Military Review

The value of Stalin for modern society. Round table

27 February in Moscow in the Independent Press Center held a round table "The importance of Stalin for modern society. To the 60 anniversary of the death." Participants: Mikhail Delyagin, Andrei Fursov, Mikhail Veller, Svyatoslav Rybas, Anatoly Baranov, Yuri Boldyrev.

Mikhail Delyagin: We are opening a new format of our work today: we are holding the first meeting of the “Free Thought” intellectual club. This club is organized by the magazine "Free Thought", which was published from 1924 onwards, under the name "Bolshevik", and from 1952 to 1991 years - under the name "Communist", who is older, he remembers. He was the main theoretical journal of our country in the field of social sciences, and we intend to regain this position in time.

Today we are discussing a topic, the relevance of which can be easily seen by simply looking at each other for the number of people in this room (more than 65 people came to the round table; not all of them were in the room).

Of course, each participant in the discussion will say that he is closer to him personally. However, I hope that we will hear the answers to the following questions:

- how Stalin is perceived in modern Russian society, what feelings and ideas this figure evokes today, with which it is associated;

- what lessons can modern Russian society draw from the era of Stalin and what lessons does it actually draw from it today?

- What are the main reasons for the relevance of Stalin's figure for Russia, and, perhaps, for the world?

Despite the considerable time that has passed since the death of Stalin, he continues to arouse the enormous interest of Russian society both as a person and as, first of all, a figure of world-wide scale. It comes to the fact that Mr. Radzinsky, a man who is not seen in particular sympathy for our past, very sincerely says that Stalin does not seem to have gone anywhere and is still alive - and even describes the relevant related events from own life.

Attention to Stalin is not just inexorably strengthened, but at the same time it is becoming more and more benevolent, even among those who categorically reject the repression associated with his name.

An attempt to aggressively liberal get-togethers to unleash the campaign of “de-Stalinization” failed with a phenomenal disgrace, rallying against themselves people who in a nightmare could not imagine that they had something in common.

And I know the authors of the “de-Stalinization”, and they, in my opinion, didn’t have anything particularly bad in mind: they just came up with a topic on which, it seemed to them, you could easily and gladly cut money. Their idea in itself was completely devoid of sacred meaning and was not systemic, was not ideological: just liberal gentlemen in search of another dozen.

But they touched Stalin - and as a result, their names became curses, and their campaign turned into a common noun.

And in the “Name of Russia” competition, as you remember, Stalin, to the dismay of the organizers, was in the lead until political necessity, as far as can be judged, did not provoke interference in the counting of votes.

A significant part of Russian society, differently related to this perspective, connects the future of our country with the return of Stalin, as a historical phenomenon.

And the growing relevance of Stalin as far as he is historically distant from him is a phenomenon that deserves careful and comprehensive discussion.

Our first speaker will be Svyatoslav Yuryevich Rybas, a writer, co-author of the fundamental work “Stalin. Fate and strategy. As a true Democrat, I believe in an absolutely voluntaristic order that this is the best that is written about Stalin in our country, and maybe in other countries as well, although, given the quality of the Stalinist, it can hardly be considered a compliment.

Svyatoslav Rybas: Thank you. Good day. What am I interested in? By being the grandson of the White Guard, who, as a high school student, was mobilized into the Volunteer Army in the Donbass, this whole so-called Moscow campaign, evacuation, Gallipoli, Bulgaria, and all his ancestors came back. And he was the head of the mine, the leader in the coal industry and the Hero of Labor. Not social work - there was the title of "Hero of Labor."

I wrote a biography of not only Stalin, but also Stolypin, the White Guard general Kutepov, Andrei Andreyevich Gromyko. In my view our история - not a narrow mine in which we extract information about a particular hero, but rather a wide field in which all our heroes fit and interact.

Why did Stalin arise and why, first of all, why is he alive? 60 years old as a man died, but is of great interest. I will tell you that Stalin appeared as a political figure and, accordingly, the first de-Stalinization began in 1912, when he was elected a member of the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RSDLP, and this hero himself was in the Vologda exile and could not take any part in the Prague Conference. But his idea triumphed and, in general, for all times, the Soviet idea that the party needed to be built differently than the Leninist and immigrant communist or Bolshevik circles suggested, not on the basis of foreign immigrant circles, but at the party organizations of factories.

Already from here you can draw a mental line to the construction of socialism in one particular country. This is the first.

Second: Stalin was confronted with the fact that modernization, about which not only the Bolsheviks speak, but also the current authorities, was a failure. This is the modernization of Witte-Stolypin, which could work out. Because Stolypin's reform meant a gentle entry into the market, a soft attraction of the excess rural population to the factories. Then there was about 30 million hidden rural unemployment and about 10 million so-called angry begging, which, as you understand, was also very explosive.

But this reform was failed because it touched very large interests of the ruling and economic circles. The plot of 1916 of the year against Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich was prepared not by the Bolsheviks, but by the elite, which included the entire progressive bloc of the Duma, that is, three quarters of it. The conspiracy included generals, financiers, industrialists, Westerners, Moscow Old Believers and the Moscow group as a whole.

This conspiracy drew a line to the smooth, soft development of the Russian Empire and brought it down. He brought down because the ruling elite did not quickly enter into the demands of the industrial revolution. This is well written by Max Weber. Being in Germany, he wrote several newspaper articles about the fate and prospects of Russia. And in one of the articles he wrote that the royal regime would fail because of the inconsistency with the requirements of the industrial revolution.

And he pointed out - I quote literally: “Only a long socio-revolutionary dictatorship can eliminate these difficulties. Under the social-revolutionary government, I do not mean any special flayers, but simply such a political leader for whom the “young” in Russian conditions are private land ownership — and this was mainly landowner property and feudal in its essence — not is an unconditional shrine. Are there such people in Russia, I do not know, but they can come to power for a long time if peace is concluded. ” This refers to the world in the First World War.

In general, all this was done by the Bolsheviks and carried out modernization with live-life, one might say, enthusiasm, using the words of the philosopher Weber, since they no longer had any other means.

I can also say that Stalin emerged as a result of the crisis of the end of 1880's, this is a global agricultural crisis, which was caused by the fact that cheap grain from the USA and Canada appeared in the European grain market, which then approximately matched the current oil and gas markets. and australia. The reason for the appearance of cheap grain is the industrial revolution: the construction of dry cargo ships, mass mechanical tillage, and conveyor loading, and huge vessels with grain, having come to Europe and Russia, extinguished its prices.

As a result of this crisis, the well-being of the Stalinist family was destroyed: his father, who was a prosperous artisan and kept auxiliary workers, had good orders, was ruined. His maternal uncles, who kept a roadside restaurant, were killed. And the family collapsed from the lower segment of the middle class down into poverty.

Only thanks to the will of the mother, who was literate, she learned to be a dressmaker-modist and began to earn a living, did Stalin receive an education. His mother pulled her son out of poverty literally by the ears.

When they say that Stalin is uneducated, this is today's point of view, and, as historian Solovyov said, heroes must be judged by the laws of their time. Known to you, Hegel pointed out that the main thing in the hero's fate is not his character, which is of secondary importance, but the historical circumstances in which he is.

So, Stalin finished the spiritual school with honors, then did not finish the Tbilisi seminary, but finished four classes and received a certificate of the right to teach in elementary school.

His library consisted of 20 thousands of volumes, most of which have his marks, and, as we know, the current course of higher education implies that the student must read at least 100 books.

That is, Stalin was very seriously prepared, and this is an interesting remark by Josef Schumpeter, an ally of Hayek, an Austrian political scientist and economist. He wrote in his work "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" 1945 of the year that he did not meet the equal to Stalin in terms of intellectual level in the modern world.

That is, this assessment is completely objective, and several completely different sources coincide in it.

The main thing in Stalin's fate is, of course, the complete scrapping of economic, cultural, mental, folk, if you will, the foundations of Russia, when the “third revolution”, that is, collectivization, was carried out.

Collectivization was a continuation and the flip side of the medal of the failed Stolypin reforms. If we take historical analogies, I recall the 16th century in England and the so-called “bloody legislation”. When the economic conditions of the European market demanded, in connection with the growth in the number of cities, the development of wool production — people simply needed clothes — a so-called “fencing” occurred. The peasants were driven off the land, and those who did not submit were punished in three ways: they were whipped, their ears were cut in half, they were sent to penal servitude and galleys.

But when Churchill talked with Stalin, arriving in Moscow in August 1942, during the Battle of Stalingrad, he asked about the worst period. Stalin replied: collectivization. And Churchill, knowing his story perfectly well, of course, did not mention either “bloody legislation”, or Henry VIII, or fencing — he simply said that our nation could not have made such sacrifices in such a short period.

Here is the key word of Stalin's whole life: “a short period”. He was determined not by Stalin, but by the economic, political, conditions for the development of the Russian Empire. Stalin closed this cycle.

Why is he still alive? Appeal to Stalin is not an appeal to a historical figure or not so much an appeal. This is today primarily a form of public criticism.

Why do we keenly perceive it? Because the gigantic successes that were achieved by tremendous sacrifices — no one denies and should not deny — were not in vain, and we still use the results of socialist modernization. Therefore, while conducting de-Stalinization, a part of our elite wants and cannot at the same time achieve that there is a better way, and we will offer you this way now.

The results of the 20 years we have passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union showed that we are going the wrong way. Stalinism will not return, as neither “bloody legislation”, nor Stolypin, nor the Romanovs can return - this is all history. But the sharpness of the fights implies that we are fighting for people's brains.

I recall Alexander Nikolayevich Yakovlev, who himself already admitted in his last works, that, they say, we wanted to beat Lenin with good Lenin, then with good Plekhanov to beat bad Lenin, then with good Plekhanov and in general to discredit all Soviet power.

This dynamic, this line is now expressed by the fact that our opponents want bad Stalin to discredit good Putin, and then go on to discredit him further.

This, of course, may be an exaggeration, but I think that this is the dynamics.

And after all, it was realized, this idea of ​​the great - really great! - political analyst Brzezinski, that for the collapse of the ideological support of Russia, Hitler should be equated to Stalin. This is also successfully implemented, as you know.

Therefore, speaking of the significance of the figure, we are talking about the real struggle that is happening today.

Joseph Vissarionovich does not participate in it: he must be the object of study for historians, archivists and nothing more. We must relate to him, as well as Churchill, who gave the order to drown the French fleet in Oranta during the war for the fear that this fleet could go to Germany. And, as Churchill writes in his work, after that the whole world understood that we would fight to the end. The victims, in principle, were not interested, because the lot of the great politician is not to look at the victims. They do not look: the result is important to them.

And finally: there was such an economist, a very famous one, Evgeny Samuilovich Varga, a participant in the Hungarian revolution, then immigrated here, headed the Institute of Economics, wrote reports for Stalin. In his memoirs “To reveal through 25 years”, he writes that this is a lie, that reports were written to Stalin: he wrote them himself. Yes, I used the sources, our advice, but I wrote it myself.

And Varga said: Stalin’s fault is not that a million or more people died during his reign. About a million, by the way: according to statistics, 1921 people were shot from 1954 to 642.980 year. And Varga says: this is not the point, but that Stalin allowed the degeneration of a democratic, working-class state with an element of bureaucracy into a completely different, bureaucratic state. This is his terrible mistake, writes Varga - and indicates that the payment for this will follow.

And we saw that the Brezhnev state was completely bureaucratic, and the current state - completely bureaucratic or not completely, is the question - but essentially the same thing.

Therefore, I would like to draw conclusions from this: forget Stalin, think about your children, think about the future of Russia, thank you.

Mikhail Delyagin: Now with great pleasure I give the floor to Mikhail Iosifovich Weller, a writer.

Mikhail Weller: With gratitude, continuing the previous speaker, I would like to say that, in my opinion, such a stormy, so high-ranking discussion of the figure and the role of Stalin in recent years is, in essence, an ersatz-politician. Since real politics is absent and comes down to the elementary serving of the interests of big business with political goals, and the need for political life lives in a person, in a political animal, we discuss Stalin and, in the absence of a stamp, write on simple. Because in the present conditions there is essentially nothing to discuss, everything is clear to everyone.

To understand any figure, you need to understand the whole system of concepts, ideas and realities within which it lives. To do this, one needs to imagine the essence of social progress and the essence of the state that people mostly do not imagine for themselves, although there are different points of view. Therefore it is necessary to ride only over bumps, over the tops.

Much has been said over the past 25 years about imperial syndrome - usually in a negative context. The imperial syndrome means that a person would like to live in a mighty state, which, moreover, even won someone, pulled, annexed, and as a result became so healthy. And we are told that this is bad.

Question: Is it really bad?

After all, if we recall the history of small humane states, it turns out that, firstly, small states were no more humane than big ones, and, secondly, the story is completely different from what people usually imagine. The essence of social progress is that for centuries and millennia more and more have been accomplished, sorry for the wrong turn, more and more maximum actions.

Everything else can fluctuate, but the increase in energy turnover is a completely rigid, the only unshakable reporting system. Thus, large states, beginning with the most ancient Dvorichchia, Ancient Egypt, the Ancient Kingdom, were distinguished by the fact that they forced people to work beyond their means and took away the majority of the products of their work. And from these surpluses, which were squeezed out with sweat and blood, science, culture, technology, cultural development, and so on were formed. Although those who built the pyramids instead of resting, it was hardly liked much.

Thus, when we talk about a great person, we are not talking about how human she is. “My brother, if the subjects say that the king is good, the kingdom he failed,” said Napoleon fairly, and this was included in all the textbooks.

We are talking about the scale of the deeds.

And besides, you can't do everything at the same time.

Great rulers, carrying out reforms, overcame colossal resistance. Not because they were so humane and wise, but around were stupid bastards: this is the objective resistance of the social environment. The more you change, the more the environment resists, such is the normal historical and social inertia.

Thus, the sea of ​​blood was shed, and then much calmer periods began. But in order for these periods to come, the previous shaking was, unfortunately, historically necessary. You can look at the history of Greece, the history of Rome, the history of Persia, the history of anything.

Stalin, having come in such a period, not only faced the need for reform.

As for socialism in one single country, it is absolutely clear that this is nothing more than a tactical slogan, because all Soviet power, the whole idea of ​​communist internationalism was aimed at a world revolution. The Soviet Union, which included all the republics of the entire globe, was recorded in the statutes of the Comintern. The Soviet Union was considered as a springboard for the accomplishment of the World Revolution.

This turned out to be somewhat different, the real story is all more or less imagined.

The essence lies in the fact that for most peoples who at one time, in the XIII century, underwent Mongol aggression, Genghis Khan was a fascist, but for the Mongols, Genghis Khan was the greatest man in their history, a hero, a builder of the state. He made the greatest empire, and in general, the Mongols existed, thanks to him.

Question: why the Italians need Caesar? Which is not 2000 years, but, nevertheless, you know, the rating of the person is high, and exactly the same with every nation with its historical leader.

Because the task of man is not that the purpose of the party was the good of the people. Putin’s first installation speech, when he was a candidate, exactly repeated all these reports that were written by the Communist Party: so that you feel good, so that you feel satisfying, so that you feel calm.

This is fine with the field mouse, but the person is arranged a little differently, the person thinks he wants to live happily, and actually makes the devil know what, sometimes to his own detriment, because the person needs to reorganize everything around him to the maximum extent.

And when a person is looking for the meaning of life, then translated from Russian into Russian the meaning of life means that a person is involved in some big common cause, transpersonal, which is more, higher, more significant than himself, for which, in fact, it is not a pity, give back and life.

This means that human life does not exist by itself, but is being pushed on to something.

And a great leader is the personification of pushing each person’s personality to something single.

It is difficult for us today to understand what is described, say, by Dumas in the Viscount de Brazhelone: ​​that nobles could die on the battlefield with the words "Long live the king!" But it lasted for centuries, and they did not go crazy. However, when the fans are fans of singers and artists, it is a little clearer to us.

Man is arranged in such a way that he needs to personalize his main aspirations in the person of the leader, king, king, secretary general. This is a ritual phenomenon.

We, brought up in more or less democratic notions, are not entirely clear, but it was always and when convinced that Stalin was a superman, everything is ours, our God-God says whole-heartedly “Long live Stalin” - that means the same as “long live the king”: it means “long live our people, our greatness, our history, our truth”.

Man is created in such a way that people group society out of themselves. This is objective, apart from desire: this is how we are. One of the forms of self-organization of society: the pack chooses a leader from its ranks, and then itself obeys this leader. Because she decided so. And Stalin is just such a leader.

Everyone understands what they say, of course, not about the real Joseph Dzhugashvili - a small, dry-faced man, pockmarked, narrow chest, physically weak. They talk about the great mythical Stalin, about the mustache leader with a pipe from the Kremlin, who never sleeps, who has a window in the office at night, after which all the money on party fees, which goes twice as high as his boots and thinks only of the greatness of the people, is left.

