Military Review

Three mistakes Khrushchev

164
It is known that Khrushchev came out of Stalin’s closest, closest circle. According to the memoirs of contemporaries, in their famous nightly gatherings at Kuntsevskaya dacha, Stalin kept Khrushchev in a role in a kind of clown, a jester. But it was an evil jester and he took revenge on his sovereign in full.


However, I want to talk not so much about the personality of Nikita Khrushchev, but about the theoretical and ideological mistakes he made. And how much was in them from malicious intent and how much - from a lack of intelligence, let the reader decide.

I'll start from afar. The first children’s box was presented to me by my parents on May Day, it was bright red in color and it was written in golden letters “Peace to the world” on it. The inscription was incomprehensible to me, but fascinated by its mysteriousness. Then I met this slogan hundreds of times, sometimes in the most unexpected places, where people seemed not to go. But this slogan accompanied the Soviet man from the days of his October childhood to a prosperous old age. And since the age of pioneer, we already firmly knew that the USSR is fighting for peace and that the united Soviet people do not want anything like world peace. The idea of ​​the world was so natural and obvious that no one seemed to try to comprehend it in a theoretical aspect.

But he called himself a grudge - get into the back: a country that has declared the goal of its foreign policy to fight for peace voluntarily imposes certain restrictions on itself. For example, it cannot develop offensive weapons, it cannot create strike troop formations, cannot build aircraft carriers, cannot invade the territory of other states, in order to solve its geopolitical tasks. Yes, many things were done by the Soviet Union in their political and geopolitical interests and in spite of their own ideological attitudes, but they were done in secret.

Thus, instead of aircraft carriers, the construction of submarines successfully developed in the USSR. The submarine is definitely powerful weapon, but as a means of intimidation, psychological pressure on the enemy - does not go in any way with the surface fleet. And the Soviet Union was most often forced to render assistance to friendly regimes secretly - let us recall the participation of the USSR in the Korean and then the Vietnam War.

I want to mention the key moments that most affected the authority of the USSR and foreign countries' confidence in it: the suppression of the Hungarian uprising by forces of army units in 1956, the Caribbean crisis in 1962, the introduction of troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968. It is clear that in all these cases, the USSR solved its strategic tasks, but our state did not have a corresponding ideological justification, understandable to the Soviet people and inhabitants in the whole world. The struggle for peace has not simply tied our hands, it has deprived us of the moral strength that lies in the truth, in our righteousness.

It ended with the ideological catastrophe of 1979 of the year - the introduction of a "limited contingent of Soviet troops" in Afghanistan. Whatever the regular propagandists say about this, it sounded unconvincing precisely because there was no serious theoretical, ideological justification. It turned out that the USSR, speaking categorically against the “export of the revolution”, in fact carried out this export itself.

On the way to Afghanistan, the USSR was allowed another major ideological and political miscalculation - I mean the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Helsinki Accords 1975 of the Year. In fact, it was the failure of the entire foreign policy of the USSR, which in the Soviet Union itself was falsely interpreted as a victory (see, for example, Chakovsky’s novel “Victory”). The West has finally untied its hands in relation to the USSR and officially received the right to "look after" its ideological opponent and interfere in its internal affairs. Without actually winning anything, the USSR received a foreign agent in its own home - the Moscow Helsinki Group, whose legacy in the person of Hon. Mrs. Alekseeva we can often see on TV.

The most annoying thing is that Russia still, in continuation of the Khrushchev's heritage, “fights for peace”, allowing European Lilliputians to entangle themselves from all sides with numerous bans. Is it not time for Gulliver to break the bonds and rise to his full gigantic height?

The second mistake of Nikita Khrushchev and his official theorists is the notorious competition of two systems. I do not know in whose head this slogan originated (“Catch up with and overtake!”) And by what motives it was dictated. On the one hand, this slogan equalized the goals of the two systems - it turned out that the USSR and the USA had the same goals, only the ways were different. On the other hand, this slogan put the USSR in the position of the catching-up side, giving rise to the corresponding psychological complex, which Russia still cannot get rid of ...

From that moment on, the indicators of the two countries (USSR and USA) were constantly compared in terms of personal consumption. However, comparing the two systems for this indicator meant only one thing - to recognize socialism as an unsuccessful copy of capitalism. As a result, the Soviet man ceased to be proud of his system and began increasingly to enviously glance in the direction of the United States. The famous lines of Mayakovsky "The Soviet have their own pride, we look down on the bourgeois!" Have lost their once-great significance.

And the third serious mistake of Khrushchev was that he decided to make the Soviet Union a more open society. The start was given by holding the World Festival of Youth and Students in Moscow in 1957. Then foreign tourism began to develop in the country. At its core, the idea was not bad: to show firsthand the advantages of the socialist system. However, the question arises: who to show? A tourist is a special being, his view of the world is limited to the program of his stay and excursions, as well as living and service conditions. The tourist business is a service industry, and it is clear that the capitalist service “slaughters” the socialist service in the very first five minutes of the fight (for it is based on other principles). It was difficult for a tourist who came to the USSR to see our true wealth - Soviet internationalism and the brotherhood of nations, for example. But the shortcomings of service, as well as commodity poverty, the paucity of entertainment, immediately caught the eye. In turn, the Soviet tourist, having got to the West, did not see the class contradictions of capitalism point-blank, but the commodity abundance, level of service and the entertainment sphere plunged him into a cognitive and psychological shock.

In my opinion, it was these listed three elements of the policy of the Khrushchev era that first gave rise to dissidence, and then led to the rebirth of the socialist system in a bourgeois way. It was not for nothing that voluntarism was imputed to Khrushchev when he was removed from the main post in the party. So he really was. But we should not forget that Khrushchev was not an alien creature, he emerged from Stalin’s inner circle. Theoretically extremely poorly prepared, who did not overcome the petty-bourgeois psychology, he turned out to be the biggest (and fatal) mistake of Joseph Vissarionovich, who ultimately destroyed the fruits of Stalin's works.

However, L. Brezhnev, who replaced Khrushchev on the post of General Secretary, differed from his predecessor by the fact that he not only did not understand the nature of society in the country entrusted to his power, but did not even try to understand. In general terms, he mechanically continued the policy of his predecessor and, without major upheavals, led the country to a precipice ...
Author:
Originator:
http://www.odnako.org/
164 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. L. konstantin
    L. konstantin April 20 2013 06: 06 New
    -9
    There weren’t any mistakes! he spoke essentially and without fear! and our today's creatures are already going to sell su 35! I’d just for buying a house to raise children in Oxford, etc.! I would shoot such! China has had so much with us! what else do you need !? I do not understand corrupt skins! who are selling their homeland! ON THE SHOT WITH FULL CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY IN THE FLESH TO THE KNEE No. DOES NOT DEPEND ON HOW WE DID! so that others are not in the habit! Goat
    1. Alexander
      Alexander April 20 2013 08: 54 New
      +2
      Sales information first appeared in the Chinese media. The rest just picked up this duck.
      1. elmi
        elmi April 20 2013 23: 33 New
        13
        I have nothing against Ukraine, but I believe that Khrushchev did not have the right to give Crimea to Ukraine, however, I hope this misunderstanding will soon disappear upon reunification into a single state.
    2. Andrey_K
      Andrey_K April 20 2013 10: 26 New
      15
      Of course there were no mistakes.
      Khrushchev was a Petlyurovsky agent and a multiply recruited spy (first by the Nazis and then by the Americans).
      All his activities were aimed at the collapse of the USSR.
      And he knocked with a shoe to create the appearance of useful activity.
      1. k220150
        k220150 April 20 2013 10: 32 New
        +7
        Khrushchev is Stalin's biggest mistake, Zhukov is the second, the grandchildren of the internationalist commissars are the third. Voila ...
        1. Deniska999
          Deniska999 April 20 2013 13: 50 New
          +2
          But Stalin, by the way, wanted to send Khrushchev to the next world.
          1. Ezhaak
            Ezhaak April 20 2013 14: 27 New
            +8
            If Stalin wanted to send Khrushchev to the other world, I am sure he would have sent. With Stalin, thoughts and deeds did not diverge along different paths.
          2. Alexander-81
            Alexander-81 April 20 2013 19: 28 New
            +1
            hi and not only his ADVICE. Old people and many, many ...., http: //www.km.ru/tv/stalin-poslednyaya-taina-krasnog
          3. Quiet
            Quiet April 21 2013 15: 24 New
            +1
            But Stalin, by the way, wanted to send Khrushchev to the next world.

