Military Review

Scenario of decline. 60 years ago, 21 March, March 1953, the government of the USSR adopted a plan for "deindustrialization"

77
Scenario of decline. 60 years ago, 21 March, March 1953, the government of the USSR adopted a plan for "deindustrialization"The US State Department, which very closely monitored the situation in the Soviet Union (and tracks in Russia), in February 1954 made the following forecast: “... the industrial development of the USSR and the development of transport links between its regions may slow down due to the cancellation of the industrial program 1953-1954 ... The country has focused on agriculture and, mainly, on the development of vast virgin lands, which will last at least five to six years. This circumstance can also lead to a slowdown in the industrial development of the USSR ... ”Unfortunately, the conclusions of the Americans were confirmed, and, above all, with regard to the RSFSR.


The fundamentals of such a pernicious policy for the country were determined by a decree of the USSR Council of Ministers on March 21 of 1953. This document actually canceled the Stalinist economic policy. We will cite only some of the main provisions of that governmental decision, the negative consequences of which are manifested to this day, and will still make themselves known for a long time.

"Top secret

21.03.1953 G., N 149

Considering that the construction of a number of hydraulic structures, railways, highways, and enterprises, envisaged by earlier resolutions of the Government, is not caused by the urgent needs of the national economy, the USSR Council of Ministers resolves:

1. Stop the construction of the following objects:

a) hydraulic structures - the Main Turkmen Canal; gravity channel Volga — Ural; Volgobalty waterway (second line); waterworks on the Lower Don; Ust-Donetsk port;

b) railways and highways - Chum-Salekhard-Igarka railway (“Polar Trans-Siberian Railway”. - A.Ch.), incl. ship repair shops, a port and a village in the Igarka region; Komsomolsk — Pobedino railway; tunnel under the Tatar Strait; Apatity — Cave — Ponoy railway; railway Varfolomevka — Chuguevka - Olga bay; Chuguevka — Sergeevka railway; Arkhangelsk — Ruchi — Mezen railway; Krasnoyarsk-Yeniseisk railway; the railway Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky — Ust-Bolsheretsk; motorway Ust-Bolsheretsk — Ozerovsky fish factory; highways on the Kola Peninsula, in the Arkhangelsk and Murmansk regions and on the coast of the Baltic Sea;

c) industrial enterprises - Kirov Chemical Plant; Montenegrin artificial liquid fuel plant; Aralichevsk artificial liquid fuel plant; shipyard metal shipbuilding in Osetrovo.

2. To oblige the ministries: lines of communication (Comrade Beshchev), power plants and the electric industry (Comrade Pervukhin), agriculture and the procurement of the USSR (Comrade Kozlov), sea and river fleet (t. Shashkova), metallurgical industry (t. Tevosyan), oil industry (t. Baybakova), chemical industry (t. Tikhomirova):

a) within two weeks to work out and submit to the USSR Council of Ministers measures for the conservation or liquidation of the construction and cost estimates indicated in paragraph 1 for this purpose;
b) take measures for the complete safety of unfinished construction objects, bring them to a condition suitable for conservation, and ensure the use of the utility enterprises, equipment and materials for other economic purposes that are terminated at construction.

3. Oblige Gosplan USSR:

a) make the necessary changes arising from this decree in the plans of the relevant ministries for 1953 year;

b) withdraw funds for metal, fuel, building materials, equipment and other funds allocated for the 1953 year for objects terminated by construction.

4. Oblige the Ministry of Defense of the USSR (t. Vasilevsky):

a) to stop the acquisition of two road-building divisions, stipulated by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated 30 in January 1953, No. 273-126-с, which are entrusted with the construction of the railway Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky — Ust-Bolsheretsk and the Ust-Bolsheretsk highway —Ozerkovsky fish factory;

b) to disband the road military construction units formed on the basis of the Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 3865-1767ss from 8 of October 1951 of the year to perform work on the construction of roads on the Kola Peninsula, in the Arkhangelsk Region and on the Baltic Sea coast.

5. To oblige the USSR Ministry of Finance to make changes in the balance of income and expenditure for 1953 for the ministries in accordance with this decree. ”



The document, as you can see, is very detailed. But today, few people know, and especially remember that, back in the beginning of the 1950's, around the 20 economic and transport research institutes of the USSR and before 40 all-union and republican economic ministries presented I.V. Stalin and the USSR government jointly developed a forecast of disproportions in the Soviet economy.

It was noted that in many regions of the country the development of industrial sectors, energy facilities, including those based on local raw materials, as well as transport facilities, is required. Otherwise, these regions will be less and less involved in trade with other regions. And this problem was the most urgent for the RSFSR. The document also indicated that these issues were planned to be resolved in 1953-1955.

However, it seems that the further industrialization of Russia as the basis of the Soviet Union was not part of the plans of the post-Stalin leadership.

However, we note that in 1960-x - the beginning of 1980-s up to a third of those projects were implemented. It was necessary to recall the industrial program outlined at the beginning of 1950, but no one said a word that the well-known “anti-industrial” government decree of March 21 from 1953 turned out to be wrong or should be canceled.

And some of those plans are still being implemented today: for example, the Polar Transsib; the creation of the port of Mezen and the Arkhangelsk-Mezen railway; Kirov Chemical Plant; in the Leningrad, Kaliningrad, and Murmansk regions - the construction of railways and roads along the coast of the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic and Barents seas. Governors of the Arkhangelsk and Novgorod regions spoke to the author about the relevance of the industrial program canceled in 1953.

Characteristically, in other Union republics, only a few, literally a few, projects were “frozen” or canceled. As a result, for example, in the field of transport, due to the cancellation or long-term preservation of projects of many ports and land arteries, the Soviet Union in 1960-1980-s (and for the same reason modern Russia) suffered great damage in the field of maritime transport, development ports and, in general, in the competitiveness of the domestic transport system. The USSR had to spend large sums of money on the transit of its cargo through neighboring countries.

Russia today is also forced to use the transit services of the Baltic States, Finland, Poland, Turkey, China, North Korea, Iran and Ukraine, which in total costs, according to expert estimates, 400 million dollars annually. Not to mention the current imbalances in interregional transport and economic relations, the problems of industrial and integrated development of many regions both in the former RSFSR and in modern Russia. Therefore, for example, the vast Far Eastern, Northern, and Eastern Siberian territories are still deprived of modern transport arteries and ports.

But Kamchatka, the Magadan Region, many territories of the Krasnoyarsk, Perm Territories, the Northern Urals and the Arkhangelsk Region and almost all the Arctic ports of Russia are still not connected with each other or with other regions of the country.