For we are arranged in such a way that when we think of Petersburg, everyone knows that tens of thousands died who beat larch piles in the swamps, but we identify ourselves with those who remained to live. Although the majority came from the peasants, and not from the nobility, but still we like it, and somewhere deep down in our hearts we strongly welcome and approve the construction of St. Petersburg, despite the sacrifices, because we have survived, we are the winners.

When it comes to mythological personalities, everyone associates themselves with the winners, because the victims are upset, as everything is settled in the ground, and only that remains on top.

And finally, the last: peoples have their own destiny and their own life, for the last hundred years it has been more or less canonized and described.

Say, the great French people broke through the era of the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars and the great never happened again, and the great British people broke through the period from Great Elizabeth Tudor and ending with the Second World War, that was all that ended, a certain systemic potential jumped out. In Rome, there was obviously a peak of greatness from Caesar to Andrian, and similarly in Russia, the peak of greatness — not humanism, not lightness, not good, but just greatness and power — was in the era of the Soviet Union.

And Stalin is the first personification of this power of the Soviet Union.

Why will the mythological Stalin always be studied, will always be remembered, and various novels and plays will always be composed, and nothing can be done about it? Because we passed our peak, no matter how they say "no, no, Russia is immortal." All are mortal, even the solar system. It is about this peak that has been passed - in the person of one person - we continue to talk. By the choice of the country of the way it has almost nothing to do.

Mikhail Delyagin: Thank you very much, and while we are doing industrial gymnastics with microphones, I want to respond to the idea of ​​Svyatoslav Y. Rybas, which seems to me very interesting.

After all, the shale revolution threatens to do with the modern energy market — in its meaning an analogue of the grain market of the 80 of the 18th century — the same thing that happened then: it threatens to bring prices down sharply. And it turns out that in the years through 40 - and given the fact that world processes are developing faster and faster, perhaps even earlier, l - we may well see the emergence of new political figures at about the same level and about the same motivation.

Please Andrei Ilyich Fursov, historian.

Andrei Fursov: Dear colleagues, more than twenty years have passed since the destruction of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was demolished to the accompaniment of the de-Stalinization campaign, which was arranged by the perestroika punks. And, apparently, for 20 years, these people and their ideological heirs should have calmed down.

But nothing like that.

From time to time, companies start de-Stalinization, and Mikhail Gennadyevich correctly said that this was partly due to the desire to "cut the headstock."

But after all, someone “gives grandmas” to this, and I would like to speculate about who hates Stalin and for what. 60 years have passed since his death, 20 years there is no Soviet Union, but hatred remains and it is really real.

Inside the country, during the life of Stalin himself, he was hated by two groups of the Soviet establishment.

One can be conventionally called the left globalists: those who strove for the world revolution are guardsmen of the cardinals of the world revolution of Lenin and Trotsky. They believed that Stalin had betrayed the cause of the revolution when he began to dismantle the structures of the left-wing globalists, the Comintern, for example, when he began to abolish the holidays. By the way, colleagues, who remember how the holiday was originally called, which later became known as the Day of the Great October Socialist Revolution? So before 1936, how was it called?

Replica from the audience: First day ...

Andrei Fursov: Exactly, the First Day of the World Revolution. In 1936, it was canceled, and in 1943, it became known as the Day of the Great October Revolution.

In the same year 1936, the term “Soviet patriotism” first appeared, that is, this turn begins.

The second group, which, naturally, could not love Stalin, is part of the nomenclature that was oriented towards consumption. As you know, the nomenclature is a layer that is characterized by a very tightly ranked hierarchical consumption.

Naturally, a significant part of the nomenclature wanted to consume much more. And this consumption course, which led to the transformation of the nomenclature into a quasi-class, and the people who were personifiers of this course, naturally, were incompatible with Stalin. They did not like him, hated him, and Stalin answered them the same.

When Stalin learned that the nomenklatura workers who had been evacuated to Samara, wanted to arrange special schools for their children, he called them a “cursed caste.” And when Stalin said that as the construction of socialism proceeded the class struggle and resistance to this process would increase, he meant not traditional layers like the kulaks and so on, as some of us believe, he meant the nomenclature. And perestroika showed this, as Nabokov would say, with glass clarity.

The paradoxical link of these two groups - the left globalists, who dreamed of the world revolution, and those who sought to consume - and put, conditionally speaking, the Trotsky-Bukharinist, which went down in history right-left bloc.

These people hated Stalin in the Soviet establishment.

And the transformation into the main task of the CPSU "meeting the growing material needs of Soviet citizens," introduced in 1961 in its program, was a victory for consumerism, the consumer line of the nomenclature.

In parallel with this, the Soviet nomenclature was integrated into the world market, the world system. For me, the most powerful visual example of this is the photograph: Kosygin in Canada, being the chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, sits in the headdress of an American Indian under the portrait of the Queen of England.

This is very symbolic, it is a memory of the future nomenclature.

And who hated and hates Stalin, who and what could not and cannot forgive him outside the country?

It must be said that Stalin three times broke the plans of the globalists, tore the "road maps" of globalization. Here, colleague Rybas talked about the crisis of the end of 80's: he absolutely accurately recorded the date from which everything rolled.

But, in addition to the agricultural crisis, two more important events occurred in the 80s.

By the 80 years, practically the whole world was divided and exhausted. Therefore, in the 1884 year at the Berlin Conference, it was decided that countries that cannot develop their own natural resources should open up to the world, and if they cannot or do not want to open up, then they need to be opened by force. It was officially announced that Africa was meant, but for the sake of Africa, then no one would do anything about it: it was about Russia. Alexander III had strong nerves, and nothing came of it.

However, besides this, since 1888, the British have set themselves the task of destroying the current Germany by then, and by bleeding it with Russia.

It was a globalist plan, and Stalin ripped it off three times: in 1927-29, when he launched the country from the world revolution to building socialism in one particular country: in 1943-44, when he defeated the Wehrmacht; and in the 1952 year, to which, in fact, the country was restored. Not for 20, as Western economists believed, but in just 7-8 years.

In addition, Stalin showed a real alternative to globalism: it is a neo-imperial formation, which is anti-capitalist in its essence.

The Hitler regime was not an alternative to the new world order, on the contrary, it was a brutal experiment of the Western elites to create a new world order that included a two-loop control system, a neo-Orda SS system, and a party. And in this sense, all attempts to equate Hitlerism to Stalinism are initially doomed to failure due to their anti-historical nature: they were two systems that were fundamentally different in their attitude to capitalism.

Although such attempts have been made and will be undertaken. Since the goal-setting of the current Western elite is very close to the Nazi - just almost identical, if you look closely - then constant attempts to compromise alternatives to it seem inevitable.

In addition, Stalin is undoubtedly the key figure in the whole of Russian history, and when Yakovlev spoke - I quote not literally, of course - that we are breaking not the Soviet Union, but the entire thousand-year paradigm of Russian history, the main figure through which it broke, was Stalin.


Because Stalin is not just a man, it is a phenomenon.

By the way, Stalin himself understood this very well. Once he told his son Vasily, who complained that he was badly treated at school and underestimated: do you think you are Stalin? - No, you are not Stalin; think I'm Stalin? - No, and I'm not Stalin. Then he showed his portrait: here he is - Stalin.

So, Stalin connected the line of the world revolutionary movement and Russia. And besides, Stalin tied together the revolutionary line within Russia and the line of imperial, autocratic Russia, and he did this very consistently.

The key dates of this process, as I said, are 1927-29 of the year, 1936 of the year, 1943 of the year - the dissolution of the Comintern, although de facto this was done before, plus the anthem, epaulets and so on - and finally 1952 of the year - renaming VKP (b), in the CPSU.

It is very interesting that there are people who understand this perfectly well even in the West.

For example, the enemy of communism is Melnik-Botkin. This is the grandson of Botkin, a doctor who, if the shooting of the royal family took place exactly where it is believed, then he was shot in 1918 year.

So, Melnik-Botkin - the head of the French special services under de Gaulle. He recently gave a very interesting interview in which he said that by the year 1917 there was a lot of nightmare in Russia, and the most positive thing that happened in Russia was Joseph Stalin, who built the country.

By the way, Botkin, unlike many of our people, called an almost exact number of those shot or convicted to be shot for political reasons. He called the 700 of thousands, his colleague Rybas gives a slightly more accurate figure, but these, naturally, are not millions or tens of millions, as our, so to speak, liberalist public asserts.

And finally, what I want to say: Stalin gave us an absolutely fantastic gift - he gave us the nineties and zero years.

Indeed, from the moment when Russia in the 16th century appeared as a major power, the axis of European politics is the destruction of this power on the principle of “nothing personal.” Just an objective need to eliminate the geo-economic, geopolitical competitor.

And each time the West lacked a little bit.

For example, after the first Time of Troubles, we could be taken with bare hands, but in the West there was a Thirty Years War, and by the time it ended, we had a space to inhale and could already beat the Poles.

After the reforms of Peter the Great, Russia could also be taken barehanded, but in Europe there were wars for the Spanish inheritance, the Austrian inheritance, and we again jumped out.

After the civil war, we too could be taken with bare hands, but Stalin played on the contradictions of the Anglo-Saxons and the Germans, the British and the Americans, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers.

But after 1991, there might not have been such a respite, because the West was one, - but we still had nuclear weapon, we had a Stalinist foundation. And these 20 years that end, are a gift from the Stalin era.

I do not agree that Stalin must be forgotten - no, Stalin must be remembered.

Should we forget Churchill? Also not necessary: ​​the enemies must be remembered.

I think we did not pass the peak of our history. Once Chernomyrdin said: they say, Russia has exhausted the limit of revolutions. I then thought: yes, who are you? Gray warden, will you tell if Russia has exhausted the limit on the revolution or not?

Therefore, I think we should be more careful with such formulations, and as for Stalin, I want to end with a quote from Charles de Gaulle, who said the following: “Stalin did not become a thing of the past, he disappeared in the future.” Thank.

Mikhail Delyagin: Thank you very much. Yuri Y., please.

Yuri Boldyrev: When Mikhail G. invited me to this event, I honestly told him that I was not an expert on Stalin. To which Mikhail Gennadyevich said that, they say, you are a specialist in society. That is, following the explanations of Mikhail Gennadyevich, we are talking about Stalin, talking about our society, about our state, about our present and future. What did I think was important in connection with this?

First, the figure of Stalin, like any powerful figure, in conditions of extreme concentration of mass media in the hands of the union, the government, the oligarchy, under the conditions of the developed technologies of manipulating society, is constantly used to rigidly divide society. Moreover, for a split, not between those who rob us, kill, destroy, on the one hand, and all the rest, on the other, but for a split between equally haves, equally suffering from what is happening now. And there are, unfortunately, good reasons.

I will give an example. I had a wonderful head of my secretariat in the Accounts Chamber 13 years ago, now his anniversary is just in time, Boris Mikhailovich Lapshov. Once he was a director of a large defense enterprise, a deputy of the Allied Congress, deputy minister of industry, then worked in the Accounts Chamber. Honest, wonderful, cleverest man, but when he was small, he was deprived of his mother: she didn’t say anything at a meeting on a collective farm, and that’s all for 10 years, in my opinion, without the right to correspond.

And so, no matter how widely he sees the world, no matter how deeply he understands everything that we are discussing here — when it comes to Stalin, he cannot overcome this physical feeling that he is the enemy of his family.

It must be said that a huge part of the population of our country is in the position of this contradiction between the readiness to accept all that what our distinguished colleagues said here and the memory that here are my parents, my ancestors suffered innocently.

I say this not in order, in spite of my colleagues, to somehow belittle the role of Stalin, to slander him. I specifically emphasize that it is precisely because of such a contradiction that this person is constantly purposefully thrown into discussions to split the society. And if I'm not an expert on Stalin, I am here now for something, then only for one thing: to remind the majority of our fellow citizens again and again that our task, so that we can consolidate society and revive the country, is to prevent so that the manipulators from the outside and the manipulators from the inside, who sold themselves to puppeteers from the outside, for fun of Chubais and companies, were split into those who are against Stalin and those who are for him.

When any respected by me General Ivashov raises a toast to the great political figure Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, it is important for me that our people understand: he raises a toast not to repress simple, normal, honest people, he raises a toast to that symbol, which was spoken about here now, for the character of a person who in one way or another served to build a powerful, strong, nationally oriented state. This is the first.

The second. We have already decided to submit the Comintern, and all the desire for a world revolution as a pronounced negative. It seems that we were the only ones who aspired to a global project.

But this is not true!

It was said here that heroes should be evaluated by the standards of their time. And when and who in the world, having received for this opportunity, did not seek to extend its influence to the whole world? Show me those.

And what, at the time when Stalin and the Soviet Union were in their prime, - didn’t the British Empire at that time strive to expand and extend its influence to everything? Didn’t the French Empire compete with it, how could it? Is it further, already in 40-50-s of the twentieth century, the United States, destroying the old empires, didn’t they strive to create a new, well, excuse me, the imperialistic mechanism, albeit on new rails, with other mechanisms, with the removal responsibility for the population of the colonies, but with the preservation of all key management mechanisms?

We do not need to go to extremes: everyone who carries a mission, the idea that they are building a new world - for themselves or for themselves - quite naturally strive to spread this world as widely as possible. And to blame for this is the Soviet Union, namely Stalin, from my point of view, inappropriate.

What transition moment is important for us? I don’t know whether Andrei Ilyich agrees with me or not, but many said that the key figures of the Russian revolution before Stalin viewed Russia as firewood for the world revolution, but Stalin, while maintaining the course of the world revolution or the spread of a global project, however for all cruelty, he no longer considered this territory as something that could be burned in the firebox of a global project.

Now we are shown programs about the armed forces of the Soviet Union, which until the very 1991-92 of the year stood in Germany and were ready to seize Europe, but it seems to me that the idea that the Soviet Union alone was so aggressive and trying to enslave the whole world, - this is not true, this is a lie.

Next is the next lie. We regard the atrocities of the times of Stalinism as divorced or going beyond the level of civilization that was around. It seemed that there was no such thing in England, like there was no such thing in France, but this is also a lie. The fact is that cruelty was not in the metropolis - and what happened in the British Empire as a whole? What was going on in the colonies of Great Britain, what human rights were there? What was going on in the colonies of France at this time, in Indochina? We know this even from feature films, although this story is clearly from the other side, we simply have no one to imagine: there are no such forces that would own mass media and bring to us what was happening in Vietnam, Cambodia and other colonies in those very times when we had the horrors of Stalinism.

If we relate one to the other, then the horrors of Stalinism, which, indeed, were horrors, already look like they are not so out of place, let's be honest.

Moreover, the idea that we could not do all this and calmly agree that there are stronger, smarter Europeans - the French or the Germans who would realize our territory as their project - this idea, you know, is simplistic, weak-willed and in fact inadequate.

It seems to us that we could not be treated as with Africa, but in reality we could.

The brightest example is given by the relations between Japan and China. What the Japanese did with their brothers in race in China before the point that European historiography considers the beginning of World War II is a nightmare. How many were destroyed there as a result of the direct genocide of brothers by race?

I always assume that a big politician, a statesman can pin hopes on something, can have an idea such as the Czechs had - they say, think, surrender to the Germans, we will live under them, as we used to live near Austria-Hungary, nothing terrible, - but he has no right to be sure of it.

He is obliged to concentrate all possible efforts in order to prevent his people from becoming dependent on another's will. Because this alien will is never known in advance.

And one more very important thing. The figure of Stalin today is used completely demagogically, even in order to take in his companions the forces that are completely opposite to him.

Recently, we had a program about Rosfinagentstvo on the third television channel. And even representatives of the financial-speculative community, defending the idea of ​​transferring our financial resources to a joint-stock company, gave an example: it was said that Stalin was implementing the interests of the Soviet Union through some kind of corporation under Stalin.

That is, this figure is so powerful that even our ideological, ideological opponents are trying to find some examples to prove that they are acting in the interests of Russia just as Stalin acted.

And the last. The most serious danger in the current situation probably lies in the fact that, on the one hand, splitting society, and, on the other hand, based on the fact that modern politics is of a sociological nature, the authorities, manipulators measure what is happening in society, try process and measure again, and, seeing the opinion of society, they try to appropriate, to equip those heroes that society has.

Accordingly, there is a danger that the present authorities, not serving the society, not adopting the goals and objectives of becoming an independent, sovereign, self-sufficient state, nevertheless, under the cover of the idea of ​​returning to the best of the past, will adopt elements of barbarous cruelty related to the goals of building a national independent state.

I see that my colleagues do not agree, they do not see such a threat. But I, unfortunately, see such a threat.

I know that dividing people into thieves and murderers is the deepest ideological error. Because when the question is about stealing an extraordinary scale, when the question is about avoiding responsibility for the destruction and plunder of the country, there is no such crime, including a bloody one, which will not be addressed in order to cover up the tracks and defend keep yourself in power.

In this sense, it seems to me that it is important to see the figure of Stalin and that period as integral and in no way allow, in my view, a possible and dangerous substitution of concepts.