            I didn’t have time ... and the thought was so that the clown at his Stalin’s funeral would not dance ... wassat
        2. yak69
          yak69 April 20 2013 16: 45 New
          +6
          Quote: k220150
          Khrushchev is the biggest mistake of Stalin, Zhukov is the second

          Eeyore would slightly paraphrase "Khrushchev is a big mistake".
          As for Zhukov, your idea is not entirely clear to me.
          The sons of the red commanders are absolute evil and potential traitors (life has proved this more than!).
          Already wrote in past comments how Khrushchev told himself about the Master’s desire to shoot him. (why didn’t complete the mystery)
        3. de klermon
          de klermon April 21 2013 03: 09 New
          +2
          In our history it is often like this: Alexander III (he himself knew everything about his son) to the incapacitated Nicholas II; after Stalin (failed to prepare the transfer of power) - in the version of the pest Khrushchev, the clever Andropov who asked the bastard Gorbachev from the Stravropol Territory to pull out - is completely incomprehensible (personnel error? Putin instead of himself piled a shibdzik Dimona on the country's neck (another mistake? Or was he hoping that it would be easier to remove? But everyone is still suffering with this "nano-gift"!); regularity? Thank God, it seems that not quite: Putin managed to return!))
          PS Imagine how we would live if Alexander III or Stalin would succeed in returning?)))
          1. Selevc
            Selevc April 21 2013 06: 48 New
            +3
            But when will you finally understand that the whole board of Gorbachev is one big special operation ??? !!! Here is the link -
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcvei62yyFI

            The whole board of Gorbachev was a preparation for the events of 1991 ... When you evaluate what was in the country at that time from this point of view, a lot immediately becomes clear - and the collapse of the economy, and unilateral disarmament and the abolition of the Komsomol and the pioneers, and the massive invasion of dissidence and the introduction of an alien institution of presidency (changing the powers of the leader countries in order to "break easier" in the future) and the outbreak of "suddenly" many interethnic conflicts and much much more !!!
      2. Sirocco
        Sirocco April 20 2013 15: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey_K
        And he knocked with a shoe to create the appearance of useful activity.

        Alas, he did not knock a shoe, this is a fable.
        1. Garrin
          Garrin April 20 2013 16: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: Sirocco

          Alas, he did not knock a shoe, this is a fable.

          Not really. He pounded, not only on the podium, but in the hall. There is still some kind of diplomat on the ears got laces. smile
    3. Nitup
      Nitup April 20 2013 10: 29 New
      18
      The fact of the matter is that Khrushchev said one thing, but did something else. For example, relations with China deteriorated under him, the fleet was put under a knife, many experienced officers who had gone through the war were dismissed from the army, the development of many types of weapons was slowed down. Ordinary cereals replaced with corn. We built these Khrushchevs. I believe that Khrushchev is such a small Gorbachev.
      1. vardex
        vardex April 20 2013 11: 35 New
        +6
        Khrushchev was far from being an enlightened man himself, had one gyrus in his head and then on his hat. Indeed, it was a serious miscalculation of Stalin
        1. Nitup
          Nitup April 20 2013 19: 32 New
          +2
          And, yes, I forgot the most interesting: under Khrushchev, the USSR began to trade for dollars.
          1. Alexander-81
            Alexander-81 April 20 2013 20: 18 New
            0
            in fact of the matter. It’s like with China at that moment!
      2. luka095
        luka095 April 20 2013 17: 05 New
        0
        The author of the article replaces the essence of Khrushchev’s activities regarding the collapse of Stalin’s heritage. These three mistakes are simply hanging noodles on the ears of readers of an article.
      3. Alexander-81
        Alexander-81 April 20 2013 19: 32 New
        0
        + + + 1000000
      4. Vovka levka
        Vovka levka April 20 2013 20: 51 New
        +3
        A country cannot always live in a wartime economy, it will simply bend. And as for the Khrushchevs, you are the one you dear to those people, tell us who from the barracks and dugouts went to live in the Khrushchevs, and what they think about it.
        1. Nitup
          Nitup April 21 2013 02: 17 New
          +4
          The country after the war under Stalin developed at the highest rate in the world, and food cards were also canceled earlier than others. And salaries grew, and prices fell. And the houses under Stalin were built spacious and comfortable.
    4. Gladiatir-zlo
      Gladiatir-zlo April 20 2013 11: 13 New
      +3
      In many points I agree. Yes, salbo, and sometimes the requirement for the conceptual, philosophical level of training of the leader is not implemented at all
    5. AntonR7
      AntonR7 April 20 2013 14: 38 New
      +3
      Perhaps the Crimea hrushchev handed over to Ukraine is also not a mistake ?!
  2. L. konstantin
    L. konstantin April 20 2013 06: 14 New
    +6
    It is a pity that NOW STALIN DOESN’T SEE IT HAS A HUNDRED TIME TURNED OVER TO THE Coffin! looking at the current \\\\\!
    1. Ribwort
      Ribwort April 20 2013 10: 25 New
      +5
      Quote: L. Konstantin
      It is a pity that NOW STALIN DOESN’T SEE IT HAS A HUNDRED TIME TURNED OVER TO THE Coffin!

      Have pity on Stalin. Reasoning in this way, he will have to spin a fan ...
      1. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak April 20 2013 14: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: Ribwort
        you have to spin the fan ..

        Yes, no worse than a sickle and a hammer on your avatar.
  3. sashka
    sashka April 20 2013 06: 17 New
    17
    And the fact that half of the country lived and rejoiced in the "Khrushchevs" is also a "mistake"? And what will the tandem boast about ??? . Breakup and theft? Oh yes, "promises" ..)))
    1. L. konstantin
      L. konstantin April 20 2013 07: 10 New
      +2
      The collapse seems to have begun under Brezhnev, and all you respect and now Lord of the Great Britain Gorbachev
      1. Alexander-81
        Alexander-81 April 20 2013 19: 52 New
        +3
        The collapse began with the death of COMRADE STALIN. And all the followers in one form or another were involved in this, not even wanting it. But the hunchbacked was the finish line, DIDN'T COULD DEPLOY, YES AND DONT WANT FOR THE WEST (chest is better in crosses than head in bushes)
    2. Fox
      Fox April 20 2013 07: 18 New
      17
      Quote: Sasha
      And the fact that half of the country lived and rejoiced in the "Khrushchev"

      "Khrushchev" - Stalin's order. Only the ceilings were higher and the kitchens were larger, and the bathroom was uncombined, and Khrushchev only adapted its name. And initially the Franks did it. After the war, our people took it into service, began to build ZhBI factories. ,but as always.
    3. vilenich
      vilenich April 20 2013 09: 33 New
      16
      Quote: Sasha
      And the fact that half of the country lived and rejoiced in the "Khrushchev"

      This is now Khrushchev - "Khrushchev", but remember when they began to build, after the end of the war not so much time has passed! And people were sincerely happy when they moved from barracks to separate comfortable apartments. I still remember when in the early 60s we moved from a communal apartment to a one-room Khrushchev (by the way, no one called them "Khrushchevs" then), how much happiness it was! Everything is relative...
    4. Alexander-81
      Alexander-81 April 20 2013 19: 38 New
      +2
      Cab.min to the wall. PUTIN DO NOT TOUCH, I WILL ASK YOU!
      1. dddym
        dddym April 20 2013 19: 40 New
        +1
        Is that again the myth of the good king ????? Moving towards the Middle Ages gentlemen! :))))
        1. krest.ros
          krest.ros April 20 2013 19: 54 New
          +2
          And what good kings do not suit you? And what was so bad in the Middle Ages?
          1. dddym
            dddym April 20 2013 20: 11 New
            +3
            It is known that the tale of the good king was distributed among peasants in various feuds - they say that vassals and courtiers are to blame for everything, and were very upset when the king personally ordered to cut heads and quarter to those who dared to go against the court and feudal lords :) - there was nothing - that is, nothing at all :)))
            1. krest.ros
              krest.ros April 20 2013 22: 08 New
              0
              This is not an answer...
              1. dddym
                dddym April 21 2013 06: 54 New
                0
                What answer did you expect? What needs to be written so that the answer is?
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop April 20 2013 19: 50 New
        -1
        Quote: Alexander-81
        Cab.min to the wall. PUTIN DO NOT TOUCH
        A brilliant idea, except for jokes. Especially if several times in a row. So all thieving freaks from the top of the lime can. Type of bait fishing laughing
  4. L. konstantin
    L. konstantin April 20 2013 06: 18 New
    -11
    he did everything right! not afraid! and now they’ll do everything so that the kids will study at Oxford! even su 35 will be sold without thinking about the consequences! What do you need more for the Jews !? sell your mother mom !? ! sell your homeland! this is actually a complete anus! and sell Siberia from the Far East! and MODERATOR! Do not share what is written! I understand what kind of poo you are. but you don’t have a drop of clothes)
    Sell ​​everything so that you are swept up in the ass! patriots! I won’t go to war with such people! although I'm fsbshnik)
    complete minus to you !!!! expensive! you did not live in Soviet times!
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov April 20 2013 06: 22 New
      +6
      Quote: L. Konstantin
      sell Siberia from the Far East!

      Where can I buy my share of DV do not tell wink and who specifically sells?
      1. sashka
        sashka April 20 2013 07: 22 New
        0
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Where can I buy my share of DV do not tell me and who exactly sells?