Let us emphasize one more strategic circumstance: after 5 in March 1953 (death of I. Stalin) no similar Soviet project was canceled in any country in Eastern Europe. The “Stalinist” projects in other “fraternal” socialist countries were not canceled.

According to the available data, embassies and trade missions of these countries in the early to mid-April 1953 asked the Soviet government whether the plans for financial, economic and scientific and technical assistance of the USSR, including industrial, transport, energy projects, would be revised. And at the end of April, the 1953-th Kremlin responded in the sense that the decision of March 21 would not be “repeated” with respect to these states. As a result, the economic growth rates in all socialist countries from the middle of the 1950's to the beginning of the 1980's were at least one third higher than in the USSR. And, I emphasize, - half, if not twice, than in the RSFSR.

These facts and factors also explain why the rates of industrial growth in the RSFSR already from the middle of the 1950-s increased "symbolically", and in most other Union republics, and the socialist countries, these rates were really high. If, however, take into account the methods of organization and the consequences of the so-called. of the virgin campaign, and similar Khrushchev events after the “virgin soil” or its accompanying ones, it is reasonable to assume: was it not the most important task of the post-Stalinist policy to turn the RSFSR (Russia!) into one of the least industrialized republics of the USSR?
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru
77 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. radio operator
    radio operator 23 March 2013 09: 29 New
    12
    Unfortunately, Khrushchev decided to turn off the path of modernizing the country by embarking on the rails of building communism.
    The beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire.
    1. rate
      rate 23 March 2013 13: 26 New
      +5
      The debunking of Stalin is what Hitler would like. But the laurels of Khrushchev. Such are the twisted stories.
      1. Zic
        Zic 23 March 2013 16: 55 New
        -31
        Hitler and Stalin are now probably sitting in hell and drinking cocktails.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 23 March 2013 17: 54 New
          19
          I’ll clarify that Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt and the Emperor of Japan are the main instigators of WWII. Stalin did not belong to WWII organization.
          1. opkozak
            opkozak 23 March 2013 20: 32 New
            +5
            For especially illiteratetype Setracwho remembered familiar words.
            Quote: Setrac
            I’ll clarify that Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt and the Emperor of Japan are the main instigators of WWII.

            World War II began with the partition of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Churchill, Roosevelt and Hirohito in Munich were not mentioned.

            Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini and Ciano



            Edouard Daladier (center) with Joachim von Ribbentrop at a meeting in Munich at 1938
            1. Kaa
              Kaa 23 March 2013 20: 44 New
              +4
              Quote: opkozak
              World War II began with the partition of Czechoslovakia in 1938.

              I’m afraid the Chinese will disagree with you ... they were already slaughtered by tens of thousands by this time ... it’s not a European war, but a world war ... then these same Japanese crossed with the Americans, and only after that Hitler declared war on the USA .
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 23 March 2013 21: 07 New
                12
                Dear Kaa, you beat me about the Chinese.
                I’ll add for opkozak (I don’t add dear, because I don’t know how to persuade your nickname): the war happened because some empires owned the world (France, Britain, USA), others wanted to be shared with them (Germany, Japan, Italy, Poland (at least it doesn’t attract the empire), I’ll say right away, not all are mentioned, but the USSR does not appear here in any way.
                As a result of the war, one empire lost the role of hegemon (Britain), the other acquired this role (USA), as they say in criminology, there is a crime, there is a motive, etc. Actually, Japan and Germany are the performers, the USA is the customer, China and the USSR are the victims. Britain and France are also a LIKE victim, but as a member of the Organized Crime Group, they also belong to the culprits.
                1. Kaa
                  Kaa 23 March 2013 21: 13 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Setrac

                  Dear Kaa, you beat me about the Chinese.

                  I will no longer ... repeat In general, it’s nice that I’m not the only one who thinks so ... it means, not paranoia, it’s too early for doctors to give up good
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 23 March 2013 21: 54 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Kaa
                    In general, it’s nice that I’m not the only one who thinks so ... it means, not paranoia, it’s too early for doctors to give up

                    Here we must add the myth that the USSR suffered the greatest losses in WWII, China suffered the largest losses in people.
                    1. vladim.gorbunow
                      vladim.gorbunow 24 March 2013 12: 11 New
                      0
                      Let me enter your paranoid club. WWII in historical tradition should be called the War of the British Succession. They persistently imposed on us that the Entente's financial claims against Germany were the cause of the war. And they are silent that in 1932, following the results of the Lausanne Conference, Britain defaulted on the American debt (up to $ 7 billion), France joined (up to 5 billion). Italy (3,6) and a mass of small debtors. The British Empire passed laws on imperial preferences, crowding out American business from the colonies (losses of up to $ 7 billion). The Roosevelt New Administration had to devalue $, according to Johnson's law of 04. 34 Americans were threatened up to 5 years for trading in English securities. The Roosevelt policy of good neighborliness allowed the British to be expelled from Latin America. The confrontation was global. And with 36 g, an unprecedented, multi-year arms program was launched, including the construction of a millionth tonnage of super-linkors, super-carriers, etc., thousands of armada of strategic bombers (there were no analogues in the world). The total expenditures on defense of Germany and the USSR until June 41 are several times less than the US.
              2. Azzzwer
                Azzzwer 24 March 2013 21: 22 New
                0
                Quote: Kaa
                it’s not about European, but world war ... then these same Japanese and Americans crossed

                in the photo the uniform of Japanese soldiers does not correspond to the 30 - 40 years of the twentieth century. It's rather 20 - e years ... Before WWII is still very far away ... however ...
          2. aleshka
            aleshka 24 March 2013 19: 56 New
            0
            strong, but too emotional !!!
        2. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 24 March 2013 10: 30 New
          +6
          ... You're wrong...
          Kolka Savindze is your idol?
        3. Azzzwer
          Azzzwer 24 March 2013 21: 15 New
          -1
          Quote: Zic
          Hitler and Stalin are now probably sitting in hell and drinking cocktails.
          but your avatar speak for you myself!
      2. aviator46
        aviator46 25 March 2013 00: 53 New
        -7
        GULAG dispersed ... there was no one to build.
        And so these construction sites claimed thousands of lives.
        And the tunnel under the Tatar Strait is generally a complete scam.
        1. anip
          anip 25 March 2013 05: 17 New
          +1
          How many percent of the working population were in the Gulag? But is it known that now no less criminals are sitting in the camps? Do they all raise the country's economy in construction sites?
          And about the tunnel under the strait, which is supposedly a scam, you tell the Japanese, they’ll be very surprised, and the British and the French will be no less surprised.
        2. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee 26 March 2013 06: 23 New
          +6
          Now we are considering the project of a tunnel or bridge crossing from Sakhalin to the mainland ... Is this also a scam?
    2. wax
      wax 24 March 2013 01: 20 New
      +4
      Khrushchev wanted to please the people against Stalin’s background in an easier way, as it seemed to him, through virgin soil, thereby increasing the production of grain, meat, milk, eggs. Stalin, solving short-term tasks, never lost sight of strategic issues. The implementation of the industrial plan along with the implementation of the Stalinist plan for the transformation of nature in the USSR would give longer-term and effective results.
    3. Nesvet Nezar
      Nesvet Nezar 24 March 2013 22: 42 New
      0
      The economy is tied to demography as well as to capital and resources and technologies. The USSR collapsed due to a lack of working hands. America pretends to be smart, but the problems with working with their hands are serious. Thanks to the collapse of the USSR and the transfer of production to China, America pulled its end in a direct and figurative sense.
  2. Goga
    Goga 23 March 2013 09: 52 New
    13
    Khrushchev is as much an enemy of the people and the country as his follower Gorbachev. All this was done not out of stupidity or foolishness, but deliberately by order of the behind-the-scenes "puppeteers". It's just that they managed to remove Khrushch (healthy forces were still preserved in the country), and there was no one to remove Humpbacked - the comm system rotted ...
    1. aleks
      aleks 23 March 2013 12: 35 New
      0
      And if Khrushchev hadn’t mastered the virgin lands, then Brezhnev wouldn’t have fed the people, and where people would have lived — they forgot that only 10 years after the war ended, leaving 2/3 of the population without shelter and working hands.
      1. Nicholas C.
        Nicholas C. 23 March 2013 12: 52 New
        11
        Quote: aleks
        if Khrushchev hadn’t mastered the virgin lands, later Brezhnev, than would have fed the people

        Smart people, Molotov, for example, believed that it was necessary to develop agriculture in the RSFSR, and not in the virgin lands, which would give more. As it turned out, they were right, not Khrushchev.
        1. Zynaps
          Zynaps 23 March 2013 17: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: Nikolai S.
          Molotov, for example, believed that it was necessary to develop agriculture in the RSFSR, and not in the virgin lands


          experts note. virgin lands were not only the territory of northern Kazakhstan, but also, for example, the Orenburg region.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 23 March 2013 13: 59 New
        +5
        They would feed them with grub, the contribution of virgin lands was so meager that in the harvest year one could not plow there. It was just that virgin land itself yielded good yields only in the first years, and then depletion, but they put big and thick ones on agricultural machinery and restoration of soil fertility, destroying everything that was created in this direction under Stalin.
        1. Kaa
          Kaa 23 March 2013 20: 50 New
          0
          Quote: Avenger711
          the contribution of virgin lands was so meager that in the harvest year it was possible not to plow there

          There is an opinion that all the "development of virgin lands" in the 50s was a grandiose disinformation campaign to cover up the process of deploying missile bases in Kazakhstan - huge transport shipments, "I can see everything from above, you should know it." And here - a logical explanation - the Komsomol is peacefully developing virgin and fallow lands ... what is there in the echelons ... you can't place agent intelligence everywhere bully
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 24 March 2013 10: 35 New
            +4
            Something this "misinformation" strongly resembles the one that "lured" the Germans into the Rzhev salient in 1941-1942.
      3. dark_65
        dark_65 23 March 2013 16: 03 New
        +5
        Damn, this is mild ... well, at least you need to understand the history of the country .. is it really hard work?
        Yes, almost the entire virgin harvest went nowhere, there was simply nowhere to store it, the elevator, it is not virgin, it needs to be built, and not a year.
      4. Wertynskiy
        Wertynskiy 24 March 2013 11: 08 New
        +2
        Quote: aleks
        And if Khrushchev hadn’t mastered the virgin lands, then Brezhnev wouldn’t have fed the people, and where people would have lived — they forgot that only 10 years after the war ended, leaving 2/3 of the population without shelter and working hands.

        And what does Japan, for example, feed its people now? Probably bread from the developed virgin land? Khrushchev simply gave up and was frightened by the grandeur of Stalin's plans. he was unable to comprehend and implement those strategic projects. which were developed under the leadership of Stalin. plus to this I wanted an easy glory, like "enough to fight, let's live for our pleasure."
      5. Cheloveck
        Cheloveck 24 March 2013 13: 06 New
        0
        Quote: aleks
        And if Khrushchev hadn’t mastered the virgin lands, then Brezhnev wouldn’t have fed the people, and where people would have lived — they forgot that only 10 years after the war ended, leaving 2/3 of the population without shelter and working hands.

        The development of virgin land was planned under Stalin, but he emphasized that this development should be carried out gradually, simultaneously with the development of agricultural in traditional areas. Back in the 52nd, Stalin severely criticized Nikita for his plan for the general cultivation of virgin lands.
        Khrushchev played his ambitions (Trotskyist methods, if you look), but his mind was sorely lacking.
        If you look at his reign, then all his "innovations" were in the nature of high-profile campaigns.
        Tselin - they all plowed at a time, got two crops, then for decades they tried to restore the soil.
        "Debunking the cult of personality" - no comment (because moderators will still delete for profanity angry )
        Missiles - missiles flew, the fleet was launched for scrap.
        Catch up and overtake - the beginning of the soldering of workers right at the enterprises.
        The liquidation of private (cooperative) enterprises - all at once, which instantly led to a decrease in the range of products in stores and in the end led to the so-called subsidizing of enterprises. (here it is also necessary to mention that the liquidation of artels led to an undefined status of collective farms, which, coupled with their mediocre enlargement and attempts to liquidate private households, as well as "general cornification" led the country to grain imports)
        1. Stalinets
          Stalinets April 3 2013 05: 25 New
          0
          That's right !!! yes
      6. anip
        anip 25 March 2013 05: 35 New
        0
        Quote: aleks

        And if Khrushchev hadn’t mastered the virgin lands, then Brezhnev would have fed the people ...

        Would be fed. No developed industrial country is starving. To do this, they have enough funds to develop their agriculture in an intensive way and to buy food from agricultural countries.

        Quote: aleks
        ... and where people would live - they forgot that only 10 years after the war ended, leaving 2/3 of the population homeless ..

        What is the relationship between raising virgin lands and the fact that 2/3 of the population is homeless? On the contrary, it turns out that it is necessary to develop industry and rebuild housing and the social sphere.