When the “Stalinists” conditionally take on armament, our present authorities are whimsing, when it launches the idea that we were occupied 20 years ago, and all those who oppose the current irresponsibility of power are agents of the US State Department, under the cover of it, under the cover of return to the ideas of a hard, strong state, the bureaucracy nevertheless continues its dirty deed in plundering and destroying our country. This is what we together should not allow. Thank.

Mikhail Delyagin: Thank you very much.

And I, while we again move the microphones to the other end of the table, while I tell a funny story from life. When I held a round table on corruption in 2007 for the year, the first, simply by status, was a remarkable person, then a senator, a former deputy minister of finance in the governments of Gaidar and Chernomyrdin, whose private aircraft literally the day before Americans put their fighters on to ask him, probably , intimate questions about his financial well-being. It was interesting to the Americans, but absolutely not to ours. Ours probably knew it all, and that was fine with them.

And this senator began to say: they say, I do not know in what capacity I was invited here. And then one of the journalists very clearly said: "As an exhibit, of course."

And the quietest, most intelligent professor with glasses and a Chekhov's beard from the Ministry of Industry and Energy ended that round table. Everything was already said about corruption by that time, and he spread his hands and said: “You know, I myself am from a family of repressed people, I know a lot about 1937 for a year, I really dislike Stalin. But. understand, because apart from 1937, these people will understand nothing: in principle they do not understand another language, they are not able to understand! ”

This was said by a very intelligent and very understanding person, very sincerely, at least six years ago.

Now I ask Anatoly Yurevich Baranov, the chief editor of the portal Forum.msk.

Anatoly Baranov: I’m probably the only Stalinist here, because I was kicked out of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation for neotrotskism.

Nevertheless, I would like to draw attention to the fact that, unlike some of the subsequent leaders of the country, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was a moral person in some sense forgotten today in the Russian political sense.

He was a man of a certain idea, represented a certain socio-political trend in this paradigm and existed, and she followed his whole life - unlike today's politicians, where they usually say one thing, think another, and do the third.

Of course, this is the difference not only of Stalin, but of all the politicians of that generation, starting with Lenin and Trotsky. Of course, the policy of all these people was ideological, and it is certainly sorry for being straightforward, it was aimed at building communism, that is, at building a new, classless society in which the exploitation of man by man will be excluded. It was such a simple idea familiar to many from the university.

Another thing is that at that moment, when the October coup was accomplished and the Bolsheviks had already begun to implement some kind of real politics, reality, naturally, began to sharply correct the ideals. Again, decency manifested itself: these people suffered from this, as Lenin suffered, who had to go first to the rather wildish policy of war communism, continue the tsarist policy and the policy of the interim government on the surplus, and then go to the NEP. For a human idea, this was a traumatic fact.

The same was, as I understand it, with Trotsky, who, from the high rise of the October Revolution, turned to the mud of the civil war, and then engaged in tedious questions of a national economic nature.

Moreover, this concerned Stalin, who dealt with these boring and very often unpleasant issues longer than anyone else. This problem of the incompatibility of the ideal with practice is not a purely Stalinist problem, not a problem of the Bolsheviks. This is probably a universal problem. But, nevertheless, when we talk about reading this page of our history, we should not forget all the time that it is not necessary to read it vulgarly: they say, the prerequisites for development were created, and after them it somehow went on by itself .

The tragedy of the Bolsheviks was that the prerequisites were created, and "by itself" after that were arranged in an exceptional way through the knee.

We know from our own experience that the Stalinist thesis about the growth of the class struggle in the course of building socialism is inherently correct, but we cannot forgive both ourselves and why this class struggle was so brutal. Still, the class struggle may suggest less bloody forms of its implementation.

Nevertheless, we know perfectly well, but for some reason we don’t want to recall from history that the creation of prerequisites for the construction of capitalism did not at all relieve the remnants of feudalism and even earlier formations. And economic liberalism, that is, the freedom of private property and entrepreneurship, does not at all entail a social and political liberalism, freedom, equality and fraternity - does not at all entail.

Take at least the United States, where slavery - not serfdom as a relic of feudalism, but natural slavery - persisted longer than others, and the remnants of this slavery have already been canceled by Kennedy. The prerequisites were there, but real freedoms, real human rights, democratic principles were given in a very stubborn and hard struggle. The same thing happened in the Soviet Union, mainly under Stalin, because he got a long period.

When the construction of a new socio-economic structure did not lead to the kingdom of freedom at all, the road to the kingdom of freedom was built, but it was not possible to build the kingdom of freedom itself. This is significant. I understand this: since Stalin never refused anywhere from the postulates of Marxism, that is, he remained until the end a very consistent Marxist, the discrepancy between theory and reality could not but traumatize him. It also traumatized his entourage and the whole society.

Why does this injury not heal?

Why are we now interested in Stalin, who died already 60 years ago?

Because Stalin in this regard is for us a living example of what may well happen to us even during our lifetime. We understand perfectly well that everything that has a beginning has an end. And capitalist relations based on private property will sooner or later come to some kind of phase transition. Whether it will be communism in the classical Marxist interpretation, whether it will be some other formulation and some other form, we will see, but “there is an opinion” that this phase transition has already begun, and not necessarily in Russia.

Like any such phase transition, it is accompanied by very serious public consequences. There is absolutely no reason to believe that 100 has become so much more humane and advanced over the years that the costs of this phase transition process do not wait for us. And it is possible that these costs will be significantly higher than in the Stalin period.

If only because modern politicians, unlike the politicians of the Stalinist generation, are not so decent people, not so consistent supporters of ideas. They think one thing, say another and make the third. This, unfortunately, does not inspire much optimism in the beginning phase transition to another socio-economic structure.

Mikhail Delyagin: Thank you very much. Now I will add what I did not hear, maybe because I didn’t always listen carefully, but what I think is important.

The first. As for Stalin's oblivion: he who forgets a story condemns itself to its repetition. And I would not like very much, including from the experience of my family, to live under the new Stalin, even if it were not the source of civil war, but the fruit of a very humane Soviet education.

I have said many times and I repeat once again that I do not like Putin. But against the backdrop of the fact that before our eyes and, alas, sometimes with our unwitting participation, he replaces him, he will seem to be a democrat and a humanist, and about the same now it seems to us Brezhnev is a kind and pleasant grandfather.

The second. From the modern point of view, the dictatorship of the proletariat was terrible, but in its time it was more democratic than its modern bourgeois democracy.

Third. My teachers in economic modeling, being Soviet-sixties democrats, put enormous effort into experimentally, using mathematical models, to prove that collectivization was a tragic mistake and one could prepare for war differently. They threatened 10 years of life - and mathematically, flawlessly proved that for our country there was no other way to prepare for war. That is, the Stalinist policy was the only possible way to avoid that, according to Stalin, we were “crushed”.

The main reason, from my point of view, according to which Stalin is relevant today, is the insignificance of our modern leadership. We still live in Stalin's greatcoat and over the years since 60’s death, no other clothes have been built, as the tailors say.

Not very good, from my point of view, but an exceptionally intelligent man, Andrei Karaulov, said a wonderful phrase: “Stalin’s brutality was caused by his hyper-responsibility”.

The fear and hatred of the liberals towards Stalin are caused, among other things, by their animal fear of responsibility for the crimes they committed and their deep hatred for a person who really lived not for money, but for something else.

One of our very well-known writers today, who “worked through perestroika”, after the 11 attack of September 2001, at one of the round tables devoted to him, said literally the following: “Anyone who can theoretically give his life for anything is a geek which deserves preventive extermination. "

This was said in today's St. Petersburg, three kilometers from the Piskarevsky cemetery - without any hesitation.

A very hard-nosed, consistent and knowledgeable Stalinist on my direct question, was Stalin right, answered with the following formula: "Stalin was wrong because the system he created gave birth to Gorbachev."

Very interesting is the attempt to democratize 1936 of the year. After all, the Stalin constitution was not just the most democratic fig leaf in the world - it really was, as written in the book of Svyatoslav Yuryevich on the basis of documents, there was a serious deep attempt at democratization, and 1937 was an uprising of the bureaucracy for this particular year.

And when we look at the time of Stalin, based on the ideals and values ​​of today, it is not bad to recall that even in war the acquittals were about 10% of civilian court sentences, and now less than 1%.

Some social mechanisms that were curtailed after the death of Stalin are useful today.

I will name two: the first is a small business, because under Stalin a small business, called an industrial co-operation, and working, including, besides the planned system - if, of course, he wanted - gave 6% of industrial production.

Svyatoslav Rybas: Also on defense.

Mikhail Delyagin: They produced televisions, radios, and more.

And the second is the cost accounting system, which was used in the military-industrial complex and in many other areas.

During her time, everyone who worked in the workshop at that moment received an award for the improvement of manufactured products - and half of the award was divided equally among all. And the person who came up with the improvement, and the boss who beat him, received the second half of the prize.

As a result, the production cost of the Mosin rifle, which remained roughly unchanged from 1898 to 1938 a year, over the next few years, its production was reduced by more than half. This is a historical fact.

Dear friends, does one of the roundtable participants want to add anything?

Svyatoslav Rybas: First, Stalin was not an orthodox Marxist. So, when they entered into an agreement with Mao Zedong, Stalin literally forced him to sign an agreement to create in Xinjiang (this is a well-known geopolitical corridor to Asia) several joint ventures in the aircraft industry, shipbuilding, air transport and oil production, in which the share of capital was equal, but management was all Soviet. Then Khrushchev eliminated this, but Stalin, no matter how Mao Zedong resisted, foresaw the possibility of Mao's hesitation, and he laid the safety mechanisms.

Stalin very realistically approached the post-war, after 1945 year, time, and they agreed with Roosevelt literally about dividing the world. He and Roosevelt generally had an alliance (and Roosevelt in the US today curses many for this), because they realized that they had a common rival: the British Empire. And in the "big three" the union of Stalin and Roosevelt was directed against Churchill. And this union, if not for the sudden death of Roosevelt 12 on April 1945, was to be realized in some concrete decisions.

As Valentine Falin told me, on 13 on April 1945, Roosevelt planned a speech in the Senate about relations with the Soviet Union and the development of a long-term strategy. Say it, there would be no “cold war”.

As for family wounds, I also have these wounds, but, in principle, they should be healed today.

A very important thing: when Stolypin carried out his reform, there were 10 million peasant farms, and after the revolution, when the peasants received landowner land, in the Soviet Union there were already 20 millions of peasant farms that, according to the results of the NEP, were in no way interested in industrializing and supplying grain state at fixed prices. It was impossible to liquidate this situation by any other means besides accelerated modernization, collectivization.

About 1937 year. Mikhail Gennadievich said that Stalin had innovations in the draft constitution. I will say which ones: it meant the multi-party system, which hit primarily on the party apparatus, which already then became an obstacle in development. Now, the late Leonid Vladimirovich Shebarshin, head of foreign intelligence (PSU of the KGB of the USSR), told me - and he has one of his works - that at that time, in the 30s, there were 4 million denunciations. Denunciations were a mass phenomenon, and no Stalin could inspire them. It was the struggle of post-revolutionary anarchy against statehood in its purest form. Perhaps, on this I finish, thank you.

Andrei Fursov: I would like to literally say the words 2 about the Comintern’s line on unleashing the world revolution and Stalin’s attitude to it.

Stalin, naturally, at the level of rhetoric, since he called himself a student of Lenin, had to follow certain rules. But his entire policy from the middle of the 30s — and, perhaps, even before — was aimed at creating a quasi-imperial, neo-imperial structure on an anti-capitalist basis.

His policy towards the Comintern was very tough. For example, the intelligence of the Comintern was excellent, but it had to be crushed because she was playing on the other side. Stalin had, however, his own personal intelligence, but, nevertheless, this resource had to be sacrificed.

If we look at what happened after World War II: if Stalin was striving for a world revolution, then communist regimes would be imposed everywhere. And everything happened exactly the opposite.

Stalin, for example, by no means wanted communist China. He offered the Americans the division of China into two parts: Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong.

Stalin generally preferred the left-wing nationalist regimes — for example, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, for example, was not recognized for several years, and the Vietnamese were very offended. They recognized it already de facto, that is, Stalin’s course was not on the World Revolution, but on a different scheme for controlling the world.

I am very glad that it was said here about the existence of agreements with Roosevelt. We can only guess about their essence, but the fact is that, as Stalin once said, “there are intentions, circumstances, and the logic of circumstances is stronger than the logic of intentions”.

Roosevelt represented state monopoly capitalism, which could tolerate systemic anti-capitalism, which was the Soviet Union. But after the Second World War, a new young predatory faction of the world capitalist class arose - the corporatocracy, whose representative was Truman. They could not coexist with systemic anti-capitalism. Hence, death seems to be violent, Roosevelt and many other things.

The final report "Day-TV" on the round table:


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

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. vilenich
    vilenich 3 March 2013 14: 03
    For a long time it was time to impartially study the heritage of I.V. Stalin.
    It is difficult to downplay his role in creating a powerful state - the USSR!
    1. smel
      smel 3 March 2013 14: 22
      It’s hard to downplay his role.
      It is difficult, rather, to find former, current and, probably, future politicians who would not want the same popularity that Stalin possessed. And if they had done in the creative field at least in 2% what Stalin had in the end, they would not have had a price. And so ... Khrushchev, Yeltsins and the like .... Therefore, the standard of living, duration, education, health care - down, and mortality, crime, alcoholism and drug addiction - up
      1. Nevsky
        Nevsky 3 March 2013 17: 37
        Mikhail Weller upset: "the peak of the development of the Russian people is behind" sad
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 3 March 2013 18: 10
          Quote: Nevsky
          Mikhail Weller upset: "the peak of the development of the Russian people is behind"

          What else to expect from him? His only more or less adequate piece is "The Adventures of Major Zvyagin". Everything else is sheer libel at that time and that life
        2. Orik
          Orik 3 March 2013 18: 39
          What did you want from a Jewish weller?
          1. Volkh
            Volkh 4 March 2013 11: 22
            In Russia, either Jews or judges are always to blame, and here you are acquainted with the theory of passionarity of L.N. Gumilyova.
            Here, in your example, I see the negative part of illiteracy and narrow horizons.
            1. solzh
              solzh 25 November 2020 14: 51
              Quote: WOLF
              read the theory of passionarity by L.N. Gumilyov

              Gumilyov's logic (the transition from factual material to plotting) has a number of gaps, which were noticed by almost all critics of the theory of passionarity ...
              1. Hermit
                Hermit 28 November 2020 21: 51
                Yeah. In Gumilyov's work, passionarity comes to an ethnos in some unknown way from space, after which some genetic changes occur in people, which further determine the development and existence of an ethnos, and not just a way of existence, but a certain style of behavior. Also, some people appear with a special energy ...
        3. Stalinets
          Stalinets 3 March 2013 18: 47
          "Weller" exists for this ....: wink
          1. alexng
            alexng 4 March 2013 06: 25
            Quote: Stalinist
            "Weller" exists for this ....:

            - Oh, how great, here we really need you on our forum!
            “But I can't swear!”
            - You don’t need to be able to swear, we need a victim.
          2. Volkh
            Volkh 4 March 2013 11: 23
            In vain you are so, he said a clever thing, and just because you are stupid to understand it does not mean that Weller is bad.
        4. Volkh
          Volkh 4 March 2013 11: 20
          This was spoken by L.N. Gumilyov, a nation, like any organism, is mortal.
          1. Homo
            Homo 4 March 2013 11: 28
            Volkhand Gumilyov is an infallible truth?
            1. Volkh
              Volkh 4 March 2013 12: 21
              Quote: Homo
              Gumilev is an infallible truth?

              for me, yes, in this case, the opinion of some kind of Internet hamster, the more Weller’s words do not differ from Gumilyov’s conclusions, and if you take into account who the latter was, your skepticism is not clear. What are you trying to tell me?
              The fact that Weller is a Jew and lies, and Gumilyov’s noble son is also a deceiver?
              1. solzh
                solzh 25 November 2020 14: 51
                For many historians, ethnographers, and ordinary readers, Gumilyov's theory looks more like a hypothesis than a scientifically substantiated fact.
      2. Botanologist
        Botanologist 3 March 2013 19: 07
        It is difficult, rather, to find former, current and probably future politicians who would not want the same popularity

        Yes, the fact is that Stalin was simply BELIEVED. For good, for bad, but if he said something, then this was a fact not subject to discussion. And now, politicians who dream of popularity forget one thing - they shouldn’t talk less, and achieve results more often.
        1. ziqzaq
          ziqzaq 4 March 2013 00: 15
          Quote: Botanologist
          Yes, the fact is that Stalin was simply BELIEVED.