        Ask Chubais, Serdyukov, and of course the "invincible" tandem .. Not only will they tell you, but they will also show you where your "hut" will be.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov April 20 2013 07: 31 New
          11
          Quote: Sasha

          Ask Chubais, Serdyukov and, of course, the "invincible" tandem.

          That Putin also sold Russia belay Yes nuts, how many are selling you, but all not sold at the site, come in. In 1998, in August, we’ll send you all, then maybe in 2013 you want to wink
          1. sashka
            sashka April 20 2013 12: 24 New
            +1
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            That Putin also sold Russia

            Yes ... Exactly there are options?
          2. dddym
            dddym April 20 2013 14: 08 New
            +5
            send me to 1980 :)))))
      2. Ivan.
        Ivan. April 20 2013 14: 41 New
        +1
        I will tell you, but I will not please, your "share" Russian share - you will not be accepted into the society of Siberian owners! Not upset? smile
    2. omsbon
      omsbon April 20 2013 10: 28 New
      +4
      The debate on the topic “I won't go to war with such people!” Ends with one, the “stuffed cabbage” is disabled and spanked despite the fact that he is allegedly a FSB agent!
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 20 2013 18: 49 New
      +8
      Quote: L. Konstantin
      patriots! I won’t go to war with such people! although I'm fsbshnik

      Respected! You are not an FSB eshnik! You are a system error, I think the office just kicked you out, cleaned it from its ranks. This is a time.
      And secondly, I doubt that you are a Russian person. The patriots will go to defend their homeland, not looking who is the "king". And they will protect their relatives and friends, and not PU, as you had a chance to put it. Well, wartime ... I do not envy you. Maybe you will find yourself among the Newlasians, there will still be leftists-hurray-patriots.
  5. Bator79
    Bator79 April 20 2013 06: 25 New
    21
    Khrushchev.
    1) Khrushch asked Stalin to increase the number of those who were shot, to which Stali told him, "Calm down"
    2) Khrushchev hated Great Stalin and after his death he hung all the dogs on Stalin
    3) It was during Khrushchev that another Judah-Gorbach began his career
    4) Khrushchev was removed when it became clear that he was destroying the country and removed it - Suslov, a man of the scale of Beria
    1. djon3volta
      djon3volta April 20 2013 07: 11 New
      +6
      Quote: Bator79
      Khrushchev hated Great Stalin and after his death he hung all the dogs on Stalin

      and those who are now eager for power, that they love Putin? look at their slogans, shouts, interviews, is there at least one good word about Putin? do you think Zyuganov or Navalny want to take care of 143 million? and you also support such . you read Navalny’s last interview, they say I’ll become president and then I will judge Putin. Do you know what hatred I feel for Navalny? How Soviet people hated Hitler during the Second World War, so I hate Navalny, would have strangled him personally if I had such an opportunity .
      1. Kaa
        Kaa April 20 2013 09: 55 New
        10
        Quote: djon3volta
        Khrushchev hated Great Stalin and after his death he hung all the dogs on Stalin
        and those who are now eager for power, do they love Putin?
        This is a special case, you can't figure it out without a bubble. "Among the paradoxes of our time, future historians will certainly study how one of the main organizers of mass repressions turned, in the eyes of many, into a person who condemned and stopped such repressions!" Ukraine sends monthly 17 18 thousand repressed, and Moscow approves no more than 2-3 thousand. Please take urgent measures "- NS Khrushchev telegraphed Stalin in 1938, when he was the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Ukraine. To which the" bloody totalitarian dictator "replied to his excessively zealous subordinate: "Calm down!" Khrushchev's rule received an official impersonal assessment of “voluntarism.” Translated, this should mean “the dominance of strong-willed, rationally unjustified methods of political decision-making.” In Khrushchev's political biography, much more place is occupied by a purposeful career that did not neglect any means, that did not know moral prohibitions ..
    2. Egoza
      Egoza April 20 2013 09: 48 New
      16
      Supplement to the post of the respected Bator 79
      The collapse of the country began precisely with Khrushchev.
      1. It was Khrushchev who abolished the Council of People's Commissars, wishing to take all power under him. But I.V. Stalin did not make such a division for nothing. He believed that the party should be engaged in ideology and education, and specialists in the Council of People's Commissars should be engaged in the economy. Khrushchev imagines himself to be a specialist in all areas, only unlike I.V. Stalin did not trouble himself with reading special literature and consulting with professionals. Hence, "Corn is everywhere!"
      2. JV Stalin said: "Do not rush with communism. Let people live under socialism!" But Khrushchu wanted to surpass Stalin and he announced "in 20 years we will live under communism", focusing on the pace of economic recovery after the Second World War. Hence the competition between the two systems, and "catch up and overtake". Only after his famous lecture on personality cult, there was no longer any confidence in the party. There was no such enthusiasm, and so much effort was not made to educate the new generation.
      3. Khrushchev gave unprecedented preferences to the top, starting with his beloved. I allowed myself to take diamonds from the Faceted Chamber and give them away to the artists they liked. True, after his death, they were returned. Khrushchev's daughter from her first marriage complained that Nina Petrovna flies to Paris on Sundays to do her hair, but does not take her with her (And this is not gossip. This is a fact that the lady to whom she complained, and "not later," but during her lifetime the current Khrushchev) Well, the rest of his entourage did not begin to clap their ears. Hence the sharp stratification of the party elite, honest communists and the people as a whole. The people lost faith and ceased to be a monolith. The slow destruction of the state began
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 20 2013 09: 52 New
        +4
        Quote: Egoza
        The collapse of the country began precisely with Khrushchev.

        I don’t know about you, but I would start with Nikolai 2 ...
        Then, according to the list of Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Medvedev ..
      2. Kaa
        Kaa April 20 2013 09: 57 New
        11
        Quote: Egoza
        The collapse of the country began precisely with Khrushchev.
        “Future historians will certainly study, among the paradoxes of our time, how one of the main organizers of mass repressions turned, in the eyes of many, into a person who condemned and stopped such repressions!“Ukraine monthly sends 17-18 thousand repressed, and Moscow claims no more than 2-3 thousand. I ask you to take urgent measures, ”N.S. wired Khrushchev Stalin in 1938, when he was the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine (b). To which the "bloody totalitarian dictator" replied to his excessively zealous subordinate: "Get down, you fool ... ! ”Khrushchev’s board received an official, impersonal assessment of“ voluntarism. ” In translation, this should mean “the rule of strong-willed, rationally unreasonable methods of making political decisions” .. In Khrushchev’s political biography, a more focused place is occupied by a purposeful career that did not neglect any means and did not know moral prohibitions .. The defining feature of all Khrushchev’s actions, both on the way to the highest posts in the state, and after their achievement, has always been a calculated desire for sole unlimited power. Vividly characterizes this side of Khrushchev’s personality: his replica at the famous meeting with creative intelligentsia on December 17, 1962, where he put the blast on Ernst Neizvestny, Evgeny Yevtushenko and other representatives of the liberal intelligentsia. “The people must decide in our country. And who is this people? This is a party. And who is the party? We are a party. So we’ll decide, I’ll decide now ” Khrushchev stands, as it were, at the source of the divergence of the two paths along which the Soviet political system could go. One way is the one that has emerged in the last years of Stalin’s power. This is the strengthening of the role of constitutional, state bodies (Council of Ministers, Councils of Deputies of various levels) due to extra-constitutional, party, rule of law and law. The other is the one that personified itself and onto which Khrushchev turned the country for a long time. This is an increase in the lack of control of the power of the party bureaucracy. Khrushchev was rebuilding the state from solving problems of nationwide development to serve the needs of this class. The fact that he did this quite consciously and purposefully is evidenced by his remark at a meeting in the Central Committee of the CPSU in late 1953 or early 1954, when, after criticism, G.M. Malenkov of the party apparatus, Khrushchev, to the applause of those present, exclaimed: “This is so ... But the apparatus is our support!” Khrushchev’s far-sightedness and prudence in the struggle for personal status as the defining features of his character are also evidenced by his actions after removal from the post of First Secretary. Illegally forwarding records of his memoirs for publication in the United States, Khrushchev did what he himself was in power without thinking would severely repress anyone. Being deprived of power, he could become a "dissident" not only out of necessity. He could well have foreseen that in the near future such behavior would bring political dividends. If he had lived as long as Kaganovich or Molotov had overthrown, he would have managed to reap the laurels of a “fighter against totalitarianism” during his lifetime. The logic of the struggle for power led Khrushchev back to the Trotskyists back in the 20s, then made him an ardent fighter against Trotskyism, then a self-derogatory slave to Stalin, then his equally furious whistleblower, after which he became a "dissident" .. 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. The historian Emelyanov is probably right, when he likens Khrushchev in this regard to M.S. Gorbachev, finding in their personal characters many similarities.
        1. Kaa
          Kaa April 20 2013 10: 00 New
          +9
          Quote: Kaa
          “All this is so ... But the apparatus is our support!”
          In Khrushchev’s rejection, people of different views and beliefs can converge. The sovereign patriots will recall Khrushchev’s removal of Marshal Zhukov, unjustified reductions in the armed forces, the destruction of the latest types of military equipment, the abandonment of Soviet military bases in Port Arthur (China) and Porkkala-Udd (Finland), compliance in negotiations with US leaders on the Berlin and Cuban Issues. People of an economic way of thinking will undoubtedly blame Khrushchev for the unjustified abolition of branch ministries, the decline in the social status of scientists, the introduction of corn regardless of climate, the continuous cultivation 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 recall the revival of the struggle against "great-power chauvinism" and the promotion of the 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 homestead plots of rural intelligentsia and the attempt to destroy household plots as a form of land use (the so-called Second dispossession). The Orthodox will add to this a new campaign of “militant atheism”, the closure and destruction of churches (more than 1958 churches were closed from 1964 to 3500). By the way, Khrushchev, who was in 1932-1935. second, and in 1935-1938. the first secretary of the Moscow City Committee and (since 1934) the regional party committee, bears primary personal responsibility for the destruction of architectural monuments of Moscow and the region at that time. Khrushchev’s assertion of the principle of the jurisdiction of the elite had little in common with the communist ideal. Khrushchev’s famous instruction to introduce execution for currency fraud and to repeatedly convict people already convicted under this article to sentence them to death, had no analogues in the degree of neglect of the right even during the Great Terror. Other unprecedented cases were the mass shootings of demonstrations in Tbilisi in March 1956 and in Novocherkassk on May 1, 1962. The first demonstration was a political protest against the conviction of Stalin’s “personality cult” at the Twentieth Congress. The second is a purely social protest against rising meat prices. Such speeches and a similar reaction of the authorities to them in Soviet cities have not been since the civil war. The speech 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 protests on a smaller scale in protest against the authorities' policies on various occasions took place in 1958-1961. in various cities of the country. Historians count them more than a dozen. A careful analysis of the events of 1953-1956. convinced some historians that the rehabilitation processes of convicts for political reasons, begun by Beria in the spring of 1953, were somewhat slowed down after his arrest. The statements and actions of Beria himself shortly after Stalin’s death (not only regarding the affairs and personality of the deceased leader, but also the expansion of the authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Union republics, the intention to abandon the construction of socialism in the GDR) suggest that the “condemnation of the personality cult” that would have occurred in if Beria won in the struggle for power, it could turn out to be deeper and more radical than it actually was at the Twentieth Congress. It could not be limited only to attacks on the leader, but would affect some properties of the system itself. "Khrushchevism" is a synonym for incompetence and arbitrariness in public administration, covered by ideological speculation and demagogy. http://www.stoletie.ru/territoriya_istorii/ot_trockista_do_dissidenta_2011-09-09


