How Khrushchev provoked the Hungarian revolt

41 900 212
How Khrushchev provoked the Hungarian revolt
Soviet ISU-152s in central Budapest


Hungarian Trophy


Hungary fell to the Soviet Union in a brutal battle (The Hungarian scenario for the collapse of the Red Empire). The Nazis amassed troops from Yugoslavia, deploying the best armored units from the Western Front and elite SS divisions. The battle for the Hungarian capital, Budapest, lasted more than 100 days.



In February and March 1945, two and a half months before the fall of Berlin, the Nazis launched a powerful counteroffensive in the Lake Balaton region. A half-million-strong force with 900 tanks and self-propelled guns, 850 aircraft. The Anglo-Americans had not experienced such a powerful strike during the entire war with Hitler.

Thousands of Russians of the 3rd Ukrainian Front fell in brutal battles. But the Soviet armies stood firm and advanced. In March 1945, Hungary was liberated from German troops. The country became a legitimate trophy of the USSR. Stalin installed loyal cadres there, gaining control of the geographic center of Europe.

Hungary became an important part of the Soviet sphere of influence in Europe. In 1955, the Warsaw Pact, which included Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria, was formed.

Prepare


In 1956, Khrushchev, an active Trotskyist, began to destabilize the Soviet Union from within, undermining its unity and ideology. In February, at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev rushed to "expose Stalinism." In doing so, he undermined the unity of the socialist bloc.

The US was pleased. Now they could organize rebellions in socialist countries and lure them to their side. On July 18, Act No. 726 allocated one hundred million dollars (they were more substantial then) to prepare for the uprising.

In Upper Bavaria, they began training Hungarian saboteurs who had fled to the West in 1945, and later the Horthyites and Szálasists. They were reinforced by Hungarian Germans, many of whom were SS soldiers. They were formed into groups of future rebel forces, airlifted to Austria, and from there to Hungary.

During the Munich uprising itself, a recruiting center was set up in the Free Europe headquarters. Former Hungarian Nazis were sent from there to Hungary in groups. Groups of militants were also trained in the UK. A detachment of 500 Hungarian émigrés was transferred from there. Several dozen groups of militants were also transferred from Fontainebleau, France, where NATO headquarters were then located.

It was saboteurs trained in NATO countries who would seize a number of important facilities during the uprising, including the Danuvia and Lampadyar arms factories.

In essence, then The Western masters used the remnants of the "Hitlerite European Union" against the USSR. They threw into the battle Nazis and fascists who had previously served Hitler.


Time Magazine's Person of the Year is a "Hungarian freedom fighter."

Insurrection


The 20th Congress became the signal for an uprising in Hungary. In effect, Khrushchev betrayed the Hungarