’s leadership...
    Crimea and amnesty for Bandera's followers...How to get past this?
    Without Russian territories, Ukraine would be a second Moldova...

    firstly, before 1934 there was “no history” at all in the USSR. It was simply not taught. And then only “A Short Course in the History of the USSR” appeared, which is nonsense, since calling history something that lasts only twelve years is a slap on History... So Khrushchev had no idea what kind of History it was at all.
    Although the Bolsheviks assumed that Tsarist-Imperial Russia should disappear from the memory of people in general and the history of Russia should begin with the Bolsheviks coming to power in Russia, it is obvious that Lenin and Stalin studied the “History of the Russian Empire” written by Romanov historians “optional” from Marxism, which is why they recreated the Russian Empire in the form of the Red Empire of the USSR. If not Lenin and Stalin, and God forbid people like Khrushchev, then Russia would have ceased to exist back in 1917, when the liberal government and the “overripe, overripe generals” led by Nicholas II abandoned power in Russia like a useless rag on a dusty road Stories .
    As for Crimea and Bandera’s followers, Khrushchev’s cunningly deceived Beria played a huge role here. Beria was an excellent and talented business executive and organizer of not only industry, science and government, but also an exceptional statesman in the same league as Stalin. And after Stalin's death, in order to seize power and begin to discredit Stalin, Khrushchev could first of all be prevented by Beria. Therefore, Beria was arrested and executed without trial. But Khrushchev understood that he must have support in the provinces and anywhere on the vast outskirts, if suddenly
    after Khrushchev’s organized execution of Beria, the Kremlin-Moscow communists will suddenly wake up. Therefore, two months after the execution of Beria, Khrushchev transferred Crimea to Ukraine and the communists there supported Khrushchev in everything.
    1. +2
      April 27 2024 20: 27
      Although the Bolsheviks assumed that Tsarist-Imperial Russia should disappear from the memory of people in general and the history of Russia should begin with the Bolsheviks coming to power in Russia
      - and that’s why under Stalin Tarle’s works were published, including those on the economic history of Tsarist Russia, and he also received the Stalin Prize? laughing
      1. +1
        April 27 2024 21: 41
        I read THE HISTORY OF THE 1937 CENTURY, edited by Tarle. 8 volumes.
        The impression is that the authors wanted to show the line of continuity from the revolutionaries of the 19th century to the 20th century, the Revolution of 1917
    2. -3
      April 29 2024 10: 02
      Quote: north 2
      And after Stalin's death, in order to seize power and begin to discredit Stalin, Khrushchev could first of all be prevented by Beria. Therefore, Beria was arrested and executed without trial.


      Beria was the Minister of the NKVD and the MGB, and Khrushchev was the secretary of the Moscow and regional party committees and had nothing to do with the authorities. That is. it was Beria who had ALL the power.
      Beria's arrest was carried out by other people. Who? Beria was arrested by generals led by Zhukov.
      In general, I cannot imagine that the most all-powerful minister could be arrested by the military. This was a serious conspiracy against the government. And Khrushchev was by no means in the leading roles in these schemes. The first place was GIVEN to him so that he would fulfill some of the goals and objectives of the generals.
      But Khrushchev led HIS POLICY and condemned Stalin as a politician who abused power and it was a brave act and it was right, Khrushchev did not attempt Stalin’s reforms.
      We can say that Khrushchev emerged from the difficult post-war period with honor, although not without mistakes. This again concerns the most complex problems of agriculture, which, however, were not resolved by any leader of the USSR.
      1. +1
        April 30 2024 03: 22
        [/quote]We can say that Khrushchev emerged from the difficult post-war period with honor[quote]

        Can you tell us more about these very exits with honor? Right here point by point in relation to the contribution of this very Seluk-Khrushchev. We'll write it down so we don't miss anything. And especially focus on comparing this contribution with Stalin.
        1. 0
          April 30 2024 07: 07
          ready to criticize point by point? Yes please.
          the main trump card of the times of Khrushchev is
          -adopting a housing construction program
          -restoration of war-damaged industry
          - the creation of new industries, for example, the direction of computer computer technology in the city of Kazan-Setun since 1953, by decree of the Council of Ministers, the machine was THREE-BIT, which was not the case anywhere in the world. Minsk computer machines since 1958.
          - the Volga-21 car took a prize at the Brussels exhibition, the Seagull was also awarded with prizes.
          -the world's first nuclear-powered icebreaker Lenin
          -the world's first Sputnik, the first manned flight into space, the first woman's flight into space.
          -one of the world's first passenger jet aircraft TU-104
          -the world's first intercontinental bomber TU-95, the world's first passenger aircraft TU-114
          -successfully overcoming the Cuban missile crisis. The Americans agreed to remove missiles from Turkey.
          -rehabilitation of prisoners of Stalinist repressions
          -creation of intercontinental nuclear missiles
          is not enough
  5. +7
    April 27 2024 05: 40
    The article leaves a sticky and disgusting feeling.
    The sharp corners have been smoothed out, the sons say nothing about the traitor.
    There was a documentary series called "Strike Force".
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSXu8tLLwbPLokN1ITE-t8ixggnMEj8Pg
    There, all the creators of our weapons either praised Stalin or spoke of him with respect.
    90% spoke of Khrushchev with disgust.
    1. -4
      April 27 2024 09: 44
      The article leaves a sticky and disgusting feeling.
      The sharp corners have been smoothed out, the sons say nothing about the traitor.
      There was a documentary series called "Strike Force".
      https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSXu8tLLwbPLokN1ITE-t8ixggnMEj8Pg
      There, all the creators of our weapons either praised Stalin or spoke of him with respect.
      90% spoke of Khrushchev with disgust.

      This film was made at a time when Khrushchev needed to be scolded.
      In his time, these creators wrote with boiling water with delight. fellow
      1. +2
        April 27 2024 10: 00
        Quote: Arzt
        This film was made at a time when Khrushchev needed to be scolded.

        TV series 2002 – 2010. I.e. Was it then customary to scold Khrushchev?

        My father never saw him only for the bread. It was gray "Transbaikal". It was impossible to eat. There was no normal bread, there was only this one. Normal wheat was only given to disabled people with severe diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and all sorts of “bumps”. “Trans-Baikal bread” was terrible, the crumb was not baked, it was crumbling.
        1. -4
          April 27 2024 10: 09
          TV series 2002 – 2010. I.e. Was it then customary to scold Khrushchev?

          My father never saw him only for the bread. It was gray "Transbaikal". It was impossible to eat. There was no normal bread, there was only this one. Normal wheat was only given to disabled people with severe diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and all sorts of “bumps”. “Trans-Baikal bread” was terrible, the crumb was not baked, it was crumbling.

          Did he even see bread under Stalin? Or a mixture of quinoa, sawdust and dust after unloading cars with flour, like my grandmother. recourse

          About Khrushchev's son Leonid is also a story. It was invented by the children of Beria and Mikoyan; there are no official documents about betrayal and execution, even after the removal of Khrushchev, when it was customary to disgrace him.

          But there is testimony from his wingman in that battle, Ivan Zamorin.

          “The command of my regiment was extremely interested in accepting this version at face value. Because it also directly shared the severe responsibility for the death of the pilot - the son of a Politburo member! I was afraid to speak out against the command and made a deal with my conscience, falsifying the facts. In the report, I kept silent about the fact that when the fascist Focke-Wulf 190 rushed to attack my car, coming under my right wing from below, Leonid Khrushchev, in order to save me from death, sent his plane to intercept the salvo of an enemy fighter... The plane Khrushchev literally crumbled before my eyes! That is why it was impossible to find traces of this disaster on the ground, especially since the authorities did not immediately order to look for them - that our battle took place over territory occupied by the Germans.”