          . Htm
          1. Andrey_K
            Andrey_K April 20 2013 11: 17 New
            +5
            If you read Khrushchev's memoirs, then there he boasts of his secret support of local nationalists and former Petliurists, all the locals considered him a "hare" and went with complaints about the Nazis, and he pretended to sympathize, but instead he wrote to Stalin slanderous whitewashing of nationalists and denigrating their critics.
            And he patronized a gang of former Petliurists who, after the civil war, allegedly went over to the side of the Bolsheviks (some were "miraculously" found in Petlyura's prison after liberation - a classic way of sending agents at that time - others were introduced through other channels, including Khrushchev for them gave a guarantee) and joined the Communist Party, but during the famous famine of 33-34 it was they who occupied all the key positions.
            Then, when one of Khrushchev’s proteges (Lyubchenko PP) received a mysterious call during the plenum (someone warned him about the exposure), he returned home, shot his wife and shot himself - so honest people don’t do it (honest people usually hoped to the end, that an error occurred) is the behavior of a classic spy who has something to hide.
          2. washi
            washi April 20 2013 12: 03 New
            +2
            But in Ukraine, Khrushev monument, by chance, is not worth it? Gave Crimea, began to develop agricultural and other industries.
            1. Egoza
              Egoza April 20 2013 12: 45 New
              +3
              Quote: Vasya
              But in Ukraine, Khrushev monument, by chance, is not worth it?

              THANK GOD NO!!!!
              1. svp67
                svp67 April 20 2013 14: 12 New
                0
                Quote: Egoza
                THANK GOD NO!!!!


                In relation to the communist, it sounds like that ... recourse
              2. dddym
                dddym April 20 2013 14: 27 New
                +3
                But strange - next to Bandera you need to put one :)
          3. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker April 20 2013 12: 14 New
            +8
            Damn, the finger is tired to ply ... laughing
            Quote: Kaa
            Here is a special case, without a bubble you can’t figure it out

            Pour over a small ... drinks
            Quote: Kaa
            "Khrushchevism" is a synonym for incompetence and arbitrariness in public administration, covered by ideological speculation and demagogy

            From time immemorial, people are divided into "leaders" and "performers". In the case of Khrushchev, we can observe a clear "inconsistency with the position held", which explains the "voluntarism" of the first person of the state.
            All, or almost all of the acts committed under the slogan of "creation" have no direct relation to the lover of hopak and lard, which emphasizes his belonging to the category of narrow-minded but zealous performers. All his decisions, made in line with the country's leadership, bear a clear sign of "not letting go!"
            It is not a secret for anyone that on the state "Olympus" of the USSR a struggle was constantly waged between various groups (party, political, military) for the first places "in the orchestra" (it does not stop today). Today it is difficult to understand how a person who is not bright with intellect "crawled" into the chair of the leader, but there are many such facts at other levels, both at that time and today.
            Rounding off.
            The period of Khrushchev’s leadership cannot be positively estimated from the point of increment of any dividends by the country. If we put together the GDP and Nikita, only the blind will not notice the difference. After all, everything is known in comparison.
            hi
      3. Sibiryak
        Sibiryak April 20 2013 11: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: Egoza
        The collapse of the country began precisely with Khrushchev.

        Sometimes you start to wonder who Khrushchev licked so deeply to remain almost the only living secretary of the city committee at the end of 1937! At one time, Joseph Vessarionovich was reckless in relation to Nikita.
  6. sashka
    sashka April 20 2013 06: 27 New
    -12
    Didn't say but DO. I can not imagine a "tandem" threshing shoes on the podium. They have all friends and partners. (Maybe homosexuals?) And Khrushchev produced, built and worried about the Country.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov April 20 2013 06: 36 New
      +9
      Quote: Sasha
      But Khrushchev produced, built and worried about the country.

      As he was a collective farmer, he remained so! One gift from Crimea is worth it.
      1. Babon
        Babon April 20 2013 07: 02 New
        15
        And he presented the Nadterechny districts to Chechnya, too, it must be remembered.
      2. sashka
        sashka April 20 2013 07: 25 New
        -3
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Quote: Sasha
        But Khrushchev produced, built and worried about the country.

        As he was a collective farmer, he remained so! One gift from Crimea is worth it.

        Maybe the "hohzly" will fight and we will get it again? Who knows what will happen tomorrow ...
        1. vilenich
          vilenich April 20 2013 09: 43 New
          +3
          Quote: Sasha
          Maybe the "hohzly" will fight and we will get it again? Who knows what will happen tomorrow ...

          The fact of the matter is that no one knows how the Turks would take his hands away!
          1. alex13-61
            alex13-61 April 20 2013 10: 59 New
            +4
            Yes, they have a Tatar "lobby" on the peninsula ... and it is precisely this, together with the "Svidomo," opposing the stationing of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol ...
      3. sashka
        sashka April 20 2013 07: 53 New
        -1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        As he was a collective farmer, he remained so! One gift from Crimea is worth it.

        The country was ... why not. Now what? "republics with presidents" Pravda "banana". Well, we are for democracy)))
        1. Sibiryak
          Sibiryak April 20 2013 08: 55 New
          +3
          Quote: Sasha
          The country was ... why not. Now what? "republics with presidents" Pravda "banana".

          Found someone to set as an example!
          1. sashka
            sashka April 20 2013 12: 12 New
            -2
            Quote: Sibiryak
            Found someone to set as an example!