        And this full pearl:
        Quote: aleks
        leaving 2/3 of the population homeless and working hands.

        completely incomprehensible. Is it like 2/3 of the population without workers ??? Hands in 2/3 of the population got sick, or what, or what?
    2. Strezhevchanin
      Strezhevchanin 24 March 2013 10: 29 New
      +5
      Pay attention to the date, only some 16 days ago Stalin died !!! The question arises, why is it so zealous, Comrade Khrushchev so dramatically changed the course of the country? All of the above proves that it was Dismantling and not Deindustrialization, an openly destructive policy for any country. hi
      1. Cheloveck
        Cheloveck 24 March 2013 13: 25 New
        +3
        Quote: Strezhevchanin
        Pay attention to the date, only some 16 days ago Stalin died !!! The question arises, why is it so zealous, Comrade Khrushchev so dramatically changed the course of the country? All of the above proves that it was Dismantling and not Deindustrialization, an openly destructive policy for any country.

        You are right.
        And many other details confirm your idea.
  3. kosmos84
    kosmos84 23 March 2013 10: 06 New
    +4
    corncob = gorbachev
    1. ia-ai00
      ia-ai00 23 March 2013 19: 05 New
      +7
      The corn-grower also "chopped off" the Crimea from Russia, cut off the land from the villagers, as they said "under the threshold", i.e. left for 6 acres, like summer residents. Introduced taxes on fruit trees, livestock (as they called "tails"), as well as on bees. Because of this, people cut out gardens with tears, slaughtered cattle. And among the people all his life they called him nothing but "Cursed Khrushch" ...
  4. Nagaibak
    Nagaibak 23 March 2013 10: 49 New
    +2
    Of course, many projects were canceled, and this can be shitty. But, talking about de-industrialization of the country in 1953 is somehow too ... already ...
  5. fenix57
    fenix57 23 March 2013 11: 12 New
    +9
    It seems like he wanted the best, but it turned out ...... through the ass:
    Khrushchev is asked the question:
    - Nikita Sergeevich, is it true that under communism we will order products by phone?
    - True, they will only be issued on TV. hi
  6. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 23 March 2013 11: 24 New
    +1
    I wouldn’t really want to cherish the idea of ​​deindustrialization. The task was to feed the country and the growing population, because of which, of course, it was necessary to curtail part of large-scale projects. Another thing is that all this was brought to life was, as often happened, through the ass. request
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 23 March 2013 12: 29 New
      12
      Quote: Vladimirets
      I wouldn’t really want to cherish the idea of ​​deindustrialization. The task was to feed the country and the growing population, because of which, of course, it was necessary to curtail part of large-scale projects. Another thing is that all this was brought to life was, as often happened, through the ass


      Khrushchev lacked experience and education in order to wisely lead the state. Due to his thoughtless and extravagant orders, our industry and agriculture were on the verge of collapse, as a result, the country was abandoned several decades ago.
      His main projects such as [b] de-Stalinization and the Thaw [/ b] led to the revival and revitalization of the pro-Western fifth column in the country. not democratization and the return of Leninist norms of party life.
      [b] The development of virgin lands [/ b-] gave a short-term growth in agricultural production by as much as 54% in the early 60s, an ecological catastrophe occurred on the virgin lands, after which grain purchases abroad began (1962). At this time, in addition to capitals and large cities, the country really did not have enough food, prices increased and, as a result, inflation and "monetary reform" Mother told me that when I was born with food it was very difficult (this is Krasnoyarsk), there was only seaweed in the stores, and instead of beef was not a rare occurrence, bear meat was, the babies were crying, no one could understand why. it turned out to be elementary from the fact that breast milk in women is almost water due to lack of nutrition. This was also facilitated by [b] the ban on keeping livestock in personal property [/ b] and the defeat [b] of the Stalinist consumer cooperatives [/ b]. Moreover, in 1954. he abolished the tax on livestock for private households, which immediately gave an increase in livestock production by 24%. and in 1958, as if afraid of this, he introduced a complete ban, after which all personal livestock was slaughtered? How can this be explained by stupidity or betrayal? And the "cornification"? When forced to plant corn even in the Arkhangelsk region. (when I served in Plesetsk, people told me).
      The military reform and the started Caribbean crisis (for which Brezhnev called him an eccentric with the letter m) is ambiguous. He can probably be credited with the "Khrushchevs", and the creation of the Strategic Missile Forces, coupled with the fact that the USSR became a great space power.
      Even the monument on his grave is symbolic - there are no contrasts, only black and white.
      1. nnz226
        nnz226 23 March 2013 14: 23 New
        +9
        I want to spit on this monument! Although I understand about the mockery of the graves. But this "figure" deserves it! in power - the result is the destruction of the USSR (plus Crimea as part of an independent territory)
        1. Zynaps
          Zynaps 23 March 2013 18: 13 New
          0
          To enlighten your clip thinking, download V. Simchera's academic work "Development of the Russian economy over 100 years" and study what and how much Nikita did on a national scale. as if the almost 4-fold increase in the standard of living of the population and the commissioning of this and that speaks for it much more eloquently than the knocking of bast shoes on the UN rostrum.

          Crimea, on the other hand, was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR, and not to the "Square". that Crimea is not in Russia - for that say thanks to Bor Yeltsin and the authors of Bolshoi Hapok. so much wasted there that the Crimea would seem like a molecule in space.

          and what was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR, it was advisable with t.z. economics. The peninsula is 90% dependent on external supplies of electricity and Dnieper water for irrigated lands. Yes, and many problems had to be solved through the ass. first in Moscow, then in Kiev. It turned out that most issues are easier to solve in Kiev. Sevastopol, Donuzlav, military space and other strategic objects remained behind Moscow. Other rulers fused them to Kiev.
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 24 March 2013 11: 02 New
            +8
            Quote: Zynaps
            Nikita made nationwide. as if almost an almost 4-fold increase in the standard of living of the population and the commissioning of this

            ... yeah ...
            In 1962, in Novocherkassk, the people were "fed" with 9 mm lead ...
            People across the country lined up at bakeries in the evening to say "thank you" for the gray bread mixed with peas. White bread was a pipe dream ...
            With the advent of the voluntarist to power, the country lost forward movement, and further moved by inertia.
            A bunch of high-ranking nomenclators seized power in a fight.
            And so that the follower of Stalin L. Beria, God forbid, not interfere, was quickly shot.
            All administrators of production workers who have proven their skills during the war (D. Malyshev, for example) were removed from all posts.
            The Communist Party of the Soviet Union began to methodically "eat" itself from the inside: the desire for privileges to eat and drink tasty food led to the appointment of ordinary "disciplined party members" to responsible leadership positions, who began to sow and harvest grain not for the weather, but on a call from the regional party committee.
            The peak of this kind of management is "Uzbek business".
            And that’s not all ...
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop 24 March 2013 12: 05 New
            +1
            Quote: Zynaps
            and what was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR, it was advisable with t.z. economics. The peninsula is 90% dependent on external supplies of electricity and Dnieper water for irrigated land

            Chat with elderly Crimeans. About how wells were poured under the Dnieper water, dismantled local wind energy, etc. Like flood agriculture, in a short time the lands of the north of Crimea were salted, etc. Most of the abandoned villages did not appear on the map of Crimea in the 90s, nobody lived there in the 80s - only wormwood barely grew on the salted land ... About how the water supply system of Sevastopol was dismantled under the conduits (previously supported to local sources) ... You will learn many interesting things ... winked

            Well, as for the 4-fold improvement in the life of the population, figure out what the cost of the country was to restore its defense capability after the Khrushchev military reform. Then perhaps they caught on earlier than under Serdyukov, and the scale of the destruction was comparable
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 23 March 2013 16: 30 New
        +3
        Stanislav, this only confirms my words
        Quote: Vladimirets
        Another thing is that all this was brought to life was, as often happened, through the ass

        thought to feed, but heaped up, be healthy. My grandmother also told me how I spent 3 days in the district center and ran around the authorities with a dead lamb so that I wouldn’t have to pass the tax on wool from him in the fall.
      3. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 24 March 2013 10: 45 New
        +5
        Quote: Ascetic
        He can probably be credited with the "Khrushchevs", and the creation of the Strategic Missile Forces, coupled with the fact that the USSR became a great space power.
        Even the monument on his grave is symbolic - there are no contrasts, only black and white.

        "Khrushchevs" are the fruit of minimization of the housing program already conceived during Stalin's life (low ceilings, combined bathroom).
        As well as the rocket and space project - the main groundwork in this area was made when this "lad" amused his comrades with Stalin's hopak.
        The author of the monument to the decadent was persecuted by Khrushchev E. Unknown.
  7. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 23 March 2013 11: 30 New
    0
    In 1953, the Trotskyists supported by the West took revenge.
    It took 38 years to prepare the ground (on the fourth and third priorities) for the elimination of the USSR.
    However, on the first and second priorities - the Russians were not defeated, which means that we suffered a temporary defeat, everything will be restored.
    It is important not to repeat mistakes.
  8. Larus
    Larus 23 March 2013 12: 13 New
    +5
    what a pity that the Khrushchev did not click in the year 39 as a traitor, paid off in massive landings ....
  9. Selevc
    Selevc 23 March 2013 12: 56 New
    -3
    Obviously delusional article - for lovers of empty sensations !!!

    Actually, the period of Khrushchev’s reign is the dawn of the Soviet economy ... A lot was being built - huge regions of the country (Siberia, the Far North, Central Asia and the Far East) were being developed, aviation, space, mechanical engineering, metalworking were booming ... Yes, you read the scientific and technical journals and technical literature of those years - now this is not published for some reason ... Under Khrushchev, the USSR began to produce a mass of goods for the population - its own household appliances, its own national automobile, its machine tools and equipment, and a host of other goods ... Entire blocks of new houses were built in all major cities ...

    And how much did you need to master new to create the same nuclear submarines, missiles, satellites and the nuclear industry? This includes electronics and metalworking and metallurgy ... Under Khrushchev, science developed rapidly - many modern professors and academicians began their careers precisely in those times ... How many new institutes did anyone consider in those years? It was under Khrushchev that more comfortable living conditions became available to the vast masses of the population - certainly not by European standards, but still it was clear progress !!!

    Yes, of course, some Stalinist plans had to be canceled because the country could not pull everything at once ...
    1. Zynaps
      Zynaps 23 March 2013 18: 20 New
      0
      one of the few sane voices. the man did not retell the "emperskih" Onegdods - they threw poop.

      Stalin's plans had to be canceled, if only because the USSR of the 50-60s model could no longer live in a state of a besieged fortress. people are tired of elementary after forced industrialization, then war, then rebuilding and creating a nuclear missile shield, which in itself economically cost the country another Great Patriotic War. another thing is that Nikita was a troublemaker and a balamut, who did not see much further than his own nose. but he was definitely not the enemy of the country. economic statistics are available - anyone who doesn’t want to chew on chewed-up snot, at least a book by V. Simchera on the 100-year development of the Russian economy will drop by.
      1. ia-ai00
        ia-ai00 23 March 2013 20: 38 New
        +1
        The CIA was clearly not an agent, but his hands were about an elbow in the blood of the peoples of the USSR.
      2. dmb
        dmb 23 March 2013 21: 27 New
        0
        What are you. "Trocyst" he was. I myself have read about this in many comments on the site. True, the commentators did not write in what concretely his "Trotskyism" was expressed, but this is not terrible. Once they write, then they know. Maybe he himself confessed to them. And since a Trotskyist, then following the logic of the same commentators, a paid hirer, a freemason, etc. Interestingly, if in a couple of years the current leader is trampled on, and even more terrible, contrary to the tradition that has developed in Russia, they will treat him like the French with Sarkozy or Italians with Berlusconi, then the above-mentioned gentlemen will write about him in the comments.
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 March 2013 12: 11 New
      +2
      Quote: Selevc
      Yes, of course, some Stalinist plans had to be canceled because the country could not pull everything at once ...
      Yeah, under Stalin, she pulled normally, but under Khrushchev she suddenly couldn’t ... wassat Maybe this is not the case in the country? repeat
  10. Pelican
    Pelican 23 March 2013 13: 03 New
    +1
    Not everything is so simple. At the time of Khrushchev, many no less ambitious projects were implemented, and the country's resources were not rubber!
  11. I think so
    I think so 23 March 2013 13: 40 New
    -4
    Not an article, but bullshit ... It is the years of the USSR and the START of real industrialization that are indicated in the article. Such incompetent information has not appeared here a long time ago, it’s a shame for this resource, it would be necessary to filter at least MINIMUM and such nonsense should not be missed.
  12. Volkhov
    Volkhov 23 March 2013 14: 24 New
    +4
    An extremely valuable article - before the whole list was not known, and so the picture manifests itself better. In the 80th he worked in one of the mentioned places (Ozernovsky) - there the road to Bolsheretsk was suitable only for all-wheel drive trucks, but it could be normal, if the railway to Bolsheretsk - it would also be a ferry from Vanino, i.e. trains would go to Kamchatka.
  13. Selevc
    Selevc 23 March 2013 14: 41 New
    0
    The above facts and factors also explain why the rate of industrial growth in the RSFSR since the mid-1950s has risen "symbolically", and in most other union republics, and socialist countries, these rates were really high


    In fact, under Khrushchev even whole cities were created - especially in the regions of the far north and the Northern Sea Route worked at full capacity and this is all on the territory of the RSFSR ... But the fact that now all this is in decline is not Khrushchev's fault ...
    Under Khrushchev, railroads were also built - for example, they commissioned a large section of the BAM ... And, in fact, it was necessary to electrify and reconstruct the Trans-Siberian Railway itself, as well as many railways. USSR highways - so that no steam locomotives go along them, but large diesel locomotives and electric locomotives ... But oh, what a massive task, and this was done in many ways precisely during Khrushchev's time !!!