          Here we are talking about the version that Leonid could have escaped. In the 18th GIAP, all the pilots knew perfectly well that he had died immediately, but the command lost their minds and ordered silence. Yes

          Zamorin wrote this letter to Ustinov after the death of N.S. Khrushchev, when he was in disgrace, so there was no point in lying to him.
          1. +1
            April 27 2024 10: 30
            Quote: Arzt
            Did he even see bread under Stalin? Or a mixture of quinoa, sawdust and dust after unloading cars with flour, like my grandmother.

            My father ate his fill of bread for the first time in 1954, when he joined the navy.
            But my mother survived the war normally in the village. 30 km from the front on the Don. But my father is not, although it’s about the same 30 km in a straight line. It was just that military units were passing through the village all the time and that helped. There was a war under Stalin and after the war everything needs to be restored + the nuclear project. And Khrushchev, in an incomparably better time, brought the country to the brink.

            Quote: Arzt
            About Khrushchev's son Leonid is also a story.

            I don't know, maybe you're right. Although he killed a man while drunk. But the brother of the author of our anthem definitely betrayed and fought on the side of Germany. Therefore, your words about Khrushchev’s son are somehow not convincing to me. His second son was also somehow not very good, he went to the USA to criticize his homeland. Here is Beria’s son, a worthy man who did not abandon his father.
          2. +1
            April 27 2024 10: 57
            Quote: Arzt
            About Khrushchev's son Leonid is also a story.

            Yes, and the family is somehow not very good. Human rights activists, in a word. Russia is alien to them.
            First wife Rosalia Mikhailovna Treyvas; the marriage was short-lived, as it was annulled by personal order of N. S. Khrushchev, since Rosalia’s uncle, party functionary Boris Treivas, was arrested and shot. In the memoirs of N. L. Khrushchev, Rosa's last name is mistakenly indicated as Travis.

            His second wife (de facto, since 1939; the marriage was not formally concluded) was pilot Lyubov Illarionovna Sizykh (December 28, 1912 - February 7, 2014). After the death of Leonid, Lyubov was repressed for her relationship with a French diplomat; she was arrested on suspicion of espionage and sent to camps for five years. Since 1948 she was in exile in Kazakhstan. She was finally released in 1956, and for some time she was an MGB informant.

            Daughter Yulia Leonidovna Khrushcheva (1940-2017), who was adopted by Nikita Sergeevich after Leonid’s death, died after being hit by a train.

            Daughter's husbands: Nikolai Shmelev and Lev Sergeevich Petrov (1922-1970),

            2 granddaughters, daughters from his second marriage: Nina Lvovna Khrushcheva (1963), political scientist professor in the USA; Ksenia Lvovna Khrushcheva (1964-2016) - sociologist and human rights activist, died of cancer, has great-grandchildren.
            1. +3
              April 27 2024 11: 02
              Yes, and the family is somehow not very good. Human rights activists, in a word. Russia is alien to them.

              Yeah. It’s either the case of Svet Alliluyev. wink
              1. +4
                April 27 2024 11: 05
                Quote: Arzt
                Yeah. It’s either the case of Svet Alliluyev. wink

                There the father and both sons are correct.
                And here all the Khrushchevs and all their wives, children, grandchildren are somehow not very good.
                Apples from an apple tree.
                1. +1
                  April 27 2024 11: 13
                  There the father and both sons are correct.
                  And here all the Khrushchevs and all their wives, children, grandchildren are somehow not very good.
                  Apples from an apple tree.

                  It’s clear about the father, but what are both sons right about? Yakov was captured, where he died, and Vasily, a typical major, knocked down a man to death on a Horch due to drunkenness, was treated for alcoholism, but did not recover. If he were alive now, I’m sure he would be driving around Kutuzovsky in a Rolls with a golden pistol. angry
                  His son, also Vasily, Stalin’s grandson, shot himself in a drug stupor. This was in 1972, when people had never even heard of drugs!
                2. +2
                  April 29 2024 15: 51
                  Quote: bya965
                  There the father and both sons are correct.

                  One of Stalin's sons was captured. Vasily wanted to escape to China. Svetlana fled to the USA, where she chose to die because she liked the order created by the American imperialists much more than that existing in the USSR under Stalin and Khrushchev and in Russia and Georgia after the collapse of the CPSU.
        2. 0
          April 30 2024 10: 11
          Quote: bya965
          His father never saw me only for the bread. It was gray "Transbaikal". It was impossible to eat. There was no normal bread, there was only this one. Normal wheat was only given to disabled people with severe diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and all sorts of “bumps”. “Transbaikal bread” was terrible, the crumb was not baked, it was crumbling.


          did you want some good bread? And who carried out collectivization? In essence, this was a robbery of the Russian peasantry? When was this done? Who destroyed the market between city and countryside and forced the peasants to work not for pay, but for sticks?
          Who suppressed the peasant uprisings against the Bolsheviks and gassed the peasants? Who destroyed Makhno's peasant army, which defeated Denikin?
          How could even the first secretary of the party go against such a powerful evil movement against the peasantry? Khrushchev could not do anything sensible, just like Brezhnev and everyone else. And only now, when some kind of clumsy market returned, the peasant was able to feel that he was not working in vain, but for money, and then unprecedented harvests returned to Russia.
          Although now the bread that is sold in stores is low-grade rubbish, it is the policy of the current government to feed the people with garbage and fodder for livestock.
          1. 0
            April 30 2024 10: 23
            Quote: Trinitrotoluene
            Who carried out collectivization? In essence, this was a robbery of the Russian peasantry?

            Firstly Russian!
            Secondly, give me an example in history of a painless and short-term transfer of population from villages to cities. How has urbanization happened in other countries?
            Thirdly, this was done poorly in the USSR (who can argue), but much better and faster than in other countries.
            Fourthly, what is the current grain quality? Previously, grain was used to feed cattle.
            Fifthly, if Khrushchev had not ruined Stalin’s “plan for the transformation of nature,” then our climate would have become better and there would have been a lot of food.
            1. -1
              April 30 2024 10: 43
              Quote: bya965
              Firstly Russian!


              another one there, the word Russian is written with one s, because it is pronounced -Russkiy, not Russian, and doubling letters in the root is not a Russian rule, but a German one.

              Quote: bya965
              and secondly, give me an example in history of a painless and short-term transfer of population from villages to cities. How did urbanization happen in other countries?


              Now, if people used their heads at least a little in your example when analyzing historical events, and did not listen to official historians who serve only the authorities and the built-up paradigm, then perhaps it would come to mind that large peasant families have always lived according to the same principles from time immemorial the same rules
              - the eldest son received - ALL THE EARTH of the father.
              -daughters needed to save up a dowry.
              - for the rest of the sons, if possible, at least something. And then the second, third, fourth sons took whatever tools they had and went to other trades, some to the city, some to become soldiers, some in all directions. Thus replenishing the urban population and the needs of industry in working hands
              It was a NATURAL process, automatic, the village fed the city not only with food, but also with labor. And neither the Bolsheviks, nor the Marxists, nor anyone had to interfere in this process.
              No one among the official historians talks about this, because it is IMPOSSIBLE.

              Quote: bya965
              Fifthly, if Khrushchev had not ruined Stalin’s “plan for the transformation of nature,” then our climate would have become better and there would have been a lot of food.