            Who ? But it’s not medveput with Chubais .. They’ll definitely put
      4. alex13-61
        alex13-61 April 20 2013 09: 26 New
        +5
        Yes, his level is a collective farm foreman. Yes, and even under good control ... Otherwise, I would stick corn somewhere in Kamchatka ... I don’t want to talk about Crimea - it’s a very sore subject for the Crimean ...
        And in the army, with aviation, he had great fun.
      5. vilenich
        vilenich April 20 2013 09: 42 New
        +4
        Good morning, Alexander!
        Indeed, for what praise this leader! Yes, I wanted, yes I was sick in soul, but for all this, we also need an outstanding thinking apparatus, the talent of a leader, etc. And what we see: a wild grudge, the laying of the tradition of nurturing predecessors, incompetence in many matters, a bloated I and a huge inclination for voluntarism, and adventurism too.
      6. Kaa
        Kaa April 20 2013 10: 18 New
        11
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        As he was a collective farmer, he remained so!
        Only very cunning and unprincipled. "World Leaders About N.S. Khrushchev
        Sharl De Goll"This, in my opinion, is a cunning peasant who loves power very much and cannot in any way understand that the country needs real changes. He literally wants to oppose himself to Stalin and the Stalinist style. This deliberation is very often - to the detriment of Khrushchev and the authority of the USSR. For the good of the USSR and its peoples, liberalization of communism is needed, but, apparently, Khrushchev is not able or does not want to understand this ... He needed Khrushchev’s visit to France mainly to show his colleagues in the Politburo how he, Khrushchev, was warmly received abroad. ”
        Josip Broz Tito: “Khrushchev always wanted to seem simple - both to Stalin, and to me, and other politicians. But natural cunning was the wrong side of his apparent simplicity. He did not think too much about the consequences of his words, actions, decisions, and, accusing Stalin of autocracy, cult, unpredictability, he often behaved in the same way. This became especially evident after 1958, when the so-called “anti-party” group of Molotov-Bulganin and Zhukov — the most influential comrades-in-arms of Stalin and opponents of Khrushchev — were dismissed ... Khrushchev then declared Yugoslavia a fraternal socialist country, protecting it from criticism from China and Albania then he even included in the CPSU program (adopted by the XXII Congress of the CPSU in October 1961 - A.Ch.) the provision on Yugoslav revisionism. ”
        Mao Zedong: “People like Khrushchev are sleeping next to us, it's time to wake them up. Khrushchev began his betrayal with Stalin, and he or his successors - the Soviet Union - will complete this business. Khrushchev, changeable as a chameleon, unilaterally announced the recall of his specialists, terminated 343 contracts, interrupted the implementation of 257 joint scientific and technical projects, very sharply reduced the supply of key parts of complete equipment (in 1960-1962 - A.Ch.), Moreover, Khrushchev decided at the same time to settle accounts for the past by demanding calculations on the supply of arms during the period of US resistance and the help of the DPRK in1949-1953, as well as on material and other loans of the 50s. All this had a serious negative impact on the economic construction of China. But, the more Khrushchev presses, the stronger we become ...Stalin was a very authoritative political leader. But far-sightedness was not enough for him: during his lifetime he did not give clear instructions about his successor. And after his death, this same "troika" appeared (Beria-Malenkov-Khrushchev. - A.Ch.)., And the situation was at first very chaotic. Beria was killed, as a result, Khrushchev got the power, who knocks the heel of a leather boot on the table. His reign will not be long, but the consequences of his reign will affect for decades ”.
        Ernesto Che Guevara: “The works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong must be published in a series of Marxist theoretical literature. But also - the largest figures of revisionism, especially Khrushchev and Trotsky. To create a school of Marxist thought - not dogmatic, but not revisionist - that’s the task ... The historical clock is spinning back in the USSR, in the Khrushchev period, categories and principles of capitalist economics are included in the communist theory and economic practice of the USSR ... ... In the USSR, leaders get everything bigger and bigger, leaders have no obligations to the masses. There is a "hybridization" of socialism, which stems from the erroneous concept - the desire to build socialism from the elements of capitalism, without changing the essence of the latter. .http: //www.stoletie.ru/territoriya_istorii/ot_trockista_do_dissidenta_2011-09-0

        9.htm
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker April 20 2013 12: 20 New
          +8
          Quote: Kaa
          Mao Zedong: “People like Khrushchev are sleeping next to us, it's time to wake them up. Khrushchev began his betrayal with Stalin, and he or his successors - the Soviet Union - will complete this business. Beria was killed, as a result, Khrushchev received power, who bangs a heel of a leather boot on the table. His reign will not be long, but the consequences of his reign will affect for decades. ”

          And here I poke a finger on the clave ... fool
      7. воронов
        воронов April 21 2013 20: 51 New
        0
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        As he was a collective farmer, he remained so!

        "Kolkhoznik" is a dirty word for you?
    2. Sibiryak
      Sibiryak April 20 2013 08: 54 New
      +6
      Quote: Sasha
      I didn’t say, but DO.

      What did you do?! He did stupid things, he sowed all farmland with corn!
      Quote: Sasha
      I can not imagine a "tandem" threshing shoes on the podium.

      For this big mind, there is no need for courage either, what the first stupidity got into my head, I realized it! The public was good at playing people.
      Quote: Sasha
      But Khrushchev produced, built and worried about the country.

      Somehow strange he was building! In the late 50s, he made massive reductions in the army, both in terms of strength and technical means, and in economics he also did things in Novocherkassk to create a riot of workers. So the activities of Khrushchev can be put 100% fat minus! negative
    3. svp67
      svp67 April 20 2013 09: 53 New
      +5
      Quote: Sasha
      But Khrushchev produced, built and worried about the country.

      Only did it "krivoruko". According to the maxim, he used everything that got from Stalin and could not bring anything worthwhile himself ...
    4. Nitup
      Nitup April 20 2013 10: 39 New
      +3
      To thresh shoes, a lot of mind is not necessary. And to raise the country from a state of devastation: now this is far from everyone can
    5. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak April 20 2013 14: 57 New
      +7
      Quote: Sasha
      But Khrushchev produced, built and worried about the country.

      Yeah. So much has made that I personally in the early 60s, as a kid, stood in line for a loaf of bread mixed with corn in winter for hours. It’s not my father who appointed new, doubled, temporary prices for sugar, meat, butter. These prices lasted until 1990. And who turned the ten into a ruble. A glass of gaz.voda 5 kopecks cost, began to cost a penny. And how much did the people calculate? On any product! For income, the father’s pension was 61 rubles, and the mother’s salary was 72 rubles. And this is in a very large city.
  7. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov April 20 2013 06: 40 New
    10
    The assassination of Stalin and the preparation of the USSR for the collapse cannot be mistakes!
    Less article, for trying to whitewash the Trotskyist - Khrushchev.
  8. L. konstantin
    L. konstantin April 20 2013 06: 41 New
    -4
    sashka

    it means you don’t know what! question? how earned epaulettes !? shouted cheers?

    novels! You won’t find so much money to buy yourself a house in Sweden! there is a green zone !!!
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov April 20 2013 06: 47 New
      +6
      Quote: L. Konstantin
      You won’t find so much money to buy yourself a house in Sweden! there is a green zone !!!

      Our nature is better than in Sweden.
    2. sashka
      sashka April 20 2013 07: 31 New
      -1
      Quote: L. Konstantin
      sashka

      it means you don’t know what! question? how earned epaulettes !? shouted cheers?

      novels! You won’t find so much money to buy yourself a house in Sweden! there is a green zone !!!

      I don’t understand .. Are you talking to Romanov or Me? The boy with the grey th. Just wait and live ..
    3. sashka
      sashka April 20 2013 08: 05 New
      -6
      Quote: L. Konstantin
      sashka

      it means you don’t know what! question? how earned epaulettes !? shouted cheers?

      The boy is a chipping. Here, fighting with the "three-volt" "esaulami" and you. For the third time. Which is what I wish for you too .. The site has stopped at TsgovnoC
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov April 20 2013 11: 14 New
        +6
        Quote: Sasha
        ..The site is interrupted by

        Well, do not get dirty, go to another resource.
    4. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker April 20 2013 12: 24 New
      +7
      Quote: L. Konstantin
      question? how earned epaulettes !? shouted cheers?

      My friend, shoulder straps here are earned by respect for your "pearls" of interlocutors, opponents ...
      hi
  9. L. konstantin
    L. konstantin April 20 2013 06: 47 New
    0
    Ivan Tarasov is a plus for you! and "generals") minus
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov April 20 2013 06: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: L. Konstantin
      Ivan Tarasov is a plus for you! and "generals") minus

      Put another one wink
      1. L. konstantin
        L. konstantin April 20 2013 07: 07 New
        -2
        nature is better but it will be safer there! "GENERAL" to you
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov April 20 2013 07: 34 New
          +3
          Quote: L. Konstantin
          nature is better but safer there

          Well, go, go dear to your safe Sweden-live, enjoy. You can marry, there it is same-sex marriages are welcome lol
          1. bask
            bask April 20 2013 07: 47 New
            +7
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            . You can get married, it's same-sex there

            Getting married or getting married in Sweden is easy.
            Quote: L. Konstantin
            to buy a house in Sweden! there is a green zone
            rather ,, blue ,, zone. The flag is Swedish to you fellow
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov April 20 2013 07: 54 New
              +7
              Quote: bask
              rather ,, blue ,, zone.