          Stalin was not just believed, Stalin really ruled the country not for his own benefit, but for the interests of the state, and therefore people, after the time of the comprador (Leninist) revolutionaries, idolized him. To some extent, STALIN is a role model for all politicians ...........................
          1. Ribwort
            Ribwort 4 March 2013 10: 36
            Quote: ziqzaq
            Stalin did not rule the country for his own benefit

            Confirmation is the fact in which Spartan conditions his sons Yakov, Vasily grew up. Stalin believed that since they are the sons of a leader, they should not live in luxury, enjoy preferences or special status ... Do you want to compare how the "golden youth" is living now?
          2. solzh
            solzh 25 November 2020 14: 52
            Stalin was Lenin's heir and disciple, which Stalin himself constantly mentioned and stressed. Stalin developed Lenin's theory and teachings.
            1. Hermit
              Hermit 28 November 2020 21: 41
              Great powers from among the national chauvinists will not agree with you for anything laughing
      3. yak69
        yak69 3 March 2013 22: 19
        Quote: smel
        at least 2% did

        This is not possible in principle, because most of them are not "sharpened" for that. They have exactly opposite goals from the very beginning! The Gaidar-Chubais gang came to destroy and plunder, and then transfer the destroyed territory to the world behind the scenes. She will appoint new watchers and they will go to Landon, rest on the laurels of the winners.
        Are we waiting for this?! .... (to the topic of the deadlines for Kvachkov and Khabarov)
        Will we continue the struggle for our bright future by parliamentary methods? (I do not call for anything, I ASK) What to do? What to do?
        We do not want a revolution. But putting things in order by criticism cannot be achieved.
        We also do not want the current thieves in power, but there are no others, it seems.
        We also do not want to return to the Soviet system, and we also do not need capitalist (thieves, unlimited).
        So what do we want ?!
        Order? Social justice? Stability? Of freedom? Well-being?
        Let's be determined!
        And if we want all of the above, then we must be prepared for the fact that we all will have to FOLLOW THE ORDER and be prepared for severe punishment for ANY, even a small violation of the order. Everywhere and in everything. And this, oh, how difficult!
        And this, in any case, will mean only one thing - total personal responsibility for everything that we do. In other words, you have to start with yourself and your environment.
        Fundamentally and uncompromisingly.

        Dear comrades, are you ready to move to a brighter future?
        1. s1н7т
          s1н7т 4 March 2013 01: 21
          Quote: yak69
          Fundamentally and uncompromisingly

          Chukhna is all this while the means of production are in the hands of a private trader. You will ALWAYS dance to his tune - you need to feed your family, pay for housing, you must pay for the child at the institute, etc. The country is doomed to return in 1913 in every way.
          1. yak69
            yak69 4 March 2013 12: 09
            Quote: c1n7
            while the means of production are in the hands of the private trader. ALWAYS will dance to his tune

            That's what I’m talking about - if we are ready for the revival of socialist principles, then we will have to do everything fundamentally and uncompromisingly. In the USSR, we have already gone through formalism, indifference, spit and do not care. And if you revive the most effective principles of the Soviet state system, then you need to revive them very seriously, with full responsibility for all their actions.
            It was about that.
            What are you talking about? ...
          2. Hermit
            Hermit 28 November 2020 21: 43
            Quote: c1n7
            The country is doomed to return to 1913 in all respects.

            After 1913, however, it was 1917 wink
      4. GSH-18
        GSH-18 4 March 2013 08: 43
        Quote: smel
        And so ... Khrushchev, Yeltsins and the like .... Therefore, the standard of living, duration, education, health care - down, and mortality, crime, alcoholism and drug addiction - up

        Without a doubt, Stalin, in those conditions, did a lot to preserve the country and its modernization (and some other figures of that time). However, we must not forget how and what kind of "atmosphere" reigned then in the USSR ... For a critical moment in the life of the country (WWII), this was justified, but not suitable for further dynamic and harmonious development. Also, do not forget about the gulag and that now there would not exist in Russia, for example, the Internet (as in North Korea, for example now) and this site in particular, if the tendency and continuity of the Stalinist government in the country had continued. yes
        And do not just trample Khrushchev’s activities in the dirt. He changed the situation after Stalin, as he could (he had no cribs). And besides, he showed Amer Kuzkin his mother (TNW 56 megatons) and nailed them during the Caribbean crisis, forcing them to reckon with the USSR on equal terms!
    2. esaul
      esaul 3 March 2013 15: 11
      Quote: vilenich
      to study openly

      Golden words, colleague! Greetings hi But here, more and more often, articles about the role of Stalin began to be laid out quite biased and with a definite purpose.
      Quote: vilenich
      It is difficult to downplay his role in creating a powerful state - the USSR!

      Nobody disputes or belittles this role, including the ardent anti-Stalinists. The only thing is that it is not necessary to hide behind the image of the father of all peoples, the most humane and the most generous, all those mistakes, excesses and criminal methods that cut the historical, religious and moral foundations of the Russian people to the root. And all this was done to please the collective opinion of their fellow Zionists. This was at the initial stage of reform activities. Then only came the understanding that the Russian people are not only the basis of the Russian State, but also the guarantor of its security and protection from fellow party members. And many of the methods to which he was accustomed and with which he "solved problems", from the time of his gangster past, adorned with attacks on cashiers and paramedics, mostly migrated to the state level, but underwent a slightly different sound. This became known as "fighting the elements."
      The most criminal thing is that we are presented with the image of Stalin exclusively in "fluffy" tones, this is that, against the background of the ignorance of many young people and their unwillingness to be interested, and to accept what is presented in a deceptive wrapper, they form the opinion that everything that is happening today - everything is extremely bad (and, accordingly, statements like "the time of nonentities"), and only under Stalin everything was in chocolate. of the purest water and it is regrettable that this damn..izm becomes the conviction of many immature brains.
      Youth! Read more, take an interest in the History of your country, analyze and compare!
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 3 March 2013 15: 34

        Greetings, Valery! Found an interesting post in the Internet under the nickname krig42. The main thing is that when evaluating a person in a story, one must always start from the story itself, which has the properties of being repeated in the form of a tragedy or in the form of a farce. In some ways, the person is right, since being at a young age in the 80s, he had to communicate with people who directly served in the NKVD during Stalin's time and who were engaged in so-called "repressions" at that time. Different people who did not know each other but said basically the same thing - it was impossible to attract leaders, communist Bolsheviks, Lenin's guards for banal criminality as ordinary thieves and bribe-takers, of which many of them became after having tasted the delights of power. Therefore, they sewed Article 58 and carried out searches at night so that people would not see WHAT WEALTH was confiscated from the ascetic faithful Leninists.

        Well then, the next post

        Suddenly I realized the sacred essence of the so-called "Stalinist repressions" and its connection with our gloomy present. The essence is hidden in who was imprisoned and for what:
        Under the article "sabotage" were ordinary gouging. There are two types of them - "initiators" - those that put scrap into a circular saw, let a child steer the plane, or demolish a bridge on the Moscow Ring Road with the roof of a truck. Or they are trying to stir up something with the reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. There are also passive gouges, thousands of them. In a tolerant dialect, this is called the "human factor". On the conscience of passive gouges, most of the man-made disasters of recent times. Previously, such people were regularly weeded out, saving thousands of lives, simultaneously frightening the third category: potential gouging. And now all this species diversity roams free.
        "Speculation" is a painful thirst for money, a painful need for deception. How else to name or characterize a banal resale? A side, but not unimportant symptom is the absence of a "satiety center" in the sick person. My shepherd didn’t have such a center - she ate until she started walking from the other end, sorry mua. I heard that many animals do not have such a center. Now this ailment has become the norm. About a third of the country's indigenous population is engaged in speculation, and most of the "come in large numbers" are brothers in mind. Well, it's forgivable for them, they can't do anything else. The disease was previously considered so dangerous and incurable that often, the sick were simply killed off - out of mercy. Exclusively because of him ...
        "Po 58th", palette and anti-Soviet agitation. Isolation from society of the so-called stars * dobol - people who do not think constructively, have a different moral paradigm. Moreover, only the "violent" part was isolated - patients who are able to spread social and information viruses with the help of their madness. It is these people who, consciously and reasonedly, commit monstrous and bestial acts. For example, they send a telegram from Russia to Japan, congratulating the Mikado on the victory in the Tsushima battle. After Nord-Ost, the "alphas" are accused of killing terrorists.
        If you do not cool the hot heads of such people in the northern latitudes, they will inevitably develop a terrible disease - "brain pederasty". A striking example of the latter is Podrabinek, who can be said to have survived only thanks to three therapeutic jails. And how many there were! From Novodvorskaya to Sergei Adamych Kovalev. Previously, the methods of treatment varied - dangerously infectious people were isolated in penitentiary institutions, non-dangerous ones were simply stabbed with drugs that suppress brain activity in mad people.
        But the problem is not that all of the above people are in society. The problem is that no one is working with them right now. It is they who work with us.
        1. esaul
          esaul 3 March 2013 16: 15

          Greetings, Stanislav hi
          Quote: Ascetic
          ascetic faithful Leninists.

          - perfectly illustrates double standards, as it was then, and it is today. "Nothing changes in the sublunary world."
          Quote: Ascetic
          Suddenly I realized the sacred essence of the so-called "Stalinist repressions" and its connection with our gloomy present. The essence is hidden in who was imprisoned and for what:

          Arguments about guilt-innocence are interesting, but, in my opinion, it would be more appropriate to attribute good brains, but under the influence of acetone. The author does not hide this. The theory is interesting, but not all-encompassing and comprehensive. How many nuances arose in the lives of people through whom they ended up in camps. Up to the fact that the woman denied intimacy to the harasser.
          In my life, an episode read in my youth in one book (I don’t remember the name) played a role. All that was remembered was that in the besieged Leningrad, one rear school pupil sought and achieved closeness to a woman who had two children in her arms. This schoolgirl was the head of the food warehouse and every evening fussed at this girl with a board - a loaf of bread.
          I remembered this episode so much and so outraged me that during the service, I almost ruined my colleague, having learned that earlier he was the deputy head of the female zone and invited the attractive girl with the help of tricky presents. For the fact that I served him ... l, I almost fell under the tribunal, but the commander helped out by learning the essence of the conflict. How he succeeded - I do not know. Unfortunately, two years later he died. Rest in peace.
          Well this is lyrics ...
          As for the material you have cited, we must also recall those who, having gone through fascist captivity, having won back, were again sent to camps on charges of treason and aiding.
          Total not cover and not retell.
          Why am I involved in this topic? I am outraged and worried that trying to depict the immaculate appearance of the Holy Virgin Mary with a mustache, they are trying to retouch and hide crimes against their people. And this is part of the story and it must be remembered in order to avoid repetition.
          1. Rink
            Rink 3 March 2013 17: 27
            Quote: esaul
            Quote: Ascetic
            ascetic faithful Leninists.

            - perfectly illustrates double standards, as it was then, and it is today. "Nothing changes in the sublunary world."

            It should not be forgotten that very often the power attracts with its capabilities selfish, absolutely unprincipled people with an absent "center of satiety." Just for the sake of "living beautifully" they begin to say "ideologically correct things." They master rhetoric, join the party only because a non-party person has much less chance of taking a leading position.
            Do you really not know one among the people you know?

            Stalin constantly spoke of such "opportunists" who were "attached" to the party. And the regular purges of the party were just supposed to free its ranks from those who came to power for the sake of personal enrichment ...
            Can they be called "faithful Leninists" if in their minds, apart from mimicry for the existing trend, no other ideology existed? You shouldn't judge Stalin by them.

            The best thing to say about Stalin is that he regularly dumped these weeds. Maybe the methods seem a little bit cool for the slack times, but how else? The situation was pre-storm, war loomed on the horizon. Especially liberal and humanity to breed, as I understand it, he did not have time. On the other hand, serious studies (non-Sakharov revelations and others like them) do not confirm the totality of repression, the number of prisoners per 100000 people of Stalin's population did not exceed what we see today in the "democratic" USA ...
            1. solzh
              solzh 25 November 2020 14: 53
              Quote: Skating rink
              very often the power attracts with its capabilities mercenary, absolutely unprincipled people with an absent "center of satiety"

              This happens all the time, especially in the conditions of today's bourgeois-oligarchic system, when not entirely honest people try to get into the government and the deputies.
          2. Rink
            Rink 4 March 2013 01: 23
            Quote: esaul
            .... trying to retouch and hide crimes against their people. And this is part of the story .....

            This is not a "part of history", but part of an information war against Russia. All these "generally known truths" about Stalin's atrocities are based on exactly the same amount of truth as the weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.

            Lies, arrogant and massive - this is what is best mastered by Western civilization. This is their know-how, and this is their strength. A lie in such a volume that it is difficult for a simple layman to believe that you can lie so much.

            But read at least Starikov, he very clearly and convincingly shows the origin of these "modern myths". After his books, the language is usually no longer turned to repeat "common truths" about the horrors of Stalinism, which "everyone knows anyway."

            Just think about this.
            Compare the position of Russia in the year Stalin came to power - it will probably be correct to count 1926 - and in the year of his death. Compare the level and quality of life at the beginning and at the end of the reign of this "tyrant". Compare the state of industry, agriculture, education and science. Do not forget the international position and authority of the country.
            Also, remember that during his time the Second World War came - God forbid anyone from European countries survive the same tension .... (I think no one would survive.) Remember what respect and love Iosif Vissarionovich earned, what else for many years people kept his portraits!
            And then compare with the official version of the story ...
            Would it not seem to you that somehow facts do not merge with historical interpretations (myths, one might say)? And the results of his reign refute all these tales?
            1. solzh
              solzh 25 November 2020 14: 54
              Quote: Skating rink
              Lies, impudent and massive - this is what Western civilization has mastered best of all.

              Not only the West is trying to rewrite our history, we also have enough supporters of rewriting our Soviet past in our country.
          3. Homo
            Homo 4 March 2013 11: 30
            esaul, show me in history a nation that reached heights in a short time by liberal methods?
      2. Cheloveck
        Cheloveck 3 March 2013 19: 43
        esaul, Hrtel first you put a minus, however, your post was clearly ambiguous.
        We will analyze.
        Quote: esaul
        The only thing - do not hide behind the image of the father of all nations, the most humane and most generous, all those mistakes, excesses and criminal methods that cut down the historical, religious and moral foundations of the Russian people. And all this was done to please the collective opinion of their Zionist party members. This was at the initial stage of reform activity.
        Let's not come up with double standards. According to the official version, GDP is also forced to go in line with its environment. Why is it a forced line for one, and the second should be responsible for it?
        Do not find this to be some kind of nonsense?
        Quote: esaul
        Then only came the understanding that the Russian people are not only the basis of the Russian State, but also the guarantor of its security and protection from fellow party members. And many of the methods to which he was accustomed and with which he "solved problems", from the time of his gangster past, adorned with attacks on cashiers and paramedics, mostly migrated to the state level, but underwent a slightly different sound. This became known as "fighting the elements."
        So what?
        Who in the current government is not smeared with the legacy of the "dashing" 90s?
        Quote: esaul
        The most criminal thing is that we are presented with the image of Stalin exclusively in "fluffy" tones, this is that, against the background of the ignorance of many young people and their unwillingness to be interested, and to accept what is presented in a deceptive wrapper, they form the opinion that everything that is happening today - everything is extremely bad (and, accordingly, statements like "the time of nonentities"), and only under Stalin everything was in chocolate. of the purest water and it is regrettable that this damn..izm becomes the conviction of many immature brains.
        There is also a saying: “He who does nothing is not mistaken”.
        Is that familiar?
        This is where the basis for comparison arises.
        What could one do in 12 years and the other.
        One managed to create energy and industry, education and health systems, lay the foundation of science and technology, arm the army, honestly shooting 700 people.
        The second for the same period he ruined industry, science, education, health care, agriculture, disorganized the remnants of a mighty army, did not notice the point of massive theft at the state level, with a quiet glancing along the way allowing 6,3 million people to die out.
        On this basis, and look who is whiter and fluffier.
        Whose methods are more effective and, hmm, bloodless.

        Quote: esaul
        Youth! Read more, take an interest in the History of your country, analyze and compare!
        But this is a very true appeal.
        It was because of him that I did not put you a minus.
        1. Georges14
          Georges14 3 March 2013 21: 15
          "honestly shooting 700 of the population."
          I would like to clarify: "from 1921 to February 1, 1954, 3 people were convicted on charges of counter-revolutionary crimes,
          including capital punishment - 642 980 "

          Including policemen, Vlasovites and professional traitors, such as Gorbachev ...
          1. Cheloveck
            Cheloveck 3 March 2013 21: 26
            Quote: Georges14
            I would like to clarify: "from 1921 to February 1, 1954, 3 people were convicted on charges of counter-revolutionary crimes, including 777 to capital punishment."
            Estimates are different, I took the maximum of those claiming to be reliable.
            Again, in the figure of 3 people are convicted of criminal charges.
            Thanks for the clarification.
            1. Georges14
              Georges14 3 March 2013 22: 02
              In fact, for 33 years, this figure is not as grand as it seems. Suffice it to say that “In absolute terms, the United States of America is currently leading in terms of the number of prisoners; in this country, over 2,19 million [3], or more than one in every 4 adults [5], are imprisoned. Although the US population is less than 20% from the world, about XNUMX% of people behind bars are in American prisons. "
              1. Rink
                Rink 5 March 2013 17: 31
                Quote: Georges14
                .... Although the US population is less than 5% of the world population, about 20% of people behind bars are in American prisons. "

                And these are only official statistics! But really, I think, the numbers in the States are even more impressive ... And do not forget about the secret CIA prisons, which are in these statistics NO do not appear.