              Can you say exactly what the plan was? By what forces should it be carried out? People literally had nothing to eat, they had to work on themselves in order to survive, and there was always a security officer on top with
              revolver Marat Nagulnov: give your harvest to the city, otherwise it will be bad.
    2. +4
      April 27 2024 11: 29
      The article leaves a sticky and disgusting feeling.

      I agree, Khrushchev is clearly a negative character in our story....
      1. -3
        April 30 2024 10: 18
        Quote: ziqzaq
        I agree, Khrushchev is clearly a negative character in our story....


        Well, when you don’t have your own understanding, then you need to join the “general opinion”
  6. +2
    April 27 2024 05: 52
    An extremely contradictory personality, but an excellent example for us modern people of what happens when someone makes serious mistakes, but does not pay for them, but goes higher up the career ladder. Unfortunately, such examples are very relevant now. It would be very interesting to see today's world if Nikita Sergeevich went to plant corn on the Red Star collective farm, and Lavrenty Pavlovich took his place in history, which was intended for him, I think we would live in completely different conditions, but unfortunately history is merciless, and people living in the present are blind, and make mistakes for which entire generations later pay....
    1. -9
      April 27 2024 09: 48
      An extremely contradictory personality, but an excellent example for us modern people of what happens when someone makes serious mistakes, but does not pay for them, but goes higher up the career ladder. Unfortunately, such examples are very relevant now. It would be very interesting to see today's world if Nikita Sergeevich went to plant corn on the Red Star collective farm, and Lavrenty Pavlovich took his place in history, which was intended for him, I think we would live in completely different conditions, but unfortunately history is merciless, and people living in the present are blind, and make mistakes for which entire generations later pay....

      In this magnificent world of today, you would write your text in Georgian. Or maybe even in Mingrelian... wink
    2. +1
      April 27 2024 11: 20
      . Lavrenty Pavlovich would have taken his place in history, which was intended for him, I think we would have lived in completely different conditions, but unfortunately history is merciless, and people living in the present are blind, and make mistakes for which entire generations later pay...

      Yes, history does not make mistakes, they are made by people themselves without knowing it, and history does not forgive - neither people nor mistakes, it takes revenge, leaving people bewildered - “What the hell happened to us?!? "..
      What happened is that in Russia, by its history and standards, the period allotted for the transition from peasant tradition to social modernity, from modernity to the era of industrialization, from industrialization to postmodernity (industrialization is completed, a new type of state, on the threshold - post-industrial society). Each mentioned stage required decades, or even centuries, for the previous stage to be forgotten by new generations, and the existing one to be accepted by everyone as familiar. And according to her, history, opinion, each stage should take a long time to emerge from the previous one, until it becomes clear to society - it’s time!
      But in our country all this happened at an unprecedented pace - from 1917 to 1953. And then it turned out that in the minds of most people the stages mentioned above did not disappear anywhere! They tragically combined, coming into conflict and even confrontation with each other. This led to dangerous instability and instability of the USSR state system and, ultimately, to 1991. And hence - such opposite figures, incapable of being brought to the same denominator, as Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria and Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev.
      The only thing they had in common was their differently manifested voluntarism, coming from the pre-revolutionary tradition. Beria - for modernization, Khrushchev - for unconscious monarchization.
      Many of us still have it in our heads. We will not be able to choose a suitable state form for ourselves.
  7. +1
    April 27 2024 06: 01
    It would be wrong to imagine Khrushchev as Gorbachev. We have recently formed the opinion that Ukraine has always been alien to Russia. They say, even in Soviet times. In Stalin’s time, cities destroyed during the war were only restored. But in Khrushchev’s time it was necessary to put in order those rear cities that were overgrown with landfills during the war. Many people who lived in barracks, basements, and even dugouts received apartments. And this was mainly during the time of Khrushchev. It was impossible to preserve the Stalinist regime. Front-line soldiers visited abroad and saw how life works there. Khrushchev was not a Trotskyist. It’s just that his desires were ahead of his possibilities. This still happens.
    1. +2
      April 27 2024 06: 43
      Well, of course, the Khrushchevites first of all had to rebuild Kyiv, Zhitomir, Klaipeda, Przemysl, Riga, Lvov and Siauliai, destroyed by the war, while thousands of Stalingrads and Smolensks were still in ruins in Russia..
      1. +1
        April 27 2024 10: 55
        Well, of course, the Khrushchevites first of all had to rebuild Kyiv, Zhitomir, Klaipeda, Przemysl, Riga, Lvov and Siauliai, destroyed by the war, while thousands of Stalingrads and Smolensks were still in ruins in Russia..

        You have an inconsistency. The Khrushchevites came only in 1953.
        Another thing is that these scoundrels began to build Khrushchev buildings for everyone, and not high-rise buildings for the elite. laughing
        1. +1
          April 27 2024 12: 43
          Quote: Arzt
          Another thing is that these scoundrels began to build Khrushchev buildings for everyone, and not high-rise buildings for the elite.

          In the cities there are still two-story "Stalin" buildings - completely people's housing. Built since post-war times.
          1. -2
            April 27 2024 12: 50
            In the cities there are still two-story "Stalin" buildings - completely people's housing. Built since post-war times.

            90% were initially occupied as communal apartments. Consider it the same as a dorm.
            The remaining 10% are small items, and of course, production leaders.
            1. +1
              April 27 2024 12: 53
              Quote: Arzt
              90% were initially occupied as communal apartments. Consider it the same dorm.

              Well, if they gave each family an apartment, the liberda would shout: “housing for the elite!” lol
              1. 0
                April 27 2024 12: 57
                Well, if they gave each family an apartment, the liberda would shout: “housing for the elite!” lol

                There was no “if” under Joseph Dzhugashvili. And it couldn't be. For a mere mortal - a barracks. Sometimes in a guarded village, like on Rublyovka. laughing

                Well, if you are not a resident of Tbiliso, of course, the situation is different there. wink

                Such a fairy tale began only under Khrushchev.
                1. +1
                  April 27 2024 13: 02
                  Quote: Arzt
                  Such a fairy tale began only under Khrushchev.

                  He did everything himself, from scratch. Powerful man.
                  1. -5
                    April 27 2024 13: 05
                    He did everything himself, from scratch. Powerful man.

                    He made a DECISION. Shrink the over-inflated defense industry and the black trough a little, and give a little to your people.
                    1. +2
                      April 27 2024 13: 09
                      Quote: Arzt
                      He made a DECISION. Shrink the over-inflated defense industry and the black trough a little, and give a little to your people.

                      If Khrushchev had come to power, say, in the thirties, and decided to shrink the “slightly over-inflated defense industry,” and instead “give a little to his people,” then it would have turned out just great. We would drink Bavarian beer, as the Liberda dreams.
                      1. -4
                        April 27 2024 13: 22
                        If Khrushchev had come to power, say, in the thirties, and decided to shrink the “slightly over-inflated defense industry,” and instead “give a little to his people,” then it would have turned out just great. We would drink Bavarian beer, as the Liberda dreams.

                        If Khrushchev had come to power in the 30s, it is quite possible that there would have been no war with Hitler.
                        Another leader - different decisions - different results. wink
                      2. +2
                        April 27 2024 13: 34
                        Quote: Arzt
                        If Khrushchev had come to power in the 30s, it is quite possible that there would have been no war with Hitler.