    The development of virgin lands is a very reasonable and right step - but the way it was done was not Khrushchev’s fault, but the fault of those who were directly involved in this and led this project !!!
    1. ia-ai00
      ia-ai00 23 March 2013 21: 17 New
      +4
      The BAM section Taishet - Bratsk - Ust-Kut (Lena) was built between 1951 and 1958. In 1967, further design was resumed, and during the periods 1974-1984 and 1989-2003 the main sections of the BAM were built.
      The reign of Khrushchev was 1957-1964, so I do not see his merits in the construction of the BAM.
      But that during his reign, all products disappeared - I remember, although it was small. In the stores there were no dairy products, no cereals, no fats, no meat, nothing. For gray bread (not rye, but from flour, probably no higher than 3 grades) stood in huge lines, and for kerosene for kerosene went with cans every day, they gave limited and not always enough.
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 March 2013 12: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: Selevc
      The development of virgin lands is a very reasonable and right step - but the way it was done was not Khrushchev’s fault, but the fault of those who were directly involved in this and led this project !!!

      Did these leaders sprout there themselves? Or were they appointed from the center? Why did the leaders manage normally under the leadership of Stalin, and the Khrushchev’s almost without exception turned out to be?
  14. wk
    wk 23 March 2013 14: 43 New
    +6
    criticizing the author - read it again, he’s not talking about general deindustrialization, but the fact that the roll was made to dissolve the RSFSR as the center of the economy of the entire USSR, which ultimately led to the death of the USSR .... who remembers Soviet times, that in almost all republics, the standard of living was higher than in the RSFSR .... fueled by these moods and public opinion was created in such republics as Ukraine, where, believe me, I was in the stagnant years and lived there better than in the RSFSR .... and public opinion was created that Russia is drunk and poverty ..... maybe the author does not dig so deep, but in the right direction
    1. Zynaps
      Zynaps 23 March 2013 18: 30 New
      0
      bullshit. in a single country it was impossible to develop only the RSFSR - tea, not the British Empire. the backward suburbs would hasten to fall off with the Nazi invasion of the USSR, as they began to fall off under the Provisional Government. the development of the national suburbs was given at least by the fact that during the war, fighters from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan fought near Moscow and Stalingrad, as for their native village. and then, the RSFSR, was developed unevenly. very dependent on climatic zones. Kuban vs Chita region - well, a very big difference. in the republics, exactly the same: Dushanbe and Badakhshan are also two big differences within Tajikistan alone. as for Ukraine, the land is already very fertile, and even industrialized. but - and then, living in the Ukrainian SSR in the Crimea or Kirovograd - is not at all like in the Zapadenshchina, where they were eaten up by the same tourism and food industry.

      and the article is garbage. so as not to sit down in galoshes and shine with clip teenage thinking, read this: http://financepro.ru/economy/13775-razvitie-ekonomiki-rossii-za-100-let-simchera
      -vm.html
      1. Cheloveck
        Cheloveck 24 March 2013 14: 06 New
        0
        Quote: Zynaps

        and the article is garbage. so as not to sit down in galoshes and shine with clip teenage thinking, read this: http://financepro.ru/economy/13775-razvitie-ekonomiki-rossii-za-100-let-simchera

        -vm.html
        E-heh, this is the time you are already referring to this book.
        The book is good, a tremendous work has been done, it’s only written for those who know how to analyze, rather than stupidly look at numbers.
        I’ll tell you a terrible secret: the foundation for the good figures of Khrushchev’s rule was laid under Stalin, the economy, it, you know, has tremendous inertia.
  15. Selevc
    Selevc 23 March 2013 15: 03 New
    +1
    But in fact, the highest earnings were in Siberia and the North, and people went there from Ukraine, both then and now go ...
    And the mass of everything was built precisely during the development of Siberia and other regions of Russia ... And it is absolutely not right to compare how many were built in Ukraine and Russia - the territories are different, the population density is different, the number of cities and production capabilities and communications are completely different ...

    The city of nuclear scientists, the City of metallurgists, the City of chemists - these terms appeared precisely in those days ... And someone tell me after Brezhnev even built one city? Surely not, but many destroyed and abandoned !!!
    1. Strezhevchanin
      Strezhevchanin 24 March 2013 10: 41 New
      0
      This is all fine, but why did he save America by supporting the dollar with his actions so that it would not be boring? Well, yes, now the whole world is having fun! This strange type is Khrushchev.
  16. Black
    Black 23 March 2013 15: 39 New
    +5
    When they say that Khrushch is the conductor of Western ideas, well, right, it’s not even funny. Both he and the labeled flesh from the flesh are the offspring of the Communist Party.
    "the cook in power" is about them. Shortsightedness, ignorance, bigotry, populism, and as a result, failures in economic policy, and practically famine, both in the early 60s and in the early 90s.
  17. wk
    wk 23 March 2013 15: 41 New
    +4
    Quote: Selevc
    Siberia and the North

    this is not an indicator, in extreme territories there were really big earnings (although there was no infrastructure and people lived in barracks with a toilet on the street) .... but this is not an indicator anyway, God forbid, only 2% of the USSR lived then ... and in Ukraine it’s about 45 million, in Georgia 9 million in the Baltic states another 7 million ..... and in the RSFSR only Moscow lived with dignity ..... and already in the region beyond the Moscow Ring Road the territory of empty store shelves began ..... but in Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia .... there wasn’t such a thing, and try to prove the opposite .... I don’t even want to listen; my children’s trips to western Ukraine, Moldova, Donnbas remained in my memory ...... but not here in the Moscow Region such a well-fed life as there
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 23 March 2013 16: 00 New
      +1
      There is no lie - I still remember perfectly the 80s - we went shopping in Belgorod - then there was a lot of that which we did not have in Kharkov - I remember how Belgorod milk and textiles were especially famous now ... If we take the southern regions of Russia - then life there was absolutely the same as in Ukraine ... And in Moscow, for example, there was generally an abundance compared to the rest of the USSR - however, as now ... In Ukraine, in the late 70s and 80s there were also shops littered with canned goods and huge lines for more or less decent goods - I myself stood in them and I know this firsthand ...