              And the police in Sweden will guard his bed .... or in bed request
              1. bask
                bask April 20 2013 08: 01 New
                +5
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                And the police in Sweden will be

                Greetings to Alexander. The police in Sweden are generally a separate song, love
                1. Alexander Romanov
                  Alexander Romanov April 20 2013 11: 16 New
                  +2
                  Quote: bask
                  . Sweden police generally separate, song,

                  Let her arrest me wassat
                  Hi Basque!
            2. L. konstantin
              L. konstantin April 20 2013 13: 57 New
              -3
              all of you have togas goes to scars yes you are here d "b" and "l" s
          2. L. konstantin
            L. konstantin April 20 2013 13: 56 New
            -2
            are you a stupid person? you need to get married! and I’m not your dear yet!
  10. taseka
    taseka April 20 2013 07: 04 New
    -3
    "And Khrushchev's third serious mistake was that he decided to make the Soviet Union a more open society. The start was given by holding the World Festival of Youth and Students in Moscow in 1957. Then foreign tourism began to develop in the country." - Thanks to this "serious mistake" the author is now sitting in the internet and can sunbathe on the beaches of Egypt !!!
  11. kind
    kind April 20 2013 07: 06 New
    0
    Pay attention to the name and surname of the author of the article, and everything will fall into place. These were the "mistakes" that prevented the West from imposing their crap democracy.
  12. Zomanus
    Zomanus April 20 2013 07: 12 New
    +2
    Hm. The article is somewhat ... Yes, we were for peace. But they would try to attack us, they would get to the fullest. The fact that we were for peace did not prevent us from fighting all over the world, albeit secretly. The main mistake of Khrushchev (or maybe not a mistake) was to curtail scientific Marxism-communism. Down with private property, down with the family.
  13. L. konstantin
    L. konstantin April 20 2013 07: 24 New
    0
    we showed teeth and not milk fangs like a puppy! who has a puppy will understand what it is about
  14. dddym
    dddym April 20 2013 07: 33 New
    +6
    The minus article - with all its willingness to express the truth - the author somewhat distorts some events. For example, the entry of troops into Afghanistan was not done from Khrushchev’s whim, I won’t be engaged in demagogy - if the car is interested in information on an accessible Internet. The conclusions that the author draws are anti-Russian content and therefore biased.
    And the third serious mistake made by Khrushchev was that he decided to make the Soviet Union a more open society.
    This is nowhere at all - openness of society? The shooting in Novocherkassk is openness ??? Mr. Khrushchev played with democracy. These endless corn warriors with their own population, taxes that then seemed to be nonsense - like a tax on cattle. On the podium, democracy worked for him. A person who drowned under Stalin Moscow region in blood - a democrat? The only plus from his rule is the Khrushchevs. It was timely and correct.
  15. pinecone
    pinecone April 20 2013 07: 58 New
    +2
    It is not true that they "secretly" helped. At all corners they shouted about fraternal assistance to the peoples fighting against imperialism and neo-colonialism.
    In general, the article is weak, shallow.
    PS One of the forum participants wrote that Gorbachev was a protege of Khrushchev. This is not so, since the labeled one belonged to another generation of the party nomenclature and was the creature of Andropov.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker April 20 2013 12: 34 New
      +7
      Quote: pinecone
      It is not true that they "secretly" helped. At all corners they shouted about fraternal assistance to the peoples fighting against imperialism and neo-colonialism.

      Exactly.
      It was with Khrushchev that the vicious practice of "choosing" friends by unsubstantiated statements began, followed by "free" help. And the people paid for the help - with blood, a decline in the standard of living, bowing before the "poor and unfortunate" newly-born fighters for socialism, who until the last felt like "kings" and "shit" on the head of our people, coming to the USSR for study, treatment, not forgetting to fuck the girls along the way for a pair of tights.
  16. DPN
    DPN April 20 2013 08: 01 New
    +3
    Khrushchev had one mistake, he could not forgive his son’s stupidity to Stalin and began to take revenge. He betrayed Stalin and went to the country for a hitch. He wouldn’t touch Stalin (it’s worthless that he was completely upset in the blood and couldn’t understand this) the offended EBN, and even Brokeback, would not have appeared. He also had good people. People still live in Khrushchev and have many other houses and do not shine. Take WWII veterans with them left with a gulkin nose and they can’t get housing! They are the youngest!
    Now there are no factories, no work, and the goal of the state is to reduce the indigenous population of Russia.
    1. dikiybober
      dikiybober April 20 2013 10: 00 New
      -8
      Quote: dddym
      ... The person who drowned under Stalin Moscow region in blood - a democrat? The only plus from his rule is the "Khrushchevs"

      Well, the times were like that, Nikita Sergeevich himself never hid his "heroic past" in his interview to Roy Medvedev (after his resignation), he plainly stated "my hands are covered in blood" or someone may have illusions about a person who able to vibrate upward in a country like the Stalinist USSR? By the way, where are your complaints to the chief "top manager" on whose photo is actively jerking off almost the entire forum, which again overlooked, overlooked, cheated? But what about your mantras about extraordinary sagacity, Stalin's foresight, unerring assessment, etc.?
      1. dddym
        dddym April 20 2013 14: 45 New
        +2
        what Who are you talking to ???
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker April 20 2013 15: 51 New
          +6
          Quote: dddym
          Who are you talking to ???

          Verbal diarrhea is a temporary phenomenon, if you do not notice the diarrhea. Or diarrhea?
          laughing
  17. krpmlws
    krpmlws April 20 2013 08: 10 New
    +1
    The minus article is the usual liberal demagoguery. Khrushchev's mistake was that in making the good slogan "Peace-Peace", as a result of his naivety and closeness, he compromised the interests of the USSR, inflicted damage on the country's defense capability. Khrushchev's mistake was that he debunked Stalin's personality cult by doing this he inflicted enormous damage on the ideological basis of socialism throughout the world. The slogan "We will catch up and overtake" was a mistake - I agree with this. The liberal author is mistaken: the Soviet people understood why troops were being sent to Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The authority of the USSR on the one hand grew, mk showed the decisiveness of the USSR, on the other hand, discord in the socialist camp manifested itself largely due to the mistakes of Khrushchev, which we are talking about. It was not a mistake to send troops to Afghanistan (I do not adhere to the liberal point of view). Afghanistan bordered on the USSR and it was extremely important for us, for Afghanistan to be included in the zone of our influence. Well, the fact that the policy in Afghanistan was mediocre is a separate topic, otherwise after 10 years, Afghanistan would turn into the "ordinary" Soviet republic and the entire world community would have forgotten about its existence. Well, yes, they were in a hurry with openness, of course, I agree with the author.
    1. dikiybober
      dikiybober April 20 2013 10: 22 New
      -1
      Quote: krpmlws
      Khrushchev's mistake is that while making a good slogan "Peace-Peace", as a result of his naivety and closeness, he compromised the interests of the CCC

      in general, this narrow-minded and naive managed to outwit Stalin with Beria, then Zhukov, then Eisenhower, but with Kennedy he reduced everything to an honorable draw. and this "peace-loving" guy did not hesitate to drown the Hungarian uprising in blood, put the world on the brink of nuclear war, and all for the sake of the interests of the USSR. however, it must be added that this was not only his position, but the position of the military-political elite of the USSR as a whole. And Khrushchov was her impresario, so to speak ... it was Khrushchov who was against "surrendering positions" and softening anti-imperialist activity, it was from these positions that he criticized Malenkov and it was this tactic that brought him success in the struggle for power (and he was loyal to her not only in words). America was shocked by his pearly "we will bury you all" or "the Soviet pig will always negotiate with the American pig" (when he switched to reverse gear during negotiations)
  18. sashka
    sashka April 20 2013 08: 26 New
    -1
    "President" Sounds cool. What is their Promise fulfilled? Let's say I was personally "promised" It's funny ..
  19. sashka
    sashka April 20 2013 08: 28 New
    -2
    And we are "host" This is the "nashenski".
    1. sashka
      sashka April 20 2013 12: 20 New
      0
      Probably "three-volt!" Hangs together with "esauk @ L Let's shout" Hurray "and everything will be ..
      1. djon3volta
        djon3volta April 21 2013 07: 17 New
        -1
        Quote: Sasha
        Probably "three-volt!"

        count it, no! I went into this topic for the second time. I liked Khrushchev because he made Americans put it on his pants when he put a nuclear pistol at his temple and even cocked the trigger (Cuba)!
    2. sashka
      sashka April 20 2013 12: 30 New
      0
      What is the problem..?
  20. AK-47
    AK-47 April 20 2013 08: 37 New
    +9
    Three mistakes that Khrushchev did not have time to make in housing construction:
    - did not have time to make the lavatory through;
    - combine the toilet with the bath;
    - connect the floor to the ceiling.
    laughing
  21. SEM
    SEM April 20 2013 08: 49 New
    +3
    History doesn’t change, we have what we have, there is only one thing left to survive and we will survive. You can argue for a long time who is right and who was wrong then only we live now and this is most important in this case. Everyone needs to work so that there is something to pass on to the children and it would not be a shame, since it is too late to whine.
  22. Backfire
    Backfire April 20 2013 09: 30 New
    12
    Khrushchev and "smart moves" are two incompatible concepts.