                        And there would be no Hitler. He would have shot himself with envy if he saw Khrushchev's successes.
                      3. -5
                        April 27 2024 13: 56
                        And there would be no Hitler. He would have shot himself with envy if he saw Khrushchev's successes.

                        Perhaps he would not have become Reich Chancellor. Khrushchev could have supported Ruth Fischer rather than Ernst Thälmann, and the outcome of the elections in Germany would have been different. wink
                      4. 0
                        April 27 2024 13: 59
                        Quote: Arzt
                        Perhaps he would not have become Reich Chancellor. Khrushchev could have supported Ruth Fischer rather than Ernst Thälmann, and the outcome of the elections in Germany would have been different.

                        Yes. The NSDAP would immediately receive 51 percent.
              2. +1
                April 27 2024 22: 06
                if they gave every family an apartment

                And it is quite understandable why this did not happen before the war. The civil war caused enormous damage. There were not enough workers, as well as engineers. There were not enough materials and they often used bricks from destroyed buildings, thinking about how to save money. There were very long houses for the sake of saving on the walls.....
                Masses of people came to cities from villages. Industrialization. Under the tsar, workers could live in barracks next to the factories, rent corners, where they slept alternately, some spent the night in the prices, and slept in the layout. There was no question about individual ones at all.! We were glad to have the rooms! That's what
        2. +5
          April 27 2024 12: 56
          And here, by the way, is the first Soviet “panelka”. Built, oddly enough, in 1950. And architecturally it still looks better than the “Khrushchev” buildings, of which it became the prototype.
          1. -3
            April 27 2024 13: 03
            And here, by the way, is the first Soviet “panelka”. Built, oddly enough, in 1950. And architecturally it still looks better than the “Khrushchev” buildings, of which it became the prototype.

            Where is it, in your city? Ask how they checked in. Each person has a separate apartment? I doubt.

            Or a science city, like Obninsk for example. It's very nice there, I agree. But it's still for the elite.
            1. +1
              April 27 2024 13: 04
              Quote: Arzt
              Where is it in your city?

              This is in Magnitogorsk.
              1. -2
                April 27 2024 13: 17
                This is in Magnitogorsk.

                Got it. Struven and Murray from Arthur McKee Company and 1000 other guys from the West will not go to the barracks. Gugel, Maryasin, Valerius and Saprykin too. That's not why they made the revolution. wink
                1. 0
                  April 27 2024 13: 19
                  Quote: Arzt
                  Got it. Struven and Murray from Arthur McKee Company and 1000 other guys from the West will not go to the barracks. Gugel, Maryasin, Valerius and Saprykin too. That's not why they made the revolution.

                  Revolution? In 1950? Well, you know better.
                  1. -1
                    April 27 2024 13: 24
                    Revolution? In 1950? Well, you know better.

                    Are these houses from the 50s? So what, ordinary Magnitogorsk workers were settled in them? Each one in a separate apartment?
                    Or do you still have photos of areas where ordinary workers live? wink
                    1. +2
                      April 27 2024 13: 36
                      Quote: Arzt
                      Are these houses from the 50s?

                      Can't you read?

                      Quote: Arzt
                      So what, ordinary Magnitogorsk workers were settled in them? Each one in a separate apartment?

                      They were each placed in a separate apartment under Khrushchev. (No)
                2. +1
                  April 27 2024 22: 15
                  1000 guys from the West will not go to the barracks
                  And no one forced them! Houses with separate apartments were built for them in different cities. By the way, they still look very good. Stalin parameters. Not everyone knows that this was before the Second World War. By the way, there were also very good houses for Soviet scientists. Same parameters and also 2 kitchens.
                  True, many foreign specialists were later repressed, unfortunately. Because when we abandoned the idea of ​​world revolution, they did not understand this and were recognized as Trotskyists
          2. +1
            April 27 2024 21: 55
            the first Soviet "panelka"

            Where is she? We have similar ones in St. Petersburg, only five-story buildings.
            But..... in fact, the first ones were built before the war. It was a time of experimentation, a lot had to be built. They built a lot before the war. But for the most part - industrial buildings or public ones. Factories, factories, water towers were required..... Clinics, universities, schools, sanatoriums, recreation centers..... There were no building materials and specialists.... Block houses, with the parameters of Stalin-era buildings (which after the Second World War) appeared in Moscow area of ​​Leningrad, but according to those standards ---- they were plastered! These blocks are completely invisible
    2. +2
      April 27 2024 17: 30
      The front-line soldiers visited abroad and saw how life works there.
      You are repeating the mossy tale of the 19th century about the Decembrists. My father is a front-line soldier. Visited Poland and Germany. I never spoke in an enthusiastic tone about their lives. He only talked about the Germans’ passion for order - he saw a janitor sweeping the street almost immediately after the battle.
  8. +4
    April 27 2024 06: 23
    Everyone who the author does not like was afraid of losing the “feeding trough”; on the contrary, others, obviously, worked for the good of the Motherland in “responsible places”. In modern times this is called analytics and research?! request
  9. +7
    April 27 2024 06: 32
    Quote: bya965
    The article leaves a sticky and disgusting feeling.
    The sharp corners have been smoothed out, the sons say nothing about the traitor.
    There was a documentary series called "Strike Force".
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSXu8tLLwbPLokN1ITE-t8ixggnMEj8Pg
    There, all the creators of our weapons either praised Stalin or spoke of him with respect.
    90% spoke of Khrushchev with disgust.

    It was the liberals who called Khrushchevism the Thaw, although it was real slush. I can imagine what the military called the Khrushchev era! Flight into space and nuclear weapons, this dates back to the times of Stalin-Beria rule. You just had to “not screw up” these matters and just don’t poke your nose into them. And where Khrushchev stuck his nose in, they then raked it for a very long time. For example, in order to overtake America in meat, Khrushchev's sycophants lost the number of cows and reported to him about record successes. At the same time, Khrushchev’s lackeys in localities on a regional scale did not allow collective farmers to have meadows to cut hay for their private livestock. I remember very well how my mother cried when the collective farm porter and measurer arrived to measure our hay and make sure it was only according to collective farm standards and for only one cow. We confiscated the excess, although we mowed grass for hay along ravines and along the edges of the forest. I still remember these cleanly mown forest clearings, where later in August, in the fall of the leaves, the heads of boletuses are visible a hundred meters away. So the hay was confiscated from the people, the collective farm meadows were not fully mowed, and in the spring the people gave up their only cow. And before Khrushchev, parents said that after the war in the village they kept two cows and people were allowed bones for hay in “decent” meadows. And I didn’t hear a single obscene joke about Stalin or Beria under Khrushchev, and there were more than enough jokes about Khrushchev even then.
    1. +2
      April 27 2024 11: 00
      [b
      ]Khrushchev’s lackeys on regional scale
      [/b] Scha, lackeys on a regional scale. It was at the instigation of Khrushchev that decisions were adopted that limited the personal plots of collective farmers, on taxes on cattle, cattle, poultry, on fruit trees and shrubs, and so on, so forth. This is with It revised the collective farm Charter. No matter how you worked on the collective farm, received a fixed salary, the peasant lost his material interest, liquidated the MTS, etc., etc. With his reforms in the countryside, he threw the country back decades. It was he who created food problem in the country, which they could not overcome until the collapse of the USSR. And even after the collapse, it did not go away. If today, beef sausages are produced with the addition of beef. But today’s problem, knsh, is the fault of the collective West and only it. Our capitalists , well, they’re not guilty of anything, not guilty of anything.
      1. -2
        April 27 2024 11: 26
        It was he who created the food problem in the country, which they could not overcome until the collapse of the USSR. And even after the collapse, it did not go away. If today, beef sausages are produced with the addition of beef. But today’s problem, knsh, is the collective West’s fault and only it’s Our capitalists, well, are not to blame for anything.