      In Western Ukraine, there was and is a more strongly developed private agriculture - this is generally an agricultural region, so there were more products in stores ...
      1. wk
        wk 23 March 2013 17: 04 New
        +2
        Quote: Selevc
        Western Ukraine

        did you teach economic geography at school? due to what in Western Ukraine there can be a shining CX ...... yes it simply does not exist and cannot be there, there is practically no arable land compared to the south-east of Ukraine, where 90% of the world chernozem .... what are you talking about? Western Ukraine is entirely forests and mountains with rare farms
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 23 March 2013 17: 14 New
          +1
          I taught geography well and, moreover, I was in Western Ukraine in their villages - there is no imported meat there - all of my own ... There are few arable lands, but cows, pigs, chickens, etc. are kept in every yard there. Plus - there is well developed grape growing and in almost every yard they make their own wine ...
          1. wk
            wk 23 March 2013 20: 44 New
            +1
            yes, in Soviets time they were more stable in eastern Ukraine at the dumping prices; yes, they fed pigs with a hdeb from the store ..... but what do they feed now? ...... I don’t know
        2. Zynaps
          Zynaps 23 March 2013 18: 33 New
          0
          ahhhrenet! natural flight over the Belomor pack. a man who had never been to the Western region during the Soviet era. well they lived there. and ate well too. there is still a very developed food industry. almost half of the products from the Western region.
  18. suharev-52
    suharev-52 23 March 2013 15: 54 New
    +5
    I recommend some ardent supporters of Khrushchev to carefully re-read the article. CAREFULLY. The article is very good. A lot becomes clear after reading. That all the achievements after the 53rd are the delayed plans of Stalin, which were then attributed to Khrushchev. And he was forced to complete many projects. Sincerely.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 23 March 2013 16: 10 New
      0
      Do not exaggerate the dignity of Stalin - he also made many strategic mistakes - vivid examples are the creation of a strong Poland and West Berlin !!!

      Many questions under Khrushchev were taken collectively, at the political bureau and not personally to them ... And during his reign, and this is 11 years old, there were also a lot of plans that Brezhnev later implemented ...
      1. wk
        wk 23 March 2013 16: 50 New
        0
        Quote: Selevc
        vivid examples are the creation of a strong Poland and West Berlin !!!

        mistakes were ...... but really the Berlin Wall grew under Khrushchev, and under Stalin, Berlin was divided only conditionally ..... in general, Beria had the best option for creating a German state .... his proposals boiled down to may Germany be united, but devoid of armed forces and the troops of the congregation from there will be removed from both sides .... in a word, the demilitarized zone between west and east
        1. Zynaps
          Zynaps 23 March 2013 18: 44 New
          +3
          Quote: wk
          but really the Berlin wall grew under Khrushchev, and under Stalin, Berlin was divided only conditionally


          both on! experts are attacking! You see, dear expert, Comrade Stalin didn’t have enough gunpowder to liquidate this viper in the German Democratic Republic and Berlin — West Berlin. and Nikitos had to think already. because if you discard espionage and the influx of all sorts of agents from West Berlin, its wise residents preferred to live and work (and pay taxes, therefore) in West Berlin, and to buy food, study and be treated - in socialist Berlin, where there was a good social network and low prices. Well, and for how long, in your opinion, did the East Germans and our services in the German Democratic Republic have to endure and provide nishtyaks for healthy citizens of an alien state education? here the doodles for some reason built a democratic wall along the border with Mexico. or Jews with Palestine. or is it only forbidden for Russians with East Germans to defend their vital interests and to please every bastard?

          Quote: wk
          in general, Beria had the best option for creating a German state .... his proposals came down to the idea that Germany should be united, but devoid of armed forces and the troops of the conscripts from there would be removed from both sides


          dadadadadad! only the Western comrades for some reason did not begin to delve into the smart plans of Comrade. Beria, and according to her own understanding from the three occupied zones, organized the FRG controlled by him, instantly introducing a monetary unit into it. in the USSR they sighed, tried to agree a little, and, pushing against a wall of misunderstanding, decided to build the GDR.

          where else was the USSR supposed to wait by the sea for weather and in a knee-elbow pose?
        2. Volkhov
          Volkhov 24 March 2013 17: 17 New
          +2
          Quote: wk
          Beria had the best option for creating a German state .... his proposals came down to the idea that Germany should be united, but devoid of armed forces and troops of the conscripts from there would be removed from both sides ..


          Beria failed on this project, because The Germans needed him.
          When the top of the 3rd Reich was evacuated, surrendering Germany, it became invulnerable in underground bases, and the cities of the allies - as in the palm of your hand under German bombs (in 49, a V-2 was sent to New York without a charge) and the whole divided Germany was hostage - in case of conflict with the Reich there would have been a "war" between NATO and the Internal Affairs Directorate, after which there would be no Germans left (only there massively planted nuclear bombs - pure terrorism). There were no other levers of influence on the Germans, and Stalin's plan to finish the fight by building a fleet, aviation and roads to the north to the area of ​​German bases was destroyed by Khrushchev and Beria, with the support of Zhukov, by the Nazis in the Kremlin.
          For the Zionists, the main thing is to ruin the Russians, and the Germans are almost allies - the policy towards us is similar.
      2. wax
        wax 24 March 2013 01: 34 New
        0
        Poland under Stalin would not blather, but with Zapalnoy Berlin? It could not be otherwise - the victorious countries received temporarily (!) A piece of the capital of defeated Germany. But Stalin cut off Berlin from western Germany.
        Well, Stalin did not expect that after him Khrushchev would begin to dominate.
      3. Misantrop
        Misantrop 24 March 2013 12: 27 New
        +2
        Quote: Selevc
        Many issues under Khrushchev were taken collectively, at the Politburo and not personally to them ...

        Exactly, it was he who carried out a radical reform, about which they are silent for some reason. Namely - the omnipotence of appointees from the CPSU when transferring responsibility to business leaders. The practice was BURIED personal responsibility for the assigned work area. Which did not allow to push stupid relatives and other approximate shusher to leading posts. From this the sunset of the country began ...
  19. Selevc
    Selevc 23 March 2013 17: 11 New
    0
    Stalin’s mistake was that he allowed the Allies to go to Berlin — and then they refused to leave from there ... And as a result of the GDR, a country with a hole in the middle ... Instead of strong Poland - the traditional enemy of Russia, it was necessary to create a strong East Germany within the borders from Keniksberg to Magdeburg - as opposed to the Federal Republic of Germany - this would have won both the USSR and the eastern bloc of the socialist countries as a whole !!!
    1. Zynaps
      Zynaps 23 March 2013 18: 56 New
      +1
      For this, the USSR needed such a small amount as returning to Poland after the war Galicia and (possibly) Volhynia, thus shifting the struggle against banderlogs onto its shoulders. then Poland would have no historical grievances left, and the most stubborn Polish passionaries could mutually annihilate in battles with arable land. after such an experiment, I am sure that Poland would have been much more good-natured in relations with the USSR and Russia. and the USSR would have in its hands a piece of Silesia. would have arranged another Kaliningrad with a group of troops there. from Poland Danzig, Breslau and other shreds would be enough to make the bitter pill have a pleasant golden hue.