                PS I don’t understand anything about these secret prisons. It just doesn’t fit on my head alone? HOW, FOR WHICH LAWS they throw and torture citizens of other states in these prisons? !!! If these are prisoners of war, then the United States signed the Geneva Convention, and if they are civilians - then this is completely complete lawlessness!
                Where is the UN, where are these implacable human rights activists? Where are these undaunted and principled human rights defenders and the great humanists of the planet? Where are the free press and honest journalists?

                How can the head of state, who is torturing hundreds, if not thousands of people, without trial or trial, get secret Nobel Peace Prizes? !!! Moreover, at the same time, teach others about democracy and talk about the spread of some "American values" all over the planet! (What are they: in the desire to destroy entire sovereign countries, to plunder and appropriate their resources?)

                Why does the US state know about these crimes, and no international courts deal with the very facts of the existence of such prisons, or the officials at whose command these torture chambers are organized? Why are there still no "Guantanamo lists"?

                Aw !!!! People!!! Wake up!
                1. Rink
                  Rink 5 March 2013 18: 32
                  Just imagine for a moment. What would happen in the world if, say, Russia decided to use secret prisons to fight Chechen terrorists after the explosion of the first apartment building?

                  They simply would have seized and thrown Chechens there (and not only!) Without trial, without bringing charges - simply on someone’s tip that they were involved in such and such fighters, and tortured to pull out information about the organization, deployment, supplying and financing Chechen gangs.
                  Just like the states.

                  Imagine the reaction of human rights defenders around the world to such actions of Russia, if after Pusek what happened?
                  Then why is it not the Hague court or any other that is still involved in the secret prisons of the States? What law permits their existence and functioning?

                  Explain to the fool!
        2. solzh
          solzh 25 November 2020 14: 55
          Quote: Cheloveck
          GDP, according to the official version, is also forced to follow the mainstream of its environment

          So VVP himself created, appointed and chose his environment.
      3. yak69
        yak69 3 March 2013 22: 34
        Quote: esaul
        The most criminal thing is that we are presented with the image of Stalin exclusively in "fluffy" colors,

        Well, people spoke and spoke, and you, apparently, did not hear them.
        Nobody thinks to deny and hush up many of the cruelties that were happening at that time.
        The fact is that Stalin today is a symbol of the power and invincibility of the state of that time.
        Let's separate the flies from the cutlets. Each great ruler in Russia (who achieved great results) shed a lot of blood - Ivan the Terrible, Peter 1, Stalin. And when we talk about them, we mean the positive that they have achieved. I am 100% sure that another 50 years will pass and few people will remember the loss of life of those years, but everyone will talk about the mighty achievements of that period. And you again for your
        Quote: esaul
        "problem solver" since his gangster past,
      4. GSH-18
        GSH-18 4 March 2013 09: 04
        Quote: esaul
        and, only under Stalin everything was in chocolate. of pure water and it is regrettable that this becomes the conviction of many fragile brains.

        I absolutely agree with your entire post. yes
    3. S_mirnov
      S_mirnov 3 March 2013 15: 59
      "It is high time to study the legacy of JV Stalin with an open mind." - It doesn’t get an open mind, it hurts so much he is an eyesore to modern traders!
      "It is difficult to underestimate his role in creating a powerful state - the USSR!" - nevertheless, modern traders in power do it, Take, for example, Goebel's fairy tales about Katyn. And the people strongly depend on their leader, it is not for nothing that they say "What is the pop - so is the parish!" Judging by the modern people of the Russian Federation, we have no "pop".
    4. morpex
      morpex 3 March 2013 18: 16
      Quote: vilenich
      For a long time it was time to impartially study the heritage of I.V. Stalin. It is difficult to downplay his role in creating a powerful state - the USSR!

      Please study this document:

      On cooperation, mutual assistance, joint activities.

      mountains Moscow 11 November 1938

      The People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the USSR, hereinafter referred to as the NKVD, represented by the head of the Main Directorate of State Security, Commissioner of State Security 1st Rank Lawrence BERIA, on the one hand, and the Main Directorate of Security of the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany, represented by the head of the fourth department (GESTAPO ) Heinrich MÜLLER, on the basis of power of attorney No. 1-448 / 12-1, dated November 3, 1938, issued by the chief of the Main Security Directorate of the Reishführer SS Reinhard Heydrich, hereinafter referred to as GESTAPO, on the other hand, concluded this General Agreement on Cooperation, Mutual Assistance , joint activities between the NKVD and GESTAPO ".
      1. Stalinets
        Stalinets 3 March 2013 18: 51
        But is Russia now not cooperating with anyone, well, like interpol? Incidentally, National Socialism should not be confused with fascism. Idea N.S. good in itself.
        1. morpex
          morpex 3 March 2013 19: 28
          Quote: Stalinist
          Incidentally, National Socialism should not be confused with fascism. Idea N.S. good in itself.

          Well dear! You’ve beguiled it. Fascism, from the word Fashi, is a screen. The offspring of Mussolini. Here in it there is nothing to do with Nazism the degenerate Hitler. Two really different ideologies.
          1. solzh
            solzh 25 November 2020 14: 56
            Quote: morpex
            Two really different ideologies.

            Absolutely the same. And our ancestors did not make a difference between fascism and Nazism.
      2. Proud.
        Proud. 3 March 2013 19: 27
        And there is nothing to study, the "document" is dated November 11, 1938, it mentions Müller as the head of the 4th department. But he became (was appointed) in October 1939, and the Gestapo itself became the 4th department in September 1939. do not continue, this "document" is fake.
        1. morpex
          morpex 3 March 2013 20: 07
          Quote: Be proud.
          You don't have to go further, this "document" is fake.

          Well, of course! Who would doubt that! Only you have genuine information!
          Study the history of the respected fully and not selectively! Otherwise you have a logic: ... I like this, this is a genuine document! I don’t like it, so it’s fake and you shouldn’t read it. "The logic of the kindergarten ....
      3. morpex
        morpex 3 March 2013 19: 34
        Quote: morpex
        "GENERAL AGREEMENT On cooperation, mutual assistance, joint activities.

        And why are the cons? Did I bring a fictional document?
        Yes, not in defense of Stalin or his reproach, such documents must be published, but for the sake of historical truth - it is more important than the reputation of any leader. Otherwise, we and our children will break such firewood! Indeed, from the point of view of the state as a single living organism, this was yesterday, and not decades ago. Here time is too conventional a unit of measurement ... Stalin's personal archive was destroyed shortly after his death. Old party rat A. Yakovlev in one of the television interviews of 1999 said that “from the point of view of the law, both Yezhov and Yagoda were innocent” . Dear Yakovlev, from the point of view of your law, the whole "Leninist guard" is innocent. Beria will shoot many “politicians” for really committed crimes. Most of the NKVD officers who were appointed by Beria after 1953 will be repressed along with their boss and executed. Among them will be many high-class professionals. The Khrushchev thaw caused the same damage to the NKVD system as the Gorbachev-Yeltsin perestroika of the KGB. Note that Khrushchev is the nominee of Kaganovich, and Gorbachev is the nominee of Andropov. Both he and the other knew who to put on to give scope to the forces of destruction. Narcissistic and limited footmen ascended to the top of power are more dangerous than any "tyrant"
        1. Kaa
          Kaa 3 March 2013 19: 48
          Quote: morpex
          Khrushchev's "thaw" inflicted the same damage

          "The logic of the struggle for power led Khrushchev back in the 20s to the Trotskyists, then made him an ardent fighter against Trotskyism, then - the self-deprecating serf of Stalin, then - his equally furious whistleblower, after - the "dissident". In all these metamorphoses Khrushchev tried to predict which position would bring him the greatest benefit not only now, but also in the foreseeable future, and in most cases he succeeded. The trouble is that when Khrushchev’s political position began to be directly reflected in the decisions of the state leadership of the USSR, it rarely met the objective needs of the country. Khrushchev spent his extraordinary will and energy on satisfying personal ambitions, neglecting the interests of the country. The latter seemed to be in line with Khrushchev’s intentions to increase their prestige with another high-profile PR campaign - the development of virgin lands, cultivation of corn, a demonstrative reduction in the armed forces or the deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba. In Khrushchev’s rejection, people of different views and beliefs can converge. Sovereign Patriots recall Khrushchev the removal of Marshal Zhukov, unjustified reductions in the armed forces, the destruction of the latest types of military equipment, the abandonment of the USSR military bases in Port Arthur (China) and Porkkala-Udd (Finland), compliance in negotiations with US leaders on Berlin and Cuban issues. People of an economic way of thinking, pragmatists-statesmen, technocrats, and also ecologists will undoubtedly blame Khrushchev for unreasonable the abolition of line ministries, the decline in the social status of scientists, the introduction of corn despite the climate, the continuous plowing of virgin lands. The massive construction of five-story slums created only the illusion of a quick solution to the housing problem, while dramatically lowering the standard of urban living. Under Khrushchev, the absurd practice of "gratuitous aid" began to the countries of Asia and Africa, announcing the "building of socialism".Russian traditionalist soil workers will remember the revival of the struggle against "great-power chauvinism" and the promotion of nationalism of the titular peoples in the republics of the USSR, the elimination of "unpromising" villages and the destruction of horse stocks, the elimination of private plots of rural intelligentsia and the attempt to completely destroy household plots as a form of land use (the so-called second dispossession). Orthodox will add to this a new the campaign of "militant atheism", the closure and destruction of temples (from 1958 to 1964 more than 3500 churches were closed) Khrushchev’s famous instruction to introduce execution for currency fraud and re-condemn people already convicted under this article to sentence them to death, according to the degree of neglect of the right had no analogues even during the time of the Great Terror. Other unprecedented cases mass shootings of demonstrations in Tbilisi in March 1956 and in Novocherkassk on May 1, 1962. . Such speeches and a similar reaction of the authorities to them in Soviet cities have not been since the civil war. The performance in Novocherkassk was accompanied by numerous victims (26 people were killed and 7 subsequently sentenced to death) and is better known than others, but similar smaller protests against government policies on various occasions took place in 1958-1961. in various cities of the country. Historians count them more than a dozen. "Khrushchevism" is a synonym for incompetence and arbitrariness in public administration, covered by ideological speculation and demagogy. Khrushchev's “voluntarism” is that “legacy”, without disowning from which, it is impossible to successfully develop Russia.
          . Htm
        2. Cheloveck
          Cheloveck 3 March 2013 20: 27
          Quote: morpex
          And why are the cons? Did I bring a fictional document?

          Dates do not beat, this time.
          Muller did not visit the USSR, and Beria was not in Germany in the 38th. These are two.
          Mueller’s position is not beating, it’s three.
          Fake, this is a conclusion.
          1. morpex
            morpex 3 March 2013 20: 38
            Quote: Cheloveck
            Fake, this is a conclusion.

            Pamyat newspaper No. 1 / 26, 1999, in which I found this document. I will not bang my head against the wall and prove that it is genuine. To be honest, I did not believe in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before, but it turned out what he is ....
            1. Cheloveck
              Cheloveck 3 March 2013 21: 03
              Quote: morpex
              Pamyat newspaper No. 1 / 26, 1999, in which I found this document. I will not bang my head against the wall and prove that it is genuine. To be honest, I did not believe in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before, but it turned out what he is ....
              All is verifiable.
              The pact has been known since its conclusion.
              Secret protocols are in doubt, because the originals are not presented, and the photocopies have blunders that make it possible to consider them fake.

              By the way, the Pamyat newspaper is not a reliable source.
              1. morpex
                morpex 3 March 2013 21: 37
                Quote: Cheloveck
                Secret protocols are in doubt, because the originals are not presented, and the photocopies have blunders that make it possible to consider them fake.

                Exactly: a lot has sunk into oblivion, a lot is still waiting in the wings of special guards, many documents will most likely never see the light of all, and here you have to refer to such sources.
                1. arnulla
                  arnulla 3 March 2013 22: 06
                  This is for the most reliable source-newspaper Pamyat?))) Next, what’s going to go for you, Express-newspaper ?.
                  1. morpex
                    morpex 4 March 2013 17: 36
                    Quote: arnulla
                    This is for the most reliable source-newspaper Pamyat?))) Next, what’s going to go for you, Express-newspaper ?.

                    Honestly, I just want to swear after such comments. I even say where I get it from. Are you kind enough to read at least something? By the way, the document is taken from an excellent article about Stalin:
                    Roman PERIN

                    "GUILLOTINE FOR BALANCES"
                    Ethnic and psychological aspects of personnel policy.
                    1934 - 2000 years.
                    In this book, the reader will find the keys that will open the door to many secrets of the twentieth century.
                    New look, unique information.
                    First read, then strain the gyrus, and only then write comments and at least somehow motivate them. And then ... just to knock on the clave ....
            2. Georges14
              Georges14 3 March 2013 21: 41
              "To be honest, I didn't believe in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before, but it turned out that it exists ...."
              Why didn’t you believe it? The non-aggression pact is a brilliant victory for Soviet diplomacy. Another thing is that nothing like the Anglo-Saxons failed, unfortunately. Unfortunately for them ...
              Russia has always had, has and will continue to have geopolitical interests, and it doesn’t matter whether it is tsarist Russia, Soviet or Russian. Do not forget about it.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 3 March 2013 21: 45
                There was nothing particularly brilliant there.
                A brilliant victory would be an agreement with France and England, to which, in fact, sought. And an agreement with Poland on the admission of troops. But it didn’t work out.
                And the pact became a necessary measure.
                1. arnulla
                  arnulla 3 March 2013 22: 08
                  It is victory, and it is brilliant. Because it cooled the Anglo-Saxons. The Japanese were generally in shock)))
                2. Georges14
                  Georges14 3 March 2013 22: 15
                  I don’t know, I don’t know ... Nmv, a necessary measure is a kind of ideological cliche. At least, under an agreement with England and France, Russia would hardly have gained Finland, the Baltic states, Eastern Poland, and Bessarabia in its sphere of influence. However, this is a separate issue.
                3. luka095
                  luka095 4 March 2013 00: 58
                  Indeed, the pact was a necessary measure. But under this pact the USSR received almost a year and a half to prepare for war. The Reich received raw materials (for example, stubble, etc.). And the USSR - high-tech equipment and Wehrmacht weapons samples. In addition, a loan to pay for purchases in Germany. Etc. This is not an agreement signed by Gorbachev in Malta.
              2. morpex
                morpex 4 March 2013 17: 37
                Quote: Georges14
                Why didn’t you believe it?

                I just did not know about his secret side
            3. Ascetic
              Ascetic 4 March 2013 01: 59
              Quote: morpex
              I used to not believe in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but it turned out that he was ....

              1. morpex
                morpex 4 March 2013 18: 13
                [quote = Ascetic] See the gopher?
                I posted the aforementioned document and also wrote about the pact meaning it, the pact, the other side of the existence of which there was no information before. You know what I mean. Without trying to offend or humiliate anyone with this.
                Does it give you moral pleasure to omit a person because he wants to find out something new for himself in the course of a dispute? Do not fall below the Ascet border. By the way, I always read your articles and comments with interest and note that I don’t mention any gophers in my reviews even if I don’t agree with something. So, as they say, thank you in the hat. For the gopher.
        3. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 3 March 2013 22: 06
          Quote: morpex
          Note that Khrushchev is the nominee of Kaganovich, and Gorbachev is the nominee of Andropov. Both he and the other knew who to put on to give scope to the forces of destruction.

          I don’t see the logic in your comment:
          Quote: morpex
          The Khrushchev thaw caused the same damage to the NKVD system as the Gorbachev-Yeltsin perestroika of the KGB.

          You want to say that Andropov, moving Gorbachev, wanted to destroy his home office? Nonsense, Andropov, unfortunately, did not live much after accession to the throne, otherwise it is not known how history would have turned.
          1. Georges14
            Georges14 3 March 2013 22: 45
            Probably, here we are talking about the version (widespread in certain circles) that "Andropov's team" had a plan to separate the Central Asian republics with the subsequent entry into Europe as a hegemon, strengthening cooperation with Germany and ousting the United States from Europe. If the version is correct, then the plan has not yet been implemented.
            1. solzh
              solzh 25 November 2020 14: 57
              Quote: Georges14
              that the "Andropov's team" had a plan to secede the Central Asian republics with subsequent entry into Europe as hegemon

              Andropov's mythical plan about something else
              The plan of the operation, code-named "Golgotha", fell into four parts: 1) the systemic collapse of the existing political and economic structure of the country; 2) the coup and the forced introduction of the "wild type" capitalist system; 3) directed prolongation of chaos and confusion as a means of mobilizing the brutalized masses to fight the government under socialist slogans; 4) the socialist revolution, supported by the entire people, the radical annihilation of the comprador bourgeoisie and the political and economic structures associated with it.
        4. yak69
          yak69 3 March 2013 22: 48
          Quote: morpex
          And why are the cons? Did I bring a fictional document?