        What's the problem? Is there beef in the beef sausages? laughing
        Or is it that there are 50 varieties?
        1. +2
          April 27 2024 12: 11
          Or is it that there are 50 varieties?
          50 varieties interspersed with beef
          1. -2
            April 27 2024 12: 21
            50 varieties interspersed with beef

            laughing lol For the record.

            I have a farmer friend in the Rostov region who is also interested in “naturel”. I took the equipment, bought the right meat, and began making sausages. Including Soviet recipes, he is a fan of the USSR, there is a portrait of Stalin in his office. The recipes are 100% correct, the taste is the same, the old people tasted it and confirmed it.

            What do you think? Almost went broke! At first they took it, then “no, no, we don’t need your sausage, it’s very hard and stinks of saltpeter.”

            My conclusion: only Soviet people could eat Soviet sausage! laughing
            1. 0
              April 27 2024 13: 04
              I bought the right meat and started making sausages.
              And because of this, the number of cattle in the Russian Federation decreased every year. Because of your friend.
              1. -1
                April 27 2024 13: 07
                And because of this, the number of cattle in the Russian Federation decreased every year. Because of your friend.

                You won't understand. Sausage without meat is not sausage, sausage made from meat is also bad, cattle suffer. Where is the exit? laughing
    2. +1
      April 27 2024 22: 20
      Stalin or Beria in the joke were strict and serious. There was no ridicule. But Khrushchev always turned out to be negative and often funny or otherwise negative
  10. +5
    April 27 2024 06: 33
    In the summer of 1961, I (I’m 10 years old) and my parents (on vacation) ended up in Moscow on an excursion to the Kremlin. We were standing on Cathedral Square and suddenly, in some cunning way, a corridor 3 meters wide appeared from the people. And along this corridor suddenly N.S. Khrushchev and 5-10 other people walked with him. Nikita walked and shook hands with the men who stood to his right. It has reached us too. He shook hands with my father, ran his hand over my head and moved on. He was dressed in gray silk trousers, pulled almost to his tits, and a white Ukrainian shirt with an embroidered collar.
    As for him as a person, it is difficult to find a more deceitful book than his memoirs (except by Solzhenitsyn). In an attempt to justify himself and his actions, he threw mud at Stalin and our entire country. Moreover, he did it so clumsily that his son Sergei (who fled to the USA and received American citizenship there!!!) was forced to write a book in which he explained and justified his father’s deception and actions.
    Khrushchev is an extremely controversial figure. On the one hand there is Gagarin, on the other there are lines for bread, the Novocherkassk execution and the absolute undermining of communist ideology and the authority of the USSR in the world communist movement.
    ps Old joke:
    World Congress of Transplantologists.
    - American: we sewed on the victim’s finger
    - South African: We transplanted a heart into a man.
    - Soviet: we found an asshole in a Donetsk mine, sewed ears on it and she led us for 0 years
    1. -1
      April 27 2024 11: 23
      In the summer of 1961, I (I’m 10 years old) and my parents (on vacation) ended up in Moscow on an excursion to the Kremlin. We were standing on Cathedral Square and suddenly, in some cunning way, a corridor 3 meters wide appeared from the people. And along this corridor suddenly N.S. Khrushchev and 5-10 other people walked with him. Nikita walked and shook hands with the men who stood to his right. It has reached us too. He shook hands with my father, ran his hand over my head and moved on. He was dressed in gray silk trousers, pulled almost to his tits, and a white Ukrainian shirt with an embroidered collar.

      Such a trick would not have worked with Vissarionich. They wouldn't even let you in there within range of a cannon shot. wink

      As for him as a person, it is difficult to find a more deceitful book than his memoirs (except by Solzhenitsyn). In an attempt to justify himself and his actions, he threw mud at Stalin and our entire country. Moreover, he did it so clumsily that his son Sergei (who fled to the USA and received American citizenship there!!!) was forced to write a book in which he explained and justified his father’s deception and actions.

      At least he left memoirs. And he wrote it himself. The rest didn't take the risk. laughing
      1. +2
        April 27 2024 14: 00
        At least he left memoirs. And he wrote it himself

        He didn't write anything. He dictated into a tape recorder. And then these films were taken to the West and published there. Moreover, there is a version that the films were taken out with Andropov’s permission by Victor Louis.
        1. +1
          April 27 2024 14: 03
          He didn't write anything. He dictated into a tape recorder. And then these films were taken to the West and published there. Moreover, there is a version that the films were taken out with Andropov’s permission by Victor Louis.

          Even so? Did not know. Well, that's another plus for him. An innovative leader and no fool. It’s his voice, no one will say that he didn’t write it. Yes
  11. +2
    April 27 2024 06: 57
    Often, an irrepressible and zealous person in power, at any level, is worse than an enemy.
  12. +3
    April 27 2024 07: 15
    Why is this? The current ones do not become better because they tell the “truth” about Khrushchev. The last paragraph is one-on-one about today's times.
  13. +2
    April 27 2024 08: 14
    “Prisoner of the Caucasus” was released after Khrushchev’s removal; there is a scene in this film where one of the reasons for his removal from office is shown with humor.

    - You did not justify the high trust placed in you!
    — It’s impossible to work.
    - You are giving unrealistic plans.
    - This is what’s his name... voluntarism!
    - In my house... no expression!
    - What did I say?

    In 1960, Khrushchev went to a UN session, where he seemed to be knocking on the podium with his shoe. We were accompanied by the diesel-electric ship "Baltika", on which our delegation was, two newest destroyers of Project 56 at that time - "Svetly" and "Speshny", on which I later served. I know this from the history of my ship.
  14. +2
    April 27 2024 08: 16
    a pathological killer, like some representatives of the “Leninist Guard”
    The term “Leninist Guard” was introduced into use by L.D. Trotsky, to which he counted himself. And then, during the years of perestroika, this term began to be actively introduced to the masses by the ideologists of perestroika, the main one being A. Yakovlev. "With the authority of Lenin ,we will strike at Stalin, with the authority of Plekhanov we will strike at Lenin, “with universal human values” we will strike at Marxism” (c) It would be interesting to know the names of the “pathological killers” from the “Leninist Guard”. Yes, and the official rehabilitation of the so-called “Leninist Guard” under It didn’t happen to N.S. Khrushchev. It began to be carried out during perestroika. And also, of all the members of the “anti-party group”, Molotov-Malenkov-Kaganovich. Molotov was reinstated in the party, but this was done under K.U. Chernenko, he did not have time to restore the rest, he died. And M.S. Gorbachev and Yakovlev did not raise their hand to restore them. How, they encroached on the “sacred”, N.S. Khrushchev.
  15. 0
    April 27 2024 08: 37
    Everything is relative . Compared to other leaders of the Soviet State, there was more bad than good in Khrushchev, which is why his monument to the Novodevichy cemetery is cubes of black and white marble, BUT compared to the anti-Soviet leaders on the territory of the USSR, starting with Gorbachev, his rule is positive.
    And he had the same complex as the enemies of the USSR on the territory of the USSR - they definitely need to slander others in order to make themselves look better than others.
  16. -2
    April 27 2024 09: 29
    Just because Nikita Sergeevich threw the Georgian mafia out of the leadership of the country, he already needs to erect a huge monument. In gold. Yes
    1. +3
      April 27 2024 11: 35
      For the fact that he created it, it’s better for him to put a pyramid on his grave, only from feces... pigs
      1. -4
        April 27 2024 11: 41
        For the fact that he created it, it’s better for him to put a pyramid on his grave, only from feces... pigs

        What did he do? Organized the flight of the first man into space, laid the foundations of the rocket industry and generally foresaw the development of weapons for 10 years to come, gave people apartments and pensions and much more?