    To truly appreciate the era, you need to live in it. But thanks to the surviving footage and TV, we can get an idea of ​​Khrushchev. By the way, in life, we do this all the time - when we are dealing with a new person, then it is enough to talk to him, observe or at least listen to him and very soon you get an idea of ​​what he is. The so called "background".

    I personally had the impression of Khrushchev as of a narrow-minded person. Of course, he was a master of "undercover" intrigue, not a coward, but this is not enough for the leadership of the country.

    And if we talk about the course with which he led the country, then there are a couple of questions to him:

    Why was the course begun by Stalin in the early 50s on the creation of its own currency zone curtailed? By the way, if the version that Stalin was killed is true, then most likely it is for this. Such people are usually removed not for what they have done, but for what they are going to.

    Few people here understand how the USSR was dangerous to the "West". Rockets, tanks, planes, "Workers of all countries unite!" - that's all yes, but the main thing was different.
    All its existence, especially from the post-war era until its collapse, the Union was dangerous primarily because of its financial system built on other principles than the usurious interest.
    Perhaps Stalin "groped" the right direction and, most likely, wanted to create a single currency zone with China and Eastern Europe. The sharp cooling in relations with China, almost immediately after Stalin's death, is very eloquent.

    And the second question - why did he so pour mud over Stalin? Even 3 years after his death, this was a risky step - people still remembered what Stalin was and most importantly in what conditions he led the country.

    One of the obvious reasons may be that Khrushchev was personally involved in the elimination of Stalin.

    And another reason - for less than 3 years he broke so much firewood that he saw the only way out for himself to slander his predecessor.

    In any case, Khrushchev is simply mediocrity that "pissed off" a very interesting position.
    So he had only one mistake when he imagined himself to be a man capable of leading such a country as the USSR, especially when the people and world leaders still remembered Stalin.
  23. Semyon Albertovich
    Semyon Albertovich April 20 2013 09: 48 New
    +5
    One tyrant endowed with unlimited power will do many troubles in any country and in any system. Our General Secretary and their entourage what they wanted to do, this tradition was passed on to the Russian rulers and their proteges. Only how much nonsense was done uncontrollably by one tyrant Serdyukov, etc. etc .. MECHANISMS FOR MONITORING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FIRST PERSONS OF THE STATE NEED real, not formal.
  24. dikiybober
    dikiybober April 20 2013 09: 52 New
    -12
    Stalin kept Khrushchev in the role of a clown, a jester. But it was an evil buffoon and he took revenge on his sovereign in full.

    SuperJoker coped with the rest of the program ... And the little bat, having got drunk with the lab, laborers palicha, opened the pile of money and the road
    Quote: Backfire
    And the second question - why did he so pour mud over Stalin? Even 3 years after his death, it was a risky step - people still remembered what Stalin was and most importantly in what conditions he led the country

    It was just that the Soviet leadership decided to install a "presumptuous secretary from some sort of Ukraine" and close up the autopsy of the "under-betman", but Nikita Sergeevich and broke in their answer to the very best ...
    By the way, they got off easy - Zhukov, in his "famous" speech about the defeat of the anti-party group, so accidentally remarked "that NS Khrushchov had mistakes" and after reading the Jacobi raster lists signed by Khroshchovim, including the names of Kaganovich and Molotov, the truth immediately added looking directly at the subject, apparently there is some mistake laughing
  25. vlbelugin
    vlbelugin April 20 2013 10: 01 New
    +5
    It ended with the ideological catastrophe of 1979 - the entry of the "Limited contingent of Soviet troops" into Afghanistan. Whatever regular propagandists said about this, it sounded unconvincing precisely because there was no serious theoretical, ideological justification.
    But there was a military rationale. In Europe there were "Pershing" and the entire European part of the USSR was under attack. They did not reach the Urals, where all our military industrial potential was located. If we had not entered Afghanistan, the Americans would have come there. Placing "Pershing" there, they would have kept the Southern and Middle Urals at gunpoint. Flight time is 10 minutes. It is not possible to "fill" the head during this time. The entry was forced.
    1. NOBODY EXCEPT US
      NOBODY EXCEPT US April 21 2013 23: 20 New
      0
      An old song, I listened to it in the 79th ...... you say nonsense, the introduction of troops became a thunder for amers out of the blue ....
  26. fenix57
    fenix57 April 20 2013 10: 30 New
    +4
    Quote: L. Konstantin
    sell your homeland! this is actually a complete anus! and sell Siberia from the Far East! and MODERATOR! Do not share what is written! I understand what kind of poo you are. but there’s not a drop for you

    I am in Primorye; - and in the service to whom you write yours, I will raise your forks.
  27. dikiybober
    dikiybober April 20 2013 10: 34 New
    -8
    Quote: vlbelugin
    In Europe there were "Pershing" and the entire European part of the USSR was under attack. They did not reach the Urals, where all our military industrial potential was located. If we had not entered Afghanistan, the Americans would have come there. Placing "Pershing" there, they would have kept the Southern and Middle Urals at gunpoint. Flight time is 10 minutes. It is not possible to "fill" the head during this time. The entry was forced.

    Chuv dzvin that does not know de vin. The invasion of Afghanistan was forced but far from necessary. And no one was going to introduce any "pershing" to Afghanistan. Tell this to some grandmother on the block. The decision to send troops was made in connection with the desire to support their own in the internal party struggle for power in which the "Stalinist" amine cut out the entire internal party opposition and just all who were not busy. Plus to Afghanistan unevenly gave China, which received Lyuli at the beginning of the same 1979 from the "soviets" in Vietnam and Cambodia. The introduction of Chinese troops was just real, America even gave the go-ahead (then they had a particularly ardent love with China ...)
  28. itr
    itr April 20 2013 10: 38 New
    -2
    I do not agree with the author!
  29. dikiybober
    dikiybober April 20 2013 10: 43 New
    -4
    Quote: DPN
    He had a good one. People still live in Khrushchev and have many other houses and do not shine. Take WWII veterans with them left with a gulkin nose and they can’t get housing! They’re the youngest

    well, good to say the least, by the way, a curious link http://www.kvartira-spb.com/hronologiya-tipovoi-zastroiki.html
    The main message is that if the standards of the "Stalinist Empire" were preserved in construction, the country in the "golden stagnant" years would not have been counted in millions of square meters of living space.
    And citizens "historians" well remember who was there in the USSR (under Dzhugashvili) was the main specialist in architecture - to the point that projects such as the main building of Moscow State University required his visa ?? Well, what can we say about the conscience and intellect of this "person" ????
  30. dikiybober
    dikiybober April 20 2013 11: 11 New
    -12
    Quote: Backfire

    Why was the course begun by Stalin in the early 50s on the creation of its own currency zone curtailed? By the way, if the version that Stalin was killed is true, then most likely it is for this. Such people are usually removed not for what they have done, but for what they are going to.

    Few people here understand how the USSR was dangerous to the "West". Rockets, tanks, planes, "Workers of all countries unite!" - that's all yes, but the main thing was different.
    All its existence, especially from the post-war era until its collapse, the Union was dangerous primarily because of its financial system built on other principles than the usurious interest.

    Vobsche is not the topic. It was Stalin who was one of the conductors of the Bretton Woods system according to which the whole world was thrown at the feet of the dollar ... And the USSR as well (yes, the stadophile’s siege). And this was done by tying the ruble to gold and confiscating monetary reform. which Khrushchov immediately outplayed without even having received all the fullness of power ...
    For help, google at least about the Rokotov case. This is what the Jews still cannot forgive him, because it was for them in the USSR that the death penalty was again introduced at the suggestion of Khrushchev. And not for some kind of gopniks or bloody murderers from the industrial Donbass, but for the elite of the Jewish world - currency speculators. By the way, the scale of this "business" speaks for itself without a roof at the very top, it was simply impossible to handle such cases, and whoever was at the very top then can answer.
    1. luka095
      luka095 April 20 2013 17: 21 New
      +3
      Unfortunately, your statements, dikiybober, are not the topic. They actually put everything upside down.
      For example, the monetary reform of Khrushchev was carried out in 1961. Khrushchev came to power in 1953.
      And many of your statements in the same vein ...
  31. dikiybober
    dikiybober April 20 2013 12: 10 New
    -9
    At the beginning of 1944 in Kiev (after his liberation by the Soviet troops) N. Khrushchev said: “I understand that you, as a Jew, consider this issue from a subjective point of view. But we are objective: Jews in the past committed many sins against the Ukrainian people. The people hate them for this. In our Ukraine, we do not need Jews. And, I think, for Ukrainian Jews who survived Hitler’s attempts to exterminate them, it would be better not to return here. It would be better if they went to Birobidzhan ... After all, we are here in Ukraine ... Do you understand? Here is Ukraine. And we are not interested in the Ukrainian people interpreting the return of Soviet power as the return of the Jews [