          You studied the document, but to understand the reasons and circumstances of the appearance of this document, you did not have either the breadth of outlook and the depth of thinking.
          So much has been written about this fact that even talking about it is boring.

          PS And I apologize for the harsh words.
          1. morpex
            morpex 4 March 2013 18: 17
            Quote: yak69
            So much has been written about this fact that even talking about it is boring.

            There is no bazaar Georgy! I posted the document. If it is a fake, put me a conclusion confirming this. Without harsh words to which I really don’t hold resentment. And if there is such a document, then who did the examination. I unfortunately did not find ...
      4. luka095
        luka095 4 March 2013 00: 43
        Dear morpex. This "document" has been analyzed long ago. The verdict is fake. Even in the text you quoted there are bloopers visible to the naked eye.
      5. solzh
        solzh 25 November 2020 14: 55
        Quote: morpex
        On cooperation, mutual assistance, joint activities.

        The so-called "General Agreement on Cooperation, Mutual Assistance, Joint Activities of November 11, 1938" is a primitive falsification. It was made in the 1990s. According to the most common version, the author is a certain German Nazarov, whose book "Myths of the Soviet Era" is filled with such forgeries.
        1. Hermit
          Hermit 28 November 2020 21: 45
          Anti-Soviet and anti-Stain myths are very strongly ingrained in our society. It will be difficult to uproot them. But myths and lies must be fought by revealing classified archives and telling the truth.
    5. Deniska999
      Deniska999 3 March 2013 20: 48
      Stalin steers, the rest sucks.
    6. Civil
      Civil 3 March 2013 21: 08
      Great-grandfather received 10 + 10, although he himself was a farm laborer and took his wife from the priest after the revolution .. the other died of starvation during the devastation, grandfathers fought ... and what about Stalin? He died, and the country, in the best traditions of foolish Arabs, is again divided into liberals and patriots, although in reality all parties, by their intransigence, stand on the positions of external forces contributing to the collapse of Russia.
    7. Click
      Click 4 March 2013 00: 07
      You are going around a shot.

      Among powerful states such as the USSR is not listed. Anyway, the map is not listed

    8. solzh
      solzh 25 November 2020 14: 50
      Quote: vilenich
      For a long time it was time to impartially study the heritage of I.V. Stalin.

      If it were not for the provocateurs and traitors in the face of the liberal opposition, which were especially actively manifested during the Gorbachev perestroika, as well as the actions of the current authorities to rewrite the history of the USSR, then the role and legacy of Stalin would not have been underestimated and studied in an unbiased manner.
  2. shurup
    shurup 3 March 2013 14: 21
    To become and to be Stalin one must have Russia behind.
    But critics of the Stalin want to fuck Russia.
  3. Alexander 1958
    Alexander 1958 3 March 2013 14: 23
    Good afternoon!
    I watched the round table and really liked the fact that the people involved did not leave the sharp corners of Stalin's time.I would like to note the speech of Yu Boldyrev and his warning that it depends only on us whether neo-Stalinism will be aimed at achieving goals similar to Stalinist ones, or it will all be like c modern "communists" have flags, words and emptiness behind them. And this is still not the worst option .. Slogans and repression can be Stalinist, and the goals of Chubais or Yanukovych, whoever likes it
    Alexander 1958
    1. vilenich
      vilenich 3 March 2013 14: 51
      Quote: Alexander 1958
      Will neo-Stalinism be aimed at achieving goals similar to Stalin's or will it all be like the modern "communists" have flags, words and emptiness behind them.

      Actually, as I understand it, if these are flags and other crap, then it will not be neostalism, but something else, neo-Gorbachevism or neo-Yeltsinism, for example.
      Neo-Stalinism is, first of all, the reconstruction of a powerful state (first of all, the unification of peoples by a common idea, the restoration and development of the economy, and on its basis, the growth of the welfare of the people and the formation of modern armed forces), which is one (and maybe the only one) of the centers of peace!
  4. Kaa
    Kaa 3 March 2013 14: 56
    “Having taken power, the Bolsheviks were all in the same boat - defeat threatened them all with death. Nevertheless, even for this reason, they were divided into two ideological directions. The first was headed by Lev Davidovich Trotsky, by the way, who joined the Bolsheviks only in 1917., on the eve of their seizure of power. He was a devout Marxist, piously convinced that in one country, according to the "theory of Marx", it is impossible to build socialism. Therefore he He considered Russia only as a "bundle of brushwood" in the fire of the world revolutionary conflagration. How many Russians would die in this, he did not care - his head hurt about the proletariat of the whole world. The second ideological direction was headed by Lenin. He came to the denial of the position of Marx on the universality of the socialist revolution, he justified the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country. Stalin very closely adjoined Lenin, but he was in no way going to give Russia to slaughter for any proletarian mop-ups, in no way was he going to do this at the expense of the fate of the peoples of the USSR. With the beginning of the 30s, the defeated Trotskyists (and all those who joined them) decided to prepare for an armed rebellion. Supporters of Stalin then crushed this rebellion in the bud. The Stalinist Constitution forbade having counter-revolutionary, bourgeois parties, parties that encroached on the power of the working people. But this constitution did not prohibit having several communist parties. It should be added that the uselessness of party nomenclature for governing the country was not a theory, but already established practice. Very rarely plenums of the Central Committee met and, apparently, only for consecration by vote of personnel changes. And the congresses of the CPSU (B.) For 13 years were not going at all - there was no need for them. So, it was theoretically clear that the party apparatus from governing the country should be eliminated, and in practice this was confirmed. Historians write that Stalin's decision to convene the XNUMXth Congress of the CPSU (b) was unexpected for the party apparatus. The name "All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)" was changed to "Communist Party of the Soviet Union".The new name tightly tied the party to the state, the party became, as it were, the property of the USSR, a structural unit of Soviet power. It was the Government of the Soviet Union, the Ministry of Defense of the Soviet Union, now instead of the CPSU (b), the Communist Party of the Soviet Union also became. Instead of the Politburo, the Central Committee of the party was supposed to form only the Presidium. And this replacement of the Politburo with the Presidium meant that the party loses the body directly governing the entire country. Stalin, subjugating the party of Soviet power, restored the operation of the Constitution of the USSR in full. He did, in fact, what Peter I did, who made the Russian Orthodox Church a structure of the state administration apparatus. Stalin’s withdrawal from the Central Committee (withdrawal of the leader of the USSR from the party’s governing bodies) was a terrible threat to the party nomenclature, for it restored democratic centralism in the party — inner-party democracy. And with this democracy, people who can only be hunters and overseers in the governing bodies of the party become unnecessary. And Khrushchev would have to remember the skills of a locksmith, and Malenkov would again be restored at MVTU im. Bauman, to finally get an engineering degree. Now the nomenclature remained the only way out of the situation - Stalin was obliged to die as Secretary of the Central Committee, as leader of the party and the whole country, which happened in March 1953. Conceived reform of the country failed by eliminating Stalin and curtailing the decisions of the XNUMXth Congress.
  5. Rink
    Rink 3 March 2013 14: 59
    It is high time to separate the reality of the Stalin era from the liberal-CIA Solzhenitsyn-lying lies, the unscrupulous lies of Goebbels's students (by the way, they were brought to the United States along with the scientists and drawings of the FAA on an equal footing as one of the valuable reich heritage).

    Article plus!
    1. solzh
      solzh 25 November 2020 14: 58
      To do this, first it is necessary to cancel the study of Solzhenitsin's books in schools, to declare at the state level that Solzhenitsin is a liar. But our government will not take such a step.
  6. lucidlook
    lucidlook 3 March 2013 15: 06
    The attempt of the aggressive-liberal party to unleash the “de-Stalinization” campaign failed with phenomenal shame

    After that I did not read further. Given that the same Udaltsov is one of the most ardent pro-Stalinists. For which he was repeatedly abused, including on central television.

    In December 1999, he ran for the State Duma on the list of the Stalinist Bloc for the USSR electoral bloc (the list did not overcome the five percent barrier).

    Very similar to the methods of Orwell's "Ministry of Truth"
    1. predator.3
      predator.3 3 March 2013 19: 26
      I. Stalin after the Second World War restored the country within 5 years, and humpback, ebn, Putin and Medvedev returned the country to the 20st year in 21 years!
      1. djon3volta
        djon3volta 3 March 2013 22: 06
        I know what needs to be done! but here's what !!!
      2. Stalinets
        Stalinets 4 March 2013 00: 50
        Stalin is a state official, Medvedev is a degenerate lawyer .. That's the difference .. laughing
  7. rexby63
    rexby63 3 March 2013 15: 12
    small, dry-handed, pockmarked, narrow-chested, physically weak

    Judei here did not fail to kick the dead lion. How small he was, his height is 2 arshins of 6 vertices, i.e. 169 cm, at that time above average.
    But the whole article is a definite plus
    1. ammunition
      ammunition 3 March 2013 15: 42

      The penultimate mark on the bar is 1m. 70cm What confirms the growth -
      Seventy-four meter.
      1. vilenich
        vilenich 3 March 2013 16: 10
        Quote: ammunition
        The penultimate mark on the bar is 1m. 70cm What confirms the growth - Meter seventy-four.

        Of course, politicians are judged not by growth, but by their deeds. But I agree that lately a lot of speculation has appeared on the topic of the small growth of I.V. Stalin.
        I want to give another proof of the quite average growth of Joseph Vissarionovich.
        Churchill's growth is reliably known - 166 cm. Here is a photo of him with Stalin. Stalin stands a little further (which means the photo should look smaller), but looks the same height. And where is 154 cm?
        1. djon3volta
          djon3volta 3 March 2013 17: 37
          does Cherchel have a smartphone in his hands? belay belay belay
          1. Cheloveck
            Cheloveck 3 March 2013 19: 59
            Quote: djon3volta
            does Cherchel have a smartphone in his hands?

            Box with cigars.
          2. Gari
            Gari 3 March 2013 22: 11
            Yeah, secret soviet development
      2. Rink
        Rink 3 March 2013 19: 26
        Quote: ammunition
        ... Which confirms the growth - Meter seventy-four.

        And what's the difference? !!! Big, small, what kind of kindergarten?

        Stalin is not a basketball player, not a boxer or a loader.
        He was not just a politician, he is - leader.

        He turned out to have unbending will, determination, political foresight. He discovered an analytical mind capable of calculating multi-way political parties in international politics, setting and controlling the main directions of the country's national economy. He was able to carry out in the shortest possible time with minimal social upheaval the industrialization of a huge country. (Industrialization is not just a beautiful word: tens of millions of peasants yesterday drastically changed their lives, moving from villages to cities!).
        And most importantly, besides the fact that he was a patriot and a state-minded person, he had this very "center of satiety" in place.

        I don’t know, it seems to me, poking a finger at Stalin’s small stature or “pockmarking” of Stalin is like meeting with Aristotle, Einstein or Zarathustra, talking with them about the prices of last year's hay or discussing their taste in choosing clothes.

        Some philistinism ...
        1. chex2418
          chex2418 5 March 2013 15: 22
          Quote: Skating rink
          I don’t know, it seems to me, poking a finger at Stalin’s small stature or “pockmarking” of Stalin is like meeting with Aristotle, Einstein or Zarathustra, talking with them about the prices of last year's hay or discussing their taste in choosing clothes.

          Truly philistinism in its purest form ... Still, the size of the boot would be discussed ... lol
          1. Rink
            Rink 7 March 2013 01: 06
            Quote: chex2418
            Truly philistinism in its purest form ... Still, the size of the boot would be discussed ... lol

            Well, for example, Napoleon.
            Which Bonaparte, the conqueror and the thunderstorm of Europe - was also not of grenadier growth? Quite the opposite, the shibzik is small, just above the drum. Even the inferiority complex found in stunted people was named after him.

            But none of the historians on this subject is gibberish, it does not impute flaws to him. Although we drank this small amount of blood a lot, until they locked him up on St. Helena, so that he would cool off there with his complexes, and thought about his behavior. Somehow they even respect the emperor who reproached everything, they call him a genius. (Although he would have been a genius, he would not have climbed into Russia, I think. And so he ended up in general, sadly, like all previous and subsequent "geniuses".)

            Isn't it strange?
            Are these the same double standards, or maybe it’s just easier to humiliate Stalin’s image?
            According to their idea, we should reason like this:
            "Just think, he raised the country from ruins, won the Second World War, created the atomic and space industry! He outplayed Roosevelt and Churchill like children, and drove Hitler to suicide, - that's all bullshit! vertically challenged, This Stalin! "

            And this one should cross out everything else in our eyes?
            Do not tell, Chesslovo! ... Personally, I spit on growth, weight, and other parameters, as well as origin, education and so on. Because only its accomplishments are important, and only result the life of this great man.
  8. skeptic
    skeptic 3 March 2013 15: 12
    in the 30s, there were 4 million denunciations. Denunciations were a mass phenomenon, and no Stalin could inspire them. It was a struggle of post-revolutionary anarchy against statehood in its purest form.
    The merits of Stalin in HISTORY are, without exaggeration, enormous. But, to our great regret, under the banner of the struggle against the enemies of the state, no less dangerous enemies, with the help of slander and denunciations, destroyed very many talented leaders, and just decent people. Through their heads they made their way to all echelons of power, we feel the scale of the tragedy on ourselves, especially the last 20 years.
    I apologize for connecting Putin to this topic, but he could have accumulated enough funds in previous periods for the comfortable existence of himself and all his relatives, hundreds of years in advance, and drained over a knoll like a humpback and live there happily. You can say a lot of nasty things to any person, especially a public one. Try to get clean and fluffy out of a huge and deep puddle of mud, but ... Taken by itself, the mission of the savior of Russia is heavy and ungrateful. What can wait for him and his family in case of failure. The tragedy of the problem that he took on himself in the future may possibly be compared with the activities of Stalin in the complexity of the tasks. In the end, the winner writes HISTORY
  9. avt
    avt 3 March 2013 15: 13
    ,, The paradoxical link between these two groups - left globalists, who dreamed of a world revolution, and those who sought to consume - and, conditionally speaking, put together the Trotsky-Bukharin block, which went down in history as a right-left bloc.

    These people hated Stalin in the Soviet establishment. "----------------- Just a definition of the current ruling American elite, so kind of our post-Soviet liberal Russian nomenklatra, strenuously stretching into the ranks of the" leaders ", but they will never be in it, this elite will be admitted. So, they stand and will stand in the wings near the doors. Well, maybe they will scratch behind the ear in the form of the title of the best finance minister in the world, and whatever money is printed in the Fed, it’s so neither.
  10. Armata
    Armata 3 March 2013 15: 41
    Yes, it is to this little company to judge the legacy of the USSR and Stalin in particular. So read their biographies for fun. I especially liked the biography of Weller. Damn, he replaced more than 30 professions in his life. If a person has not succeeded anywhere other than balabolstvo, how can he evaluate others? Well, the rest is not better.
    1. avt
      avt 3 March 2013 16: 32
      Quote: Mechanic
      Yes, it is to this little company to judge the legacy of the USSR and Stalin in particular.

      Well, it's just that simple. Not with their minds, but with their flogged backside, they feel that they need to stay afloat, so they try to be, as they say nowadays, it seems to be in a “trend.” Purely intellectual attempts at intellectuality. The main thing is to join the topic, and then we'll see. Stalin lived in this round table does not pull. So, pegs hammered, staked out a site, threw a couple of interesting thoughts, lying on the surface. No, here it is necessary without emotions with feeling, really, arrangement. This is not an easy topic.
  11. Urrry
    Urrry 3 March 2013 15: 51
    Unfortunately, Stalin was unable to create a clear system of succession of power in which those worthy of this person would be attracted to the top management of the country ... most likely because he himself did not know how such a system could be built. Therefore, I understand the annoyance of the "Stalinist" given in the discussion that "Stalin was wrong that the system he created gave birth to Gorbachev" ... although of course this is not Stalin's personal fault - but the system really turned out to be too fragile when it was headed by an irresponsible "Gorbachev ":(
    Although perhaps this is the first fault of Kryuchkov, the old man is too relaxed ...
    1. Orik
      Orik 3 March 2013 19: 15
      Dear, the answer to succession lies in the answer to the question, what to perceive? Recently here in VO there was another article about Stalin, which pointed out the greed of marshalitarianism and generals after the war. That Zhukov was a bad marshal, no, but he broke on rags. The nomenclature wanted to die for the cause of the revolution, no, it wanted material wealth, although it fought in words for equality. I specially cite these examples, you can bring them from different periods of the life of Russia, this is the ETERNAL struggle of spirit and matter !!! Stalin (and any other great leader) can only create conditions for the spiritual growth of the people, but growth cannot be forced even by shooting (by shooting you can stop the degradation, like Alexander III). Spiritual growth is possible only under the condition of free (!) Choice of an individual person and people as a whole. Son, give me your heart! - this is how God speaks to us, His children. Why does He need our heart? Only in him can he be. And already external affairs, this is the result of the inner world, it is not in vain that we must judge by the fruits.
      To whom could Stalin convey, if there were no people around who could perceive, and even the great associates were weak in the historical perspective ?!
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 3 March 2013 20: 11
      He was not given, shot in the 34th Kirov. Then the war. And in the 53rd at first there was not enough life, and then Beria was killed. Perhaps foolishly killed, but the power went to Khrushchev from the Communist Party.
      1. Orik
        Orik 3 March 2013 20: 54
        Kirov (the moral side is in doubt, the husband of his mistress shot him) and Beria, only two people, even smart and talented, will not be able to solve anything. We take marshals and generals, only two Rokosovsky and the second I do not remember, were not seen in the export of rags from Germany wagons.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 3 March 2013 21: 14
          Quote: Orik
          We take marshals and generals, only two Rokosovsky and the second I do not remember, were not seen in the export of rags from Germany wagons.