        Or for what IS HE THE ONLY LEADER IN ALL HISTORY WHO KICKED THE AMERICANS?

        He had balls of steel, Yosya was not even close to him. Yes
  17. -3
    April 27 2024 11: 28
    Memoirs of N.S. Khrushchev

    Then I realized that our position as regional committee secretaries is very difficult: the factual materials of the investigation are in the hands of the security officers, who form the opinion: they interrogate, write the investigation reports, and we, in fact, are, as it were, “victims” of these security officers and we ourselves begin look through their eyes. Thus, it was not control, but a fiction, a screen that covered their activities. Later I thought: why did Stalin do this? It is now clear that Stalin did this deliberately, he thought through this matter so that, when necessary, he could say: “There is a party organization there. They are watching, they are obliged to watch.” What does “follow” mean? How exactly to monitor? The Chekist bodies are not subordinate to our party organization. Therefore, who is watching whom? In fact, it was not the party organization that monitored the Chekist bodies, but the Chekist bodies monitored the party organization, all party leaders.
  18. +2
    April 27 2024 11: 56
    Quote: Arzt
    Well, of course, the Khrushchevites first of all had to rebuild Kyiv, Zhitomir, Klaipeda, Przemysl, Riga, Lvov and Siauliai, destroyed by the war, while thousands of Stalingrads and Smolensks were still in ruins in Russia..

    You have an inconsistency. The Khrushchevites came only in 1953.
    Another thing is that these scoundrels began to build Khrushchev buildings for everyone, and not high-rise buildings for the elite. laughing

    It was after the death of Stalin that the reconstruction of war-damaged cities in the RSFSR slowed down. Conversely, in the Baltics and Ukraine the pace has become impressive. As for Stalingrad, Stalin began to rebuild it even before the Victory in 1945. Industry and factories come first. But by 1960, in Stalingrad there was 4 square meters of living space per person, and all sewage flowed into the Volga. And in 1960, the film “Farewell Doves” was shot and all of its non-pavilion scenes were filmed on the streets of completely rebuilt post-war Kyiv. The city was already shining.
    More about Stalingrad, Khrushchev and the Khrushchevites. According to Vucettich's design, the memorial on Mamayev Kurgan was to be marble, bronze or granite. But Khrushchev forced Vuchettich and the memorial on Mamayev Kurgan, at Khrushchev’s categorical demand, became reinforced concrete. Vuchettich was terribly upset, because a shrine made of marble or granite and a shrine made of reinforced concrete are two very different things, to put it mildly. And the panorama museum of the Battle of Stalingrad was completely blurred by Khrushchev and it was opened only under Brezhnev...
    1. -1
      April 27 2024 12: 06
      It was after the death of Stalin that the reconstruction of war-damaged cities in the RSFSR slowed down. Conversely, in the Baltics and Ukraine the pace has become impressive. As for Stalingrad, Stalin began to rebuild it even before the Victory in 1945.

      The fact that Stalin immediately began to rebuild Stalinhail is quite natural for him. Just like, for example, the fact that they immediately began to rebuild Grozny. wink

      In fact, the front line moved from East to West, and the western regions fell during Khrushchev’s times. I think so. But I don't know for sure.

      However, I doubt that such a person from the Russian people as Nikita Sergeevich suddenly became inflamed with love for the Tribalts and Westerners. If there were reasons, they were political.
  19. +2
    April 27 2024 12: 38
    Quote: Moiseev N.N.
    But the most important feature of our village was the railway workers' cooperative. It was organized back in the 80s of the last century.
    Many of the railway workers who lived in the village had cows and other livestock. This was the basis of the cooperative. He rented mowing fields from the volost and had a store. That’s what it was called – the railway shop. The cooperative sold not only milk, but also the freshest sour cream and cottage cheese, which were produced by the wives of workers and office workers. He also sold meat and vegetables grown by members of the cooperative. All these activities flourished and made an important contribution to the welfare of the village. The cooperative successfully survived both the world war and the civil war. He also survived collectivization. He survived the difficult years of the Patriotic War, although the front was only three kilometers away from him. In the 50s, I myself went to the cooperative store to buy dairy products for my children. But the cooperative could not survive Khrushchev's reforms. The cows were destroyed, and the entire village, then already several thousand inhabitants, sat on the state’s neck: it had to independently supply the village with dairy products. The supply of the population deteriorated sharply. Everything has become more expensive.
  20. +5
    April 27 2024 13: 27
    Destroyed the Stalinist program for the construction of the most powerful ocean navy. Even the ships already ready or at various stages of construction were safely sent for scrap. The rest remained on paper.

    Yeah... the most powerful fleet of artillery ships. No, in terms of the number of pennants, the Stalinist program was truly eye-catching. But upon closer examination, it turns out that its basis was made up of ships of slightly updated pre-war projects, which were easier for the Ministry of Shipbuilding and Industry to build. Destroyers with a non-universal main caliber, cruisers with short-range air defense with manual guidance, three “white elephants” - KRT pr. 82.
    In general, Stalin’s powerful ocean-going navy would have looked good in 1941. But not in 1958.
    And most importantly, all Khrushchev’s detractors somehow forget that it was under him that the construction of a new generation of ships began, including a series of “singing frigates” - BPK pr. 61. And the construction of artillery ships, upgraded to missile ships, continued.

    Moreover, the Navy could even preserve the KRL Project 68 under construction without allowing them to be dismantled. The Ministry of Shipbuilding and Industry was ready to begin their modernization into the air defense missile system with the M-2 air defense system, plus the M-11 was on the way. But within a year, the fleet did not consider it possible to agree on the project, constantly sending it unfinished - and lost both the completed missile launchers and the opportunity to receive air defense missile launchers.
    There were dozens of aircraft factories, engine-building enterprises and aircraft alloy smelting plants in the Union. Khrushchev struck at this magnificent heritage. Many pilots then recalled with tears in their eyes how hundreds of excellent aircraft were scrapped.

    The same situation as in the Navy. Airplanes with cannon armament and a “cast iron” missile and bomb load went under the knife. There were practically no chances to carry out a combat mission in the era of air-to-air missiles and the massive deployment of air defense systems by the West.
    At the same time, exactly the same aircraft, capable of carrying guided missiles, continued to be built and were in service. An illustrative example is the Tu-16 and Tu-95, which changed from bombers to missile carriers.
    Khrushchev believed that a certain number of ballistic missiles was enough.