    Appreciate you asp and not rest. Itself through all the local forums ... I water the lane qiu "Lyudin" but
    NOW NOT EVENING,
  32. Volkhov
    Volkhov April 20 2013 12: 20 New
    +6
    Khrushchev did not have mistakes - this is a conscious policy and not invented by him. Stalin tried to bring Russia to sovereignty and technical development, and Khrushchev drove deeper into the colony.
  33. washi
    washi April 20 2013 12: 31 New
    +7
    There was one mistake. Turned the course of Stalin. Back in 36, Stalin wanted to hold alternative elections. And at the 19th congress, he declared that the party should be engaged in ideology, and for solving problems there are councils of PEOPLE'S deputies, which were not necessarily party members. Under Stalin, large-scale industry belonged to the state, cooperatives were engaged in the rest (among their members there were even heroes of labor). There were collective farms, but they also did not take away subsidiary plots and livestock from anyone (after Khrushchev's reforms they threw HIS farm and died in the city). Money was paid for cost reduction (part went to implementation, the rest went to premiums, moreover, constant). Anyone could become rich not just in obscurity, but in their own mind. MTS - why poheril? Station those. maintenance of tractor and other equipment. As a result, illiterate exploitation.
  34. Eric
    Eric April 20 2013 12: 49 New
    +2
    You don't have to wear gray hair, like many of our comrades on the site, to understand "Khrushchev's role in history."
  35. dikiybober
    dikiybober April 20 2013 13: 05 New
    -6
    here єVreysky komіsar mriіlivo posmіhayuchis think к yak vin will be rubati Ukrainian villagers on cabbage ...
    And here is schaslifiy final smile

    1. antidote
      antidote April 20 2013 19: 12 New
      +3
      Well, about this there is the right deal
  36. L. konstantin
    L. konstantin April 20 2013 14: 02 New
    -6
    dear "respected" generals and their henchmen! tie insult and impose your point of view! and there is no need to write a stigma about same-sex marriage !!! otherwise this is already ponocea! After that, I get the impression that you are most concerned about this! if you need it! then you need to correspond on a completely different site!)
  37. Bator79
    Bator79 April 20 2013 14: 13 New
    +5
    Khrush and his accomplices poisoned Stalin. Beria (the man who stopped the repression who created the USSR’s Nuclear Shield) should have been Stalin’s heir), but Khrushch again shot Beria.
    1. antidote
      antidote April 20 2013 19: 15 New
      +3
      I completely agree with this. It seems to me that there was a Western conspiracy against Stalin, and his weapon was Khrushchev.
  38. fenix57
    fenix57 April 20 2013 14: 24 New
    +1
    Quote: L. Konstantin
    u! although I'm fsbshnik)

    [b] You would say, "FSB officer .." and nothing else. At least to respect for the RUSSIAN LANGUAGE.

    After all, you are for RUSSIA, isn’t it ...?
    [/B]
  39. Canep
    Canep April 20 2013 15: 01 New
    +2
    Khrushchev has only one mistake - it is himself.
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 April 20 2013 15: 16 New
      +6
      This is not his mistake but his parents wassat
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker April 20 2013 15: 53 New
        +7
        Quote: Ruslan67
        This is not his mistake but his parents

        Eh, they didn’t have contraceptives ...
        laughing
  40. krez-74
    krez-74 April 20 2013 15: 05 New
    +1
    Khrushchev himself mistake1
  41. Net
    Net April 20 2013 15: 48 New
    0
    But the lack of service, as well as product poverty, the lack of entertainment - were immediately evident. In turn, the Soviet tourist, having fallen to the West, did not see the class contradictions of capitalism at point blank range, but the abundance of goods, the level of service and the entertainment sector threw him into a cognitive and psychological shock.

    So think, what is the equivalent contrast - commodity poverty, the level of service against the class contradictions of capitalism. What could not establish abundance of goods, raise the level of service? It is not class contradictions to decide!
  42. Anton Russian
    Anton Russian April 20 2013 16: 50 New
    +4
    Khrushchev had only one mistake - he became Secretary General.
    1. воронов
      воронов April 21 2013 21: 01 New
      -1
      Quote: Anton Russian
      Khrushchev had only one mistake - he became Secretary General.

      You are mistaken two, the first and main because you were born
  43. Garrin
    Garrin April 20 2013 16: 54 New
    +4
    Quote: AntonR7
    Perhaps the Crimea hrushchev handed over to Ukraine is also not a mistake ?!

    This is not a mistake - this is a crime.
    1. d.gksueyjd
      d.gksueyjd April 20 2013 20: 33 New
      +1
      It didn't mean anything at the time. In the USSR, Ukraine lived freely (miners were paid decent wages for their work). Ask then, in the same Rostov region: do you agree to become a part of Ukraine? The majority would agree! It was not his crime, but the crime was drinking in "Belovezhskaya Pushcha" and its result.
  44. Garrin
    Garrin April 20 2013 16: 56 New
    +1

    Something like this. I will not forgive Sevastopol.
  45. Backfire
    Backfire April 20 2013 17: 04 New
    +6
    Quote: dikiybober
    Vobsche is not the topic. It was Stalin who was one of the conductors of the Bretton Woods system according to which the whole world was thrown at the feet of the dollar ...

    Yah? And that the USSR entered the dollar zone after the 2nd World War? Or accepted the Marshall Plan?

    This is you "not at all in the subject":
    The Bretton Woods agreements were signed in 1944, according to which the dollar became the main world currency instead of the pound sterling. And how could the USSR influence or be a "conductor" here ?!

    Stalin that during the war had to "set conditions"? Say, do not you dare to make the dollar the world's main reserve currency?
    How could he influence the agreements to which the USSR had nothing at all!

    Quote: dikiybober
    . And this was done by tying the ruble to gold and confiscating monetary reform. which Khrushchov immediately outplayed without even having received all the fullness of power ...

    What "confiscation reform" are you writing about?

    After the war, the USSR was in an extremely difficult situation - half the country was destroyed, a bunch of specialists were killed, the monetary system was upset.

    Who accumulated a lot of money during the war? Speculators and thieves!

    You at least read about the conditions for the exchange of money of that reform, look at the amounts that could be changed 1: 1 and compare with salaries.
    Honest people lost nothing from that reform.
    Lost only those who profited from the people's grief.
    1. Raven1972
      Raven1972 April 20 2013 20: 07 New
      +4
      + You answered perfectly !!!!!!!!!! And we add that in the USSR, the Central Bank was nationalized and belonged to the state, but it is not clear to whom (in the person of the Fed), + RUBLE was tied to gold, and not to the dollar ... That is the fool understands that the USSR was in no way dependent on the world banking system .... And we did not give a damn about the fluctuations of the dollar exchange rate from a high bell tower hi
      1. dikiybober
        dikiybober April 21 2013 07: 49 New
        -1
        Quote: Raven1972
        + RUBLE was tied to gold

        for those who are in the tank, with this phrase you said "the ruble was tied to the dollar (through gold)" because this was the essence of the Bretton Woods system. How many young morons (regardless of the number of years according to the passport) do not explain, they will never understand. After all, they did not read Capital, and they replaced the economic theory of Marx with "Stalin's true Orthodoxy."
        Khrushchev, and this is his greatest merit, broke this system and made the Central Bank completely controlled by the government of the USSR (under the steel, a system was in effect much similar to the current "currency board")
        1. Raven1972
          Raven1972 April 21 2013 19: 40 New
          0
          Nah, it’s what the gold standard is, and not the dollar exchange rate in gold ... This is a big difference ... And I read Capital better than some hi
          And this was done just under Stalin (the Central Bank was subordinated to the government of the USSR) and not under Khrushchev, so do not bother ...
          Py.sy. Only beavers do not know this, apparently, they except biting trees no longer know anything at all ... laughing
  46. luka095
    luka095 April 20 2013 17: 14 New
    +5
    Khrushchev's efforts to destroy Stalin's legacy are not "mistakes." This is a deliberate policy invented not only by Khrushchev himself.
    1. antidote
      antidote April 20 2013 19: 16 New
      +3
      He couldn’t come up with anything. He just used it as a pres
  47. luka095
    luka095 April 20 2013 17: 25 New
    0
    The author of the article is definitely a minus. He reduces the problem to propaganda slogans. And that’s all!
    1. Alexander-81
      Alexander-81 April 20 2013 20: 24 New
      0
      Well, freedom of speech as it is now (WITH THE DECLARED LAW on freedom of speech before leaving) I do not need it, in ANY AMENDMENTS!
  48. varov14
    varov14 April 20 2013 19: 24 New
    0
    Stalin either went too far or didn’t finish that, as a result, Stalin’s entourage chose the secretary general of the jester.
  49. varov14
    varov14 April 20 2013 19: 24 New
    0
    Stalin either went too far or didn’t finish that, as a result, Stalin’s entourage chose the secretary general of the jester.
  50. varov14
    varov14 April 20 2013 19: 25 New
    0
    Stalin either went too far or didn’t finish that, as a result, Stalin’s entourage chose the secretary general of the jester.