          Surprisingly, for some reason, most of the widows of these generals did not find anything (in such quantities). Have you drunk? Or did the wives sell out in the markets?
          I remember, in a wave of revelatory publications of the 90s, I somehow came across an article about a search by Zhukov. The author shouted about money-grubbing with foam at the mouth and gave as an example ... a dozen identical men's gold watches in an office safe. It's funny, but I saw a similar box in the commander's safe. And I even know why they were there - to reward those who distinguished themselves, bypassing a long paperwork. The author of that opus, it seems, did not even suspect a similar method of use ... lol
          1. Orik
            Orik 3 March 2013 21: 31
            “Stalin, distinguished by his exceptional personal modesty, was simply amazed and humanly deeply wounded by the scale of the epidemic of grabbing, theft and looting, which swept over the top officer corps of the Soviet Army. After all, they were already given considerable rights to receive, according to the laws of war, trophy property. all of them were struck by an epidemic of greed so strong that its scale has not even been fully established.And some generals were so completely lost their heads that, insolently, they turned to Stalin with a demand to allow them unhindered entry into the country of their looted detained at customs One such colonel-general, received a unique Stalinist response in writing. At his request, Joseph Vissarionovich wrote a resolution stating that it was necessary to allow the passage of such-and-such a colonel's junk. In the blink of an eye, from colonel general to colonel ! That is, insolent and openly losing their minds from greed generals and marshals did not even understand that for such behavior they could easily lose their ranks! To the obvious surprise of many, I will not fail to say that there are only two marshals out of the top command personnel - the great marshal of the Great Victory Konstantin Konstantinovich Rokossovsky and the Chief Marshal of Aviation, the founder of Soviet long-range aviation, Alexander Evgenievich Golovanov, did not appear in the orgy of captured plunder of Germany!
  12. valokordin
    valokordin 3 March 2013 16: 10
    There probably already are comments, I read the article too carefully, but there is one conclusion, really I.V. Stalin is the greatest figure, not a friend of ours. No need to listen to these pimpled, bearded, red ginger. They bite the dead lion like scavengers, and it’s especially disgusting to listen to this blasphemy against the great man and lips of the country's leaders.
  13. Phoenix bird
    Phoenix bird 3 March 2013 16: 41
    Power is ultimately the right to commit violent acts. The monopoly on violence is assigned to the state, which, in turn, delegates this right to individual citizens, according to certain rules. They, in turn, being endowed with power, feel themselves masters of life.

    What does a person endowed with power feel? Can the human brain, in principle, pass the test of power? Especially for a long period of time. Five years, ten, twenty ... Does a person at the moment of gaining power differ from himself after some time? What is going on in his head at the same time?

    Power is hard to get. The competition is huge. It is easier to defeat competitors if you use dishonest methods, in the end - the very violence. At the same time, there will definitely be someone who is aware of all the dishonest manipulations. Whoever saw, heard, knows. Not all of them will be silent. Therefore, in a natural way, a power fighter has a huge number of enemies. He begins to be afraid of them. To get rid of fear - deploys a large-scale campaign to eradicate enemies. Naturally, by any means. Again, there are people who do not approve of "any" ways that go beyond the limits of decency. Etc. Fear is getting stronger, more violence. The person gets confused. An abundance of real and fictional enemies can lead to a persecution mania.
    On the other hand, he feels himself a king and a god. Well, he pressed a button - and there is no enemy. He said the word - and the whole country (region, enterprise) is changing. All this cannot but affect the mental state. The ability to commit violence makes you feel omnipotent. So megalomania can develop. Indeed, from the moment of gaining power, or even earlier, the brain begins to work in a mode of increased excitement. And the risk is great that a mentally ill person will begin to splash out his phobias and mania, forcing everything around.
    Say no? Leaders, emperors, Fuhrer, Duce, general secretaries, presidents ... How many millions died through their fault? Is it normal for society to delegate enormous powers to just one person, who ultimately represents one brain, with all its unstudied, contradictory and unpredictable nature?
    1. avt
      avt 3 March 2013 16: 52
      Quote: Phoenix Bird
      Say no? Leaders, emperors, Fuhrer, Duce, general secretaries, presidents ... How many millions died through their fault? Is it normal for society to delegate enormous powers to just one person, who ultimately represents one brain, with all its unstudied, contradictory and unpredictable nature?

      NEVER and ANYWHERE ONE person had AN ABSOLUTE authority, this error was inculcated by liberoids - admirers of Khrushchev, very convenient in order to write off his own responsibility. The Führer is to blame, we followed orders. Heard more than once. Well, the fact that ANY STATE IS VIOLENCE is a classic. request
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 3 March 2013 17: 50
        Hee hee ... karharodon ...
        you know how they didn’t understand you ... at one I beat off one minus ..
        Absolute authority ... - when the Bald Kukuruznik .. shoe from Skorokhod ... hollowed the UN rostrum ...
        it was - Absolute Powers ..
        No one from the USSR authorized him to do this ... But he is the only thing ...
        It's over ... the golden days ... are over.
        The people .. quickly learns.
        The same .. Obama .. took and 80 billion ... removed.
        The thing is different - what is it for ... external use.

        Not the printing presses ... he ruined ... our ludd, Obama.
        Live a century, learn a century - and you will die a fool ... by us, is it said?

        And as for the delegation of authority - ONE person ... - so I only ....
        Anything - FOR !!!!
        Because ... around such a MAN ... there will definitely arise - a ton of others ... PEOPLE ... well, etc.
        Competition, Mlyn .... freedom of speech .. Mlyn .. economic competition .. Mlyn ...
        FURNITURE ... Mlyn, the letter ..- x- ..
        1. avt
          avt 3 March 2013 19: 00
          Quote: Igarr
          Because ... around such a MAN ... there will definitely arise - a ton of others ... PEOPLE ... well, etc.
          Competition, Mlyn .... freedom of speech .. Mlyn .. economic competition .. Mlyn ...
          FURNITURE ... Mlyn, the letter ..- x- ..

          And then. They say - "The King is played by the retinue" Well, someone thinks about the past, someone else a guide to action. And sometimes a person reads and thinks - what kind of stupid letters? request
    2. Orik
      Orik 3 March 2013 19: 18
      The key question is why does man need power ?! Scum, for the maximum satisfaction of complexes and bestial needs. To Stalin, for service, for the realization of the great dream of justice.
  14. Nayhas
    Nayhas 3 March 2013 16: 47
    In Cambodia, probably also still comprehend the legacy of the good grandfather Pol Pot, who revived the great Angkor Empire ...
  15. Boris55
    Boris55 3 March 2013 16: 52
    Video with a speech by Furtsev:

    7039 /]]
  16. Boris55
    Boris55 3 March 2013 16: 53
    The value of I.V. Stalin for modern society.

    [media = http: //]
  17. Boris55
    Boris55 3 March 2013 16: 56
    Video in the topic. "The significance of I.V. Stalin for modern society":
    (no video is uploaded from Yandex ..)
  18. AleksUkr
    AleksUkr 3 March 2013 17: 21
    Within the framework of the current "liberal revenge", its adherents strive first of all to strike a blow at the most vulnerable spot of the Russian people - its historical memory, which in the popular mind is primarily associated with certain personalities who personify the history of Russia. In the project "The Name of Russia" it is no coincidence that the entire pedestal was occupied by Alexander Nevsky, Joseph Stalin and Peter I.
    The first defended the Russian Orthodox nation from Western "well-wishers" by entering into an "alliance" with the Horde, the third turned Russia into a great world power, and the second made it one of the two superpowers that have determined the course of historical development since the mid-XNUMXth century.
    To assert that “the Great Patriotic War was won by our people, not by Stalin and not even by the military leaders, for all the importance of what they were doing,” as President Medvedev does, is to sin against the truth. The self-sacrifice of the Russian people is beyond doubt, but no nation is capable of defeating the best army in the world if it is not led by outstanding personalities who make competent, timely, but very difficult political and military decisions. And the Russian people in that most difficult period of history had such a leader.

    It was Stalin who, with his ingenious decisions in the initial period of the war, ensured the final Victory in the Great Patriotic War, proving that he was the true national leader of the country.

    The ideological service of the removal of Stalin’s personality from the history of the Great Patriotic War and Victory itself is carried out by the hateful rather narrow circle of people “bound by one goal, bound by one chain” - a common source of funding. They flicker on the television screen and on the air, flow from one program to another, creating the appearance of a huge crowd, fiercely screaming with hatred. These “people against Stalin” support the ideology of any countries hostile to their own country.

    The people perfectly feel this and understand what accomplishments, such as the Victory over fascism, are forever connected with the name of Stalin. It is not even a matter of love for Stalin and of Stalin’s choice - the fact is that it is with this historical personality that the highest achievements of the state and people are connected. The rustle of green bills in individual pockets cannot be replaced by the independence, strength and dignity of the state, which was so much under Stalin.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 3 March 2013 17: 38
      The Internet has stripped them of their monopoly on the possession of truth. Back in that century, through the media, they could do whatever they wanted with the people. Everything, Their time has passed, and if the people still sober up, come out of a hangover dope and start thinking - then they will definitely come to an end.
  19. Igarr
    Igarr 3 March 2013 17: 39
    Enough ...
    Who is wrong ...
    Stalin - was a man of his era ...
    The era is over. With him.
    Why now .... excite MEMORY?
    We have been given free will.
    We are given - Reason ..
    Well .. ate ... let's use it ...
    And do not remember ...
    We must live ... and move ... and not take off our pants - and get excited !!
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 3 March 2013 17: 57
      Live one day! After us, even a flood! .... somewhere I already heard it ...

      "Homo sapiens should choose the paths laid by the greatest people, and imitate the most worthy, so that if not to compare with them in valor, then at least to be filled with her spirit." Niccolo Machiavelli

      "History is not a teacher, but a warden. She does not teach anything, but only punishes for the lesson not learned." Klyuchevsky

      You will not know the stories - you will repeat the same mistakes to the joy of those who know it.
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 3 March 2013 18: 50
        Live one day ....
        well, free - the will ... fools - paradise ...
        we will cycle on Stalin - we definitely won’t go forward ...
        I see ... you are very focused on quotes ..

        Well ... you ... yours ...
        ".. to imitate the most worthy, so that if not to compare with them in valor, then at least be filled with her spirit ...... "
        And all things ... what I had in mind.

        I hate ... cheap show-off ... ".. I've heard it somewhere ..."
        Tell where ??? I can ... easy ..
        Will it only become ... better?
    2. Orik
      Orik 3 March 2013 19: 27
      Frederick II, nicknamed the Great. "People who do not know history have the experience of their lives, people who know history have the experience of generations." (I can't vouch for the accuracy of the words, but the meaning is accurate)
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 3 March 2013 19: 44
        We love biting phrases ... we love.
        Only we constantly forget ... about the very first phrase ... whip ...
        "the more I know the world, the more I am convinced that I know less and less ", - .... I wanted to write - Anaxagoras ...
        and then thought - what if Anaximander .... ??
        And suddenly - Aristarchus of Samos .. ???
        or ......... Aristotle .. ???
        so who?
  20. SPACE
    SPACE 3 March 2013 17: 42
    Quote presenter "The first to speak will be Svyatoslav Yuryevich Rybas, writer, co-author of the fundamental work" Stalin. Fate and Strategy. "As a true democrat, in an absolutely voluntarist manner, I believe that this is the best that has been written about Stalin in our country ..."
    Quote Rybas "... Therefore, I would like to draw the following conclusions from this: forget Stalin, think about your children, think about the future of Russia, thank you."

    What is the promise ... Let's forget Stalin, Peter 1, Ivan the Terrible, bloody wars and the whole story. And that is what the historian says. He probably doesn’t know the statement “He who does not remember the past has no future”
    The country and its pompous current politicians still live in its shadow, millionaires of factories own what Stalin laid and much more ... Foreign jackals are still afraid of a killed lion. No, I think people and enemies will remember him, he will hang over the scum as a sword of Damocles in a constant reminder of reckoning. Maybe Stalin was sent over to punish and purify the country, I don’t know. But if the mess continues to go on for a couple more Serdyukovs, I won’t be surprised to hear the roar of the risen lion again.
  21. homosum20
    homosum20 3 March 2013 17: 49
    Brzezinski - the old Polish per.un, which has long been not listed on the political Olympus of the United States. By the way, an example of the fact that you can not create an idol. when global hatred for the USSR was demanded, this non-Polish hatred of the Russians for the Russians was taken for political science. As soon as there was a need for analytics and evaluations, it became clear that he had nothing but hatred. It’s like our (in my company) chief designer for special cranes: ask him to draw an A8 mode crane - no problem. Ask to draw a house, or the sun - you still get the A8 mode crane. He can’t draw anything else. Using it as an expert on crane construction would have ended in bankruptcy for us. As for America, the political science of Brzezinski.
    1. Stalinets
      Stalinets 3 March 2013 18: 57
      If you don't mind, read The Committee of 300 by John Coleman ......
  22. Phoenix bird
    Phoenix bird 3 March 2013 17: 54
    Quote: AleksUkr
    Within the framework of the current "liberal revenge", its adherents strive first of all to strike a blow at the most vulnerable spot of the Russian people - its historical memory, which in the popular mind is primarily associated with certain personalities who personify the history of Russia. In the project "The Name of Russia" it is no coincidence that the entire pedestal was occupied by Alexander Nevsky, Joseph Stalin and Peter I. The first defended the Russian Orthodox nation from Western "well-wishers" by concluding an "alliance" with the Horde, the third turned Russia into a great world power, and the second made it is one of the two superpowers that have determined the course of historical development since the middle of the twentieth century.

    Do not make the audience laugh.

    Peter, having spent European-style reforms, laid the foundation for enlightened patriotism, gave the Russian man the realization that he is equal in his abilities and nature to other nations, can compete with them in science, culture, crafts. This great achievement is enlightened patriotism: we are no worse than others, we just need to learn and work. Transformations of Peter led to the emergence of a new Russian nobility of the European type, for which the concepts personal honor, human dignity became higher than the patrimonial honor, and in defense of this honor did not sound slap on the tsar's porch, as it was before Peter, but duel blades. Thanks to Peter and Catherine II, Russia was laid foundations of civil society - After all, the nobility became the first emancipated class. Yes and Russian intelligentsia left the nobles: Aksakov, Annenkov, Apukhtin, Balakirev, Mussorgsky, Milyukov, Scriabin, Somov, Stolypin, Polonsky, Pushkin, Chaadaev, Chaplygin, Yablochkov, Languages, Yakushkin.

    Peter was opening a window to Europe, to what you called "Western well-wishers."
    All Peter's successes are based on borrowing the norms and cultural values ​​of civil society from Europe.
  23. honest jew
    honest jew 3 March 2013 18: 15
    Socialism was a gigantic project of a new type of government. Under Stalin, factories, research institutes, roads, and social facilities were built. The achievements of Soviet scientists were actively implemented.

    The man who conceived this was a true professional, who managed to create and implement a unique model of saving Russia. In the heroic 30s, Stalin relied on talented and strong people. I.V. Stalin was the only leader in the world who reduced the prices of consumer goods, while increasing the wages of workers and employees. For six years, he brought economically backward Russia to second place in the world in terms of production.

    In the difficult war years, the Russian people were lucky that it was Stalin who headed it. Stalin himself was even more fortunate: in his control was a people capable of creating and creating!
    1. Stalinets
      Stalinets 3 March 2013 18: 58
      Hehe, what kind of people are you talking about? Hope about Russian wink
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 3 March 2013 22: 32
        Quote: Stalinist
        Hehe, what kind of people are you talking about? Hope about Russian

        Well, of course it’s about Russian, because Jews in the USSR did not fight against Hitler, they preferred tourist trips to Auschwitz. And in general, no more people fought, even Stalin was Russian, from Ryazan. wink
  24. Nevsky
    Nevsky 3 March 2013 18: 47
    All this is good and healthy, and even right, that we revive the historical memory!

    But how to drive a genie at least neoliberalism back? The power reserve of the Soviet type of people is running out:

    1. Armata
      Armata 3 March 2013 19: 37
      Quote: Nevsky

      All this is good and healthy, and even right, that we revive the historical memory!