    Khrushchev believed that first of all it was necessary to ensure the strategic security of the USSR. That is, to guarantee a retaliatory nuclear strike on US territory if NATO implements some kind of “Dropshot”. Therefore, the priority was given to strategic nuclear forces - submarines with SLBMs, increasing the range of ballistic missiles and ensuring the ability of strategic aviation to operate without flying over the target (because in those days, air defense in the United States was on the rise - Nikes alone were worth it). Plus the high-quality rearmament of the country's air defense - otherwise the reconnaissance modifications of the strategists flying almost over Moscow somehow did not give confidence in a bright future.
    Without solving the problems of defense against a nuclear attack and delivering a retaliatory nuclear strike, all the other tasks were meaningless.
    1. +1
      April 27 2024 13: 57
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Khrushchev believed that first of all it was necessary to ensure the strategic security of the USSR. That is, to guarantee a retaliatory nuclear strike on US territory if NATO implements some kind of “Dropshot”. Therefore, the priority was given to strategic nuclear forces - submarines with SLBMs, increasing the range of ballistic missiles and ensuring the ability of strategic aviation to operate without flying over the target (because in those days, air defense in the United States was on the rise - Nikes alone were worth it). Plus the high-quality rearmament of the country's air defense - otherwise the reconnaissance modifications of the strategists flying almost over Moscow somehow did not give confidence in a bright future.

      Well, this is the same problem as with the construction of Khrushchev buildings. Almost everything you listed was not started by Khrushchev. The atomic project doesn’t even need to be reminded. The rocket project is similar. The S-25 air defense system began to be created in 1950. The first air-to-surface cruise missile, KS-1, began development in 1947.
      1. +4
        April 27 2024 14: 20
        Quote: DenVB
        Almost everything you listed was not started by Khrushchev. The atomic project - there is no need to even remind you. The rocket project is similar.

        And with what result? The only strategic means of delivering nuclear weapons at the beginning of the National Agriculture Administration was aviation with free-falling bombs. Which simply would not reach the goals.
        Quote: DenVB
        The S-25 air defense system began to be created in 1950.

        And it only covered Moscow. In theory, they write that the database system initially carried unfilled missiles.
        A massively transported air defense missile system is precisely the NSH.

        The merit of the National Agriculture Council is that it defined priorities. And he was not afraid to throw all his energy into implementing the main tasks, often making unpopular decisions. The same reduction in the army was carried out not because of deep personal hostility to the NSH, but because the five-million-strong army simply devoured the USSR, while being unable to do anything with the USA with all its divisions and armies.
        And the trouble with Khrushchev is that he I wanted the best, but I did it as always. The same reduction of the army was made through a complete fifth point.
        1. 0
          April 27 2024 14: 39
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And with what result? The only strategic means of delivering nuclear weapons at the beginning of the National Agriculture Administration was aviation with free-falling bombs.

          Well, thank God that Khrushchev immediately after the start of his reign realized the problem and sent specialists to Thuringia to pick up the A4 drawings there.

          Quote: Alexey RA
          A massively transported air defense missile system is precisely the NSH.

          That is, Stalin was offered to create a massively transportable air defense system, but he refused? He said - no, we will only defend Moscow? And only then did Khrushchev come up with the idea? Or was there some other logic behind the development of events?
      2. +1
        April 27 2024 14: 33
        Quote: DenVB
        Well, this is the same problem as with the construction of Khrushchev buildings.

        Absolutely. There was some groundwork - but without a kick from the authorities, everyone preferred not to change anything and do it as before.
        Remind you - what happened to the “Khrushchevs” before Khrushchev? What was being built in the USSR before Khrushchev attacked the architects?
        Until now, the Moscow City Executive Committee has not approved standard designs for hospitals, houses with large-panel walls and a number of other projects. In 1954, the volume of construction using standard projects in Moscow amounted to only 18 percent. volume of housing and cultural construction.
        In Leningrad, out of 353 residential buildings under construction, only 14 houses are being built according to standard designs. In In Kharkov, Rostov-on-Don, Voronezh, Gorky, Tbilisi and other cities, the construction of 4-5-story residential buildings is carried out mainly according to individual projects.

        That's it - everything was not started by Khrushchev, but without the decision of the General it remained in the pen. For the same architects preferred to build something like this:
        Particularly great excesses were allowed by the architect Rybitsky in the built house on Chkalova Street, for the decoration of which expensive materials, complex architectural decorations and decorative arcades were used; When planning apartments, the areas of hallways, corridors and other auxiliary rooms are unacceptably inflated. The cost of one square meter of living space in this house is 3400 rubles, which is two to three times higher than the cost of living space in economically designed houses.

        ...the cost of building one square meter of living space in a number of houses in Kharkov exceeds 2 thousand rubles, and for individual houses it reaches 3 thousand rubles. For example, the cost of one square meter of living space in a 5-story building at the Boiler and Radiator Plant is 2826 rubles (architect Ryabchenko), a 7-story residential building on Plekhanovskaya Street is 2811 rubles (architects Krykin and Bondarenko).

        ...for the construction of the Leningradskaya Hotel with 354 rooms on Kalanchevskaya Square in Moscow (architects Polyakov and Boretsky) the same amount of money was spent as would be needed for the construction of an economically designed hotel with 1000 rooms. The area of ​​the rooms in this hotel is only 22 percent. total area.
        © Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of November 4, 1955 No. 1871 “On the elimination of excesses in design and construction”

        Like this. There is not enough housing, people live in barracks, basements and communal apartments. But the chief architects of cities, even if there are standard projects for cheap mass housing, still include individual projects in city projects, and architectural bureaus design apartments for 3500 rubles per square meter. And they spend up to a third of the cost of the building on finishing.
        1. -1
          April 27 2024 14: 53
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Like this. There is not enough housing, people live in barracks, basements and communal apartments.

          And then Khrushchev comes to power and takes the production of cement and reinforcement out of his pocket.

          Quote: Alexey RA
          And they spend up to a third of the cost of the building on finishing.

          This is especially terrible. How much did you have to spend on finishing? How much is spent on home decoration now?

          Quote: Alexey RA
          Remind you - what happened to the “Khrushchevs” before Khrushchev? What was being built in the USSR before Khrushchev attacked the architects?

          Have you seen the movie "Faith and Truth"? It shows well how the new settlers perceived what was being built in the USSR after Khrushchev attacked the architects.
          1. 0
            6 May 2024 13: 44
            Quote: DenVB
            And then Khrushchev comes to power and takes the production of cement and reinforcement out of his pocket.

            And then Khrushchev comes to power and, by decree of the Central Committee and the Council of Ministers, forces architects to include standard houses in city plans, and not a solid industrial project.
            What's the use of cement and reinforcement if there are no Khrushchev buildings in terms of construction - city architects don't need them.
            Quote: DenVB
            This is especially terrible. How much did you have to spend on finishing? How much is spent on home decoration now?

            What, the vast majority of us now live in barracks, dorms, communal apartments and basements? It's 1955. 10 years after the war. And people live like this - for forty-eight rooms there is only one toilet ©.
            Every extra ruble spent on finishing is a minus of living meters. And in the end - a minus for families who received their own personal housing already in the 35th year of Soviet power.
            As a result of the decision of the National Assembly on the forced transfer of urban planning to standard projects, more residential square meters were introduced in a year than in 5 years under Stalin.
            Quote: DenVB
            Have you seen the movie "Faith and Truth"? It shows well how the new settlers perceived what was being built in the USSR after Khrushchev attacked the architects.

            Oh yes... a Soviet film made under Brezhnev and passed through censorship about the era of the previous secretary general, overthrown by Brezhnev, is extremely truthful and reliable material that does not depend on the political situation. The degree of reliability is like that of Ogonyok about the Stalin era. smile
            1. 0
              6 May 2024 13: 54
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Every extra ruble spent on finishing is a minus of living meters.

              On the one hand - yes. On the other hand, uncomfortable and ugly housing. And, in principle, a turn from human architecture to the deadening development of cities with soulless utilitarian boxes.