      and to win the bloc of socialist countries as a whole, it was necessary to sensibly organize the CMEA. until the early 70s there was everything in a bunch. and then it was necessary to highlight priority members, rogue and weak links, like Romania and some associated members. stop operating in dollars and introduce your own reserve currency. and credit everyone as they deserve. then only the bourgeoisie and the "third world" would have experienced the world crisis.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 23 March 2013 23: 55 New
        +3
        What historical grievances in Poland are you talking about - this is a completely stupid myth !!! Stalin transferred the territories to NEVER that had never belonged to it before - these were primarily the industrialized regions of Pomerania and Silesia - Silesia, and so was generally considered the industrial region of pre-war Germany ... The German population massively left (fled) - and the Poles came to all ready - to places already with developed infrastructure with built factories and beautiful cities ... Plus Poland finally resolved its long-standing issue of access to the Baltic !!! And so that Galicia and Volhynia would give them - I think that apart from their forest thug brothers, there is really nothing !!!

        Yes, the Poles for this should idolize Stalin and put up monuments to him - and they still pour mud on him ... Thus, showing that they were like enemies of Russia and remained so with them !!!
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 24 March 2013 12: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: Zynaps
        then Poland would have no historical grievances
        Holy naivety, Poland and Kiev with its environs would be few, still a mountain of claims would be dug up. The mentality of handouts can not be redone ... wink
      3. anip
        anip 25 March 2013 05: 48 New
        0
        Quote: Zynaps
        stop operating in dollars, and enter your reserve currency

        In fact, a transferable ruble was used for trade operations between the CMEA member countries. The dollar was not lying around there.
    2. wk
      wk 23 March 2013 19: 39 New
      +3
      Quote: Selevc
      Stalin's mistake

      Yes, understand, not a mistake, but an urgent need .... from the west there were fresh allied forces - practically without resistance, the Germans squeezed western Europe intact, without significant destruction of industry and sch ... in addition, the United States practically had a nuclear bomb and intelligence knew about this, in addition, the war in the east with Japan was in full swing and Russia had to decide the security of the eastern borders ..... politics is the art of the possible ..... I think Stalin did the maximum possible in that difficult situation, and not by a wide gesture he gave the allies the floor of Berlin .... so there were no options ... or were the worst.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 23 March 2013 23: 44 New
        0
        The Soviet army captured about half of the territory of Germany - from Keniksberg to the Vistula - and the Western allies certainly would not have started the 3rd World War just because they were not allowed to go to Berlin ... The USSR in 1945 was the most powerful and most importantly, an experienced army on the continent + the most powerful tanks and other weapons - even a few atomic bombs would not have decided anything fundamentally - the armies of Great Britain, France and the USA would have suffered such damage from the Soviet army that they would hardly have decided to use nuclear weapons !!! But I think that everyone was already decently fighting by the year 1945 and at that time everyone wanted peace ...

        Just kind Uncle Joe fell for the tricky temptations of Churchill and company ... So to say, showed courtesy and democracy and played out with the Democrats ... And also succumbed to Churchill's persuasion about creating a strong Poland ... The old British dodger knew how to annoy Russia in the long run !!!
        1. wax
          wax 24 March 2013 01: 39 New
          +1
          Well, do not put yourself in the place of Stalin. None of the world leaders outwitted Stalin. This is especially evident in the prewar years.
    3. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 March 2013 12: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: Selevc
      Stalin’s mistake was that he allowed the Allies to go to Berlin — and then they refused to leave from there ...
      Error? Or did the country, which had strained during the war, lacked strength? He squeezed to the maximum, everything that was possible. And that he could not do something, he was not alone "at the gaming table" then sat ...
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 24 March 2013 21: 05 New
        -1
        And can I explain in detail and specifically what the Allies would do so terribly if Stalin hadn’t let them into Berlin?
        And what or who and how exactly prevented Stalin from creating a strong and large Socialist East Germany with its capital in Berlin - in united Berlin and not in divided ??? Or, as an extreme option, even add eastern Germany as another Union Republic of the USSR? Everyone would win from this - and the USSR, having in its camp a strong and industrially developed socialist country - an economic partner, other countries of the socialist camp would benefit from a full-fledged Germany, and finally East Germany itself would benefit from this, being a stronger country than the GDR !!!

        Yes, I forgot - the Red Army also liberated Vienna, and it was possible to create the Austrian Socialist Republic again, again to strengthen the eastern bloc - but Stalin was still mistaken here too - he went to persuade the Allies and left Austria united and seemingly formally neutral, but actually also veiledly hostile to the countries of the social camp and the USSR !!!
  20. Selevc
    Selevc 24 March 2013 09: 37 New
    -3
    Well, nevertheless, we saw with our own eyes all the fragility of the construction of the eastern bloc - one of the weaknesses was the Berlin Wall and West Berlin itself (the result of the Big Three agreements) ... After all, a city cannot live for hundreds of years divided in two ... - this was perfectly understood in the West ... The wall was a weak "brick" in the beautiful building of the USSR + Socialist countries ... Enemies constantly pulled this "brick" - and when it fell out - the domino effect occurred - First the wall fell, then it fell GDR, then the Czech Republic, Poland and other countries of the socialist camp fell, then the Baltic states, then Ukraine with the Transcaucasus and as a result - we have what we have !!!
    1. Strezhevchanin
      Strezhevchanin 24 March 2013 11: 11 New
      0
      A little about Khrushchev.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P9o16OCaqA
  21. Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 24 March 2013 19: 04 New
    +1
    The more time passes, the more understanding comes that the scale of the betrayal of the country is greatly underestimated. And everything shrinks inside at the thought - "There was a completely different country, where it would be more difficult for traitors and opportunists to live."
  22. general.bnw
    general.bnw 25 March 2013 10: 35 New
    0
    Lord! Our country flourished only under the great rulers: Catherine II immensely increased the size and power of Russia, Alexander III saved the world and laid the greatest Trans-Siberian Railway, IV Stalin led the powerful industrialization of the country and the buildup of its military power ... And wimps and ignoramuses they only destroyed: Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin ... History teaches that in our country the leader should be only STRONG / and highly PATRIOTIC /, whether we want it or not / * liberalism * everything will only destroy us /!
  23. deman73
    deman73 26 March 2013 20: 59 New
    0
    Pear has done a lot of bad things so far. We disentangle it especially hard. It hit the village. It was during it that the extinction of villages began.