      But how to drive genie at least neoliberalism back? The power reserve of the Soviet type of people is running out:
      Well, not really running out. But these can not be saved. They are freaks from birth.
    2. Bubo
      Bubo 4 March 2013 07: 51
      Charge, remove from fuse and open fire ...
    3. ustin
      ustin 4 March 2013 08: 47
      here it is liberal democracy and freedom !, invented by politicisky perverts from nations, make brainless degenerators and what future these countries are waiting for ??? This is the end.
  25. selendis
    selendis 3 March 2013 18: 55
    You just need not to forget about the People, with a capital letter in the history of our country, about the symbols of the people, the power, since it was they who did everything for its good, suffering hardships, refusing welfare, believing in the idea. Stalin, I think it’s not my fault in what our country is mired in, there are no immortal people. And every politician bends his stick, changing the direction and opinion of people. I believe that we need to believe and strive for a better future, and I do not see other ways how Stalin did it. The gobbled up officials, the oligarchy, corruption, how else to rake it all? How to teach people to love their country and its leaders again? How to make people love their profession? And be ahead of the whole planet? We were able to do this with Him, here is a comparison ...
  26. AleksUkr
    AleksUkr 3 March 2013 18: 57

    Description of the property of Stalin I.V.

    “On March 5, 1953, at 22 p.m., I, the commandant of the Near Dacha Orlov, senior attached Starostin, Assistant Tukov, an employee of Butusov made an inventory of the property of Comrade Stalin I.V. at the direction of Comrade Beria.

    1. Notebook for notes, in a cover from a skin of gray color;
    2. Notebook, leather, red;
    3. Personal notes, notes drawn up on separate sheets and tear-off sheets. Numbered a total of 67 sheets (sixty-seven);
    4. General notebook with notes, red cover;
    5. Smoking pipes - 5 pcs. To them: 4 boxes and specials. devices, tobacco. In Comrade Stalin’s office: books, desk accessories, souvenirs are not included in the list.

    Bedroom and wardrobe:
    6. White tunic - 2 pcs. (The star of the Hero of Socialist Labor is attached to both).
    7. The tunic is gray, semi-daily - 2 pcs .;
    8. The tunic is dark green - 2 pcs .;
    9. Pants - 10;
    10. The underwear is folded into a box under No. 2.

    Boxed under number 3: 6 tunic jackets, 10 trousers, 4 greatcoats, 4 caps. Notebooks, notebooks, and personal notes are packed in a box under No. 1. Bath and shower accessories were packed in box No. 4. Other property belonging to Comrade Stalin was not included in the inventory. The time for completing the inventory and document is 0 hours 45 minutes on March 6, 1953.
    Present: (signature) ORLOV (signature) STAROSTIN (signature) TUKOV (signature) BUTUSOV.
    A savings book was discovered in the bedroom, 900 rubles were recorded in it.
    1. Phoenix bird
      Phoenix bird 3 March 2013 19: 15
      A person who does not need anything unknown to the needs of others.
      1. Deniska999
        Deniska999 3 March 2013 20: 53
        Stalin left behind a great country, and what will our billionaires leave? A bunch of humus. They will be forgotten, the memory of Stalin will be eternal.
    2. Vanyatko
      Vanyatko 3 March 2013 23: 47
      To the above. I.V. Stalin's two sons fought. One died. And what about EBN and the current "masters of life"?
  27. Black
    Black 3 March 2013 19: 27
    This is our national trait — self-digging with two outcomes — either, from horror and shame, we tear our hair out and repent, breaking our forehead into the blood,
    - or (less often) revel in their greatness.
    How much can you already! The repetition of neither those horrors, nor those great aspirations and deeds will be gone. Another time, another world, other people.
    Power (and who is at the helm, who is in the systemic opposition) parasitizes at that time, and some on achievements, others on horrors.
    It would be necessary to gradually grow out of Stalin's overcoat. We must move on, live on.
    1. Was mammoth
      Was mammoth 3 March 2013 21: 01
      Quote: Chen
      This is our national trait.

      Today I read in the comments:
      Man Kakoyta:
      Gypsies used to steal, Jews traded, and Russians fought.
      And now the gypsies are trading, the Russians are stealing, and the Jews are fighting. smile

      And this is serious: "Anton Pavlovich Chekhov once said that Russians love their past, hate the present and are afraid of the future."
  28. Spstas1
    Spstas1 3 March 2013 19: 39
    Forget Stalin, forget your great past (everything has already passed, they say), and build hell knows what’s for the joy, excuse me, who? ...
  29. morpex
    morpex 3 March 2013 19: 55
    In one thing I respect Stalin. In that he saved Russia from Zionism! Glorious 1937! That year, Stalin finally understood that it was not communism that was being built in the USSR, but Zionism - and he defeated it. After 1937, Suvorov and Kutuzov, Nakhimov and Ushakov, Bogdan Khmelnitsky and "The Knight in the Panther's Skin" returned to the country ... Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians were released from the camps - everyone who was rotted and destroyed by the Zionists under the article "nationalist" or "anti-Semite "Also, because Stalin knew that only Russian nationalism could be opposed to German nationalism! Only Russian national-patriotism could oppose the internal enemy - Zionism. And it is impossible to revive Russian nationalism without the Russian ideological and military elite. This was the main state Stalin's thought. This became Stalin's main secret weapon. The basis of the fuel, which gave impetus to the work of the state machine with maximum efficiency, was laid by Russian Nationalism.
    1. Stalinets
      Stalinets 4 March 2013 00: 56
      That's right. Stalin himself spoke about this.
  30. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 3 March 2013 20: 01
    The older generation remembers how students studied philosophy (and a sea of ​​anecdotes on this topic), senior students had a subject "social science" in which they described various philosophical teachings (even if from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, in my opinion, quite objectively).
    Stalin, as a person, did not appear out of nowhere, but as a consequence of the development of society. However, it is easier to hide your sins by creating myths about "tyrant, cannibal ..."
    "It seems to me that Stalin is our today's myth, one of the main, perhaps the last Soviet, post-Soviet myth, very important for today's culture." I. Karatsuba.
    "There was no other country like the Soviet Union where people were forced to live in such fear." Lecturer in Eastern European History at the Humboldt University Jörg Baberowski
    Sobchak, during perestroika, spoke for the first time and said that Stalin had killed six million people in the camps. Then, on radio "Russia", he brought the figure to sixty million. How is Goebbels about the lie?
    Stalin, the great historical figure who created the great country, the Soviet Union. So he will remain in history, as he will remain in the history of Judah-Gorbachev.
  31. Yasen Ping
    Yasen Ping 3 March 2013 20: 07
    Whatever the case, Stalin was a great man and such a walk would not be there for a long time, but it would be scary if he would ... Yes !!! we want thieves to be in prison and so on, but as you know, in our country there NEVER HAVE JUSTICE !!! ((((. And if it is the same as Stalin, we all get rid of, by the very best, ali? ?? and look at yourself ??? We almost all do not live for the Motherland, we almost all live only for ourselves (((
  32. washi
    washi 3 March 2013 20: 08
    I don’t remember who said: There was a cult, but there was a personality
  33. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 3 March 2013 20: 37
    I sent a comment and thought, but if instead of Stalin we substitute the stupid and not-so-distant Nikolai the Second Bloody (what are his only relations with Rasputin) next to Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman). How grief would this turn out for our country?
    1. djon3volta
      djon3volta 3 March 2013 22: 26
      Quote: There was a mammoth
      How grief would this turn out for our country?

      it’s not so simple. It’s not in vain that during the Second World War, like the priests with the icon, they went around the Kremlin, and so the Nazis began to retreat and lost the war. Sometimes you watch old shots as people go to the front, so grandmother baptize them along the roads! English and Russian wrestling the imperium of the Nikolaev family lasts more than one hundred years, in 1917 the Nikolaev empire fell ... the old nag Elizabeth the second, who thundered today to the hospital, knows very well that Russia will not be burnt to them as if they were trying to. They will remain on their dull islet to survive, and soon they will go down. how much varonovoy in their museums? there are innumerable riches, and all that has been welded up in India and Asia, I think the gold of the USSR is hobbled there too.
    2. Stalinets
      Stalinets 4 March 2013 01: 14
      Power came to Nicholas by inheritance, and in the end he abdicated (cowardly dog). And Stalin, with great difficulty, intercepted it from the international revolutionaries. If this scum Bronstein did not get sick, but came to the funeral of Lenin, then hell knows how it would be ...... And hell gave it. For which they poisoned. But he raised a toast to the Russian people ...
  34. Egoza
    Egoza 3 March 2013 20: 45
    Quote: Vasya
    There was a cult, but there was a personality

    - Konstantin Simonov.
  35. optimist
    optimist 3 March 2013 21: 02
    Dear forum users! Everything has been said and written about Stalin a long time ago, and hardly anyone will add anything significant. Our task is to draw historical parallels. I am 43 years old and I remember very well how, on the eve of the collapse of the USSR, the imminence of tremendous changes was simply physically felt. Most of us expected everything, anything, but not the collapse of the country. And now it seems that something appropriate is approaching. With the only big difference that 22 years ago the USSR was "merged" by its party elite, which officially wanted to have accounts and real estate abroad and other benefits that they could not have under the USSR. Now the situation is directly opposite: the top with all their might would like to "freeze" the current state of affairs, but only the most stupid do not understand that this is impossible. That the parasitism has come to an end on the remnants of the "Soviet reserve". That there will no longer be that "bad dough" that was before. So everyone began to stir. And the performances of the "hamsters" on Bolotnaya (or, to put it more simply, the obsessed Muscovites who once again did not fly to Thailand on vacation and did not update their car) once again confirm this truth. And the polemic that has flared up also points to this. The main difference between Stalin and the current "tsar" and his entourage is non-covetousness. (Above one of the members of the forum is an inventory of his property after death). And the GDP with its accomplices over the hill has so much in store that there will be enough for tens of generations of descendants. That's the whole story.
    1. Orik
      Orik 3 March 2013 22: 22
      I am 43 years old and I remember very well how, on the eve of the collapse of the USSR, the approach of enormous changes was simply physiologically felt. Most of us were waiting for anything, just the collapse of the country. And now, it seems, something is approaching.

      Oh, how it feels now and is approaching ...
  36. Genur
    Genur 3 March 2013 21: 09
    It's time to RESTORE the name of GREAT Stalin! . And return the name to Stalingrad. It would be nice for our pres ... (... to the premiers and ... the presidents) to take Lukashenko’s leadership as a model.
    1. djon3volta
      djon3volta 3 March 2013 22: 31
      Quote: Genur
      It's time to RESTORE the name of GREAT Stalin!

      for example, issue coins of 25 rubles with a portrait of Stalin from two sides! good
  37. Gari
    Gari 3 March 2013 22: 32
    Who and what did not say, and Churchill himself, who can hardly be suspected of sympathizing with Stalin, said that, "Stalin accepted Russia with a plow, and left with an atomic bomb."
    We can say with confidence that all subsequent achievements in science can confidently say the achievements of those times.
    And about personal wealth, he walked in his greatcoat and boots and slept on the couch.
    As I said, I don’t remember who, when asked about whether there was a cult of personality, he answered, I didn’t know whether the cult was, but the Person was.
    I remember a story that I heard from a relative of a pilot from childhood. He was a Stalinist falcon, the commander of the Georgians took care of him, did it on ethnic grounds, because the Armenian seemed to have great fun, he just shot him. One can imagine what was waiting for him - to shoot him commander, Georgian, and even at the front
    and he wrote a letter to Stalin (also like Georgians) and explained everything - and that Stalin ordered not to touch him, they say it’s not his fault, he left him there and he fought and how he also fought for his homeland and for his own friend Stalin.
    But they fled to the enemy to death, they screamed for their homeland, for Stalin
  38. Click
    Click 4 March 2013 00: 21

    Something for the next generation means one whose business lives after his death.
    Mao, Lincoln, and so on.

    The last political legacy of Koba in the form of republics and the Eastern bloc was covered with copper basin 20 years ago. Sonya wakes up time: D
    1. Stalinets
      Stalinets 4 March 2013 01: 04
      Covered. The fifth column in the form of the uninhabited Trotskyists. Therefore, you need to know the enemy in person. There was nothing wrong with the eastern bloc. This is not the European Union ... By the way, what for did they need this for? Here one must not fall in love with a person, but learn and comprehend what he taught. Stalin and his ideas, this is the only right way. And not only for Russia. The economic policy of Stalin is a chance for any country. And Russia, God himself commanded. By the way, you forgot to mention such a trifle as the Stalinist constitution ..... God forbid Russia .... Only the fifth column is a big obstacle .... recourse
  39. alkach555
    alkach555 4 March 2013 00: 23
    In no case should Stalin be forgotten. This is a world class figure. At that time, he had no equal and will not be soon.
  40. s1н7т
    s1н7т 4 March 2013 01: 30
    "a quote from Charles de Gaulle, who literally said the following:" Stalin did not go into the past, he dissolved in the future ""
    I hope de Gaulle was right.
    But the current ones, alas, didn’t come out of the brain, because what are their billions against a pair of Stalin’s worn boots?
    1. Renat
      Renat 4 March 2013 09: 07
      I really hope that de Gaulle's prophecy will come true. In general, he was a smart leader. In my opinion, he alone managed to sell dollars to amers for gold. After that, the inscription "provided with gold" disappeared from the candy wrappers.
  41. noein
    noein 4 March 2013 01: 57
    When!? When does the Personality come !? And finally, put things in order in the post-Soviet space. What would the great Banner of the new Union / Empire once again proudly fly in the wind, reminding the enemies that how many do not destroy us, we will again and again stand up from the ashes like a phoenix and become even stronger!
  42. fenix57
    fenix57 4 March 2013 03: 27
    Quote: Georges14
    including capital punishment - 642 980 "
    Including ... professional traitors, such as Gorbachev ..

    Nowadays, there are those who are new every day .. and what rank are the officials!. That's for whom it is necessary to return the firing line. Under Stalin, everyone! the official knew that the punishment was inevitable.! hi
  43. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 4 March 2013 07: 52
    Stalin does not need praise and glorification; he died 60 years ago and he will remain in history forever.
    Russia needs Stalin's official return to the place in official history that he deserves.
    The country's commander-in-chief defeating a strong aggressor, surpassing her in all respects, deserves to be the main character on the Victory Day.
    1. Stalinets
      Stalinets 4 March 2013 07: 59
      Stalin needs to be studied, because he understood the essence! Stalin is our chance. yes
  44. Roomata
    Roomata 4 March 2013 08: 24
    honestly I don’t know what to say ....
    1. Armata
      Armata 4 March 2013 08: 42
      Listen to the advice. If you do not know what to say, it is better to remain silent and pass by.
  45. Renat
    Renat 4 March 2013 09: 01
    Whatever they say, do not write about him, it is everyone’s business to think as he himself wants it. All these words, empty concussion. The 37th year and all repressions attributed to Comrade Stalin is nothing compared to the horrors of the nineties and zero. Yes, and today is the truth.
    Has anyone after him enjoyed the same popularity of his people and the fear and great respect of his enemies?
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 4 March 2013 10: 56
      It is true that in 1937 there were no racketeers, pimps, drug and slave traders, children and women were not sold abroad, thugs were not enough and they did not force girls in broad daylight in the center of Moscow and other cities, as in the 90s.
      Thieves in law did not sit in government, and the cops, judges and prosecutors did not creep in front of thieves, bandits and other criminals.
      In 1937, thieves were in camps, and not in thoughts, bandits and terrorists were not allowed to give interviews to foreigners, and without further ado, smeared their foreheads with greenhouse.
  46. ustin
    ustin 4 March 2013 09: 02
    Comrade Stalin, get up !!! Russia is in danger ...
  47. Government
    Government 4 March 2013 10: 10
    He has both + and -, + + this is the raising of the country from chaos and the revival of morale for the country! - these are mass repressions, this can be understood when you know that every person in that dark history of the Russian land could undermine the political system and again revolution and chaos again ... you should always sacrifice something, but if you think about it, WHAT IF IF WOULD NOT BUILD HYDROPOWER PLANTS AND OTHER BUILDINGS WHICH STILL DO NOT DESTROY AS THE PRESENT ??? !!!! ?????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????
  48. wolf1945
    wolf1945 4 March 2013 10: 25
    Glory to the great STALIN! soldier
  49. user3970
    user3970 4 March 2013 14: 49
    I’ll add my 5 kopecks to the polemic ... I’ll answer the Mechanic about Weller. As Weller himself explained, he is from the Germans. Regarding work, he is a writer, and they began to publish him after 35 years, but I want to eat every day. I recommend everyone to read his books: "Samovar", "All About Life", "Great Last Chance" and you will understand, if you love a book, that now with Weller, as a writer and philosopher, there is no one to put up. And further . I agree with the Optimist and Oric. Analyzing what is happening now in the presentation of information (whether artistic, documentary, or journalistic), society is being prepared for extraordinary measures. ... There are two options: either V.VP. felt the edge - further abyss, or accumulated strength to break the system.