              Quote: Alexey RA
              Oh yes... a Soviet film made under Brezhnev and passed through censorship about the era of the previous secretary general, overthrown by Brezhnev, is extremely truthful and reliable material that does not depend on the political situation.

              In fact, nothing is said there about the “previous secretary general”, and in general the political side of the matter is completely omitted. The film is artistically good and very educational. Rather, the very fact of its creation is surprising. The final frames give me chills. The censorship has clearly given in.
        2. -1
          April 27 2024 16: 54
          Quote: Alexey RA
          For example, the cost of one square meter of living space in a 5-story building at the Boiler and Radiator Plant is 2826 rubles (architect Ryabchenko)

          Is this in 1955? And after the reform of 1961, that means 283 rubles/sq. m. Apartment of 50 sq m - 14 thousand. And understandably, according to Khrushchev, it was considered too burdensome for the state budget.
          Similar prices in housing cooperatives were up until the 80s. According to the government exchange rate, this is an apartment for 14 thousand bucks (according to the market “one to three” - for less than 5 thousand bucks, but in the USSR access to currency was a dangerous problem). And then the question is: what do current prices have to do with the real cost of apartments? Or were apartments made of cardboard in the USSR, although people still live in them?
  21. -3
    April 27 2024 17: 44
    The most disgusting thing that Khrushchev Kukuruzny did was to vulgarize the very idea of ​​​​building a fair society - communism. He replaced communism with a society of consumerism, where the main thing was consumption (we will overtake America in the production of everything by 1980 and it will be “communism”). When he was finally kicked out for economic affairs, “Dear Leonid Ilyich” did not develop the theory of socialism, everything slipped into classic stagnation. And Stalin also pointed out: “Without theory we are dead.” And so it happened.
    1. -2
      April 27 2024 18: 57
      If one Khrushchev “replaced” something for a people of 200 million, then these people don’t care about anything at all. And what such a people are good for, that’s what they got.

      This is the Biblical Truth of all times and peoples:what you deserve, you have.
  22. -1
    April 27 2024 20: 34
    suitable shoes
    serviceable is more appropriately translated as “repairable”.
    1. 0
      April 28 2024 02: 02
      Durable, wearable. This applies to shoes. Old word, today shoes don't cost anything
      1. +1
        April 28 2024 02: 04
        Durable, wearable
        It is hardwearing, sturdy, solid. There are many synonyms, but still not the same.
        1. 0
          April 28 2024 02: 21
          Hmm... Not all of these words apply to shoes. At least in Canada.
          1. +1
            April 28 2024 02: 23
            In England they use it quite well. In the USA (judging by the Bootspy blog) too.
  23. +5
    April 28 2024 00: 52
    Patriots of the USSR/RF do not like Khrushchev. People generally like to hate. Most are quite unfamiliar with his history, his reforms, ideas, views...
    Look how dynamic it is now blazing:
    1. The fastest growth rates of the USSR economy were achieved under Khrushchev.
    2. Under him, we were pioneers and leaders in space.
    3. During Khrushchev’s time, the Soviet electronics industry did not lag behind the Western one.
    4. Khrushchev buildings, design, mass production, mass construction, planning by neighborhoods (rather than individual buildings)
    5. During his 29 years on the throne, Stalin left the territory of the USSR 2 times. Kuku made 10 state visits in 70 years. Concluded agreements, made friends, started connections and cooperation, showed the USSR to the whole world

    Quite a lot more could be written here. But I don't believe that people are capable of CHANGING THEIR VIEWS. Whoever is able to hear has heard me
    1. +1
      April 28 2024 02: 05
      The fastest growth rate of the USSR economy
      Low start effect.
    2. +2
      April 29 2024 16: 16
      Quote: Hyperstein
      But I don't believe that people are capable of CHANGING THEIR VIEWS.

      You did not indicate the main merit of Khrushchev - it was under him that people stopped regularly dying of hunger en masse. The second stopped the mass executions of people hostile to those in power. If you read the diaries of people who lived under Stalin and Khrushchev, then what surprised people most during Khrushchev’s time in power was how quickly people stopped being afraid. Of course, the descendants of the MGB officers often heard negative things about Khrushchev from their ancestors, but many more are the descendants of those whom the MGB officers repressed, and the bulk of the people are the descendants of those who worked for sticks and ate quinoa. In their eyes, no amount of professional propaganda can discredit Khrushchev.
  24. +3
    April 28 2024 14: 01
    Before the cuts, the Armed Forces had a capacity of 5 million, and this would still not be enough in the event of a major mess. Keep millions of healthy men for years and decades in the very calculation of forces, not at work, but in the army, which produces nothing, only consumes - and the navel will be untied, without any war.
  25. -1
    April 28 2024 22: 09
    Khrushchev is the flesh and blood of the Bolshevik elites. What are they bred from? And here from this:

    October 1905. Lenin writes to his militants working in St. Petersburg: “Go to the youth <...> Immediately establish fighting squads everywhere, both among students and especially among workers <...> Let them immediately arm themselves, some as best they can, some with a revolver, some with a knife, some with a rag with kerosene for arson, etc. d. <...> The detachments must immediately begin military training <...> Some will immediately undertake the murder of a spy, the bombing of a police station, others - an attack on a bank to confiscate funds for the uprising <...> Do not be afraid of these test attacks. They can, of course, degenerate into extremes, but this is a problem for tomorrow <...> Let each detachment itself learn at least from beating policemen: dozens of victims will more than pay off by providing hundreds of experienced fighters who will lead hundreds of thousands tomorrow».

    Pure terror. And it was on such a basis that all these Lenins-Khrushchevs-Gorbachevs worked. They didn’t work for long, because everything quickly collapsed.

    Of course, the Stalinist system had to be changed. But intellectuals had to change it. And the departments of Marxism-Leninism did not produce intellectuals; they produced terribly dogmatized “specialists” who, like a trolley, could only roll along clear ideological rails.

    The only person who could save the USSR was Alexei Kosygin, but he was stopped halfway through the reform by the old Marxist reactionaries. His reform did not correspond to Marxist dogmas. That's all.

    The Chinese, they found intellectuals, they found people who allowed the local Kosygins to turn away from Marxist utopian dogmas. The result is known and visible. Just like we are dragging towards 1992.
    1. +1
      April 30 2024 12: 39
      Our only “utopian dogma” is that the problems of society supposedly do not come from scoundrels, thieves and traitors, but from “Marxist utopian dogmas.” laughing

      What is the essence of the idea of ​​socialism - fools who consider themselves as usual - smarter than Marx along with Engels and Lenin, it doesn’t matter at all..... They never knew anything except quotes and are not going to know. The word “dogma” is hammered around like woodpeckers, but that’s okay....
  26. 0
    3 May 2024 12: 35
    they say that the mine where Khrushchev worked was never found.
  27. +1
    4 May 2024 12: 31
    Khrushchev is blamed for the destruction of aviation and navy? At that moment, a fierce arms race was underway; means of delivering nuclear weapons to the target were needed, so the Strategic Missile Forces were founded and built. There were not enough funds in the country, which is why the “Trishkin caftan” was created. The same story with virgin lands, the same “Trishkin caftan”, which allowed us to gain 2-3 years without super-investments in agriculture. As for “almost collapsed the USSR,” the way out of the Cuban missile crisis is an example of perseverance and foresight that few people can understand.
  28. 0
    4 May 2024 16: 35
    It is interesting that when Khrushchev was the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, he was also simultaneously the first secretary of the Kyiv regional party committee and the Kyiv city party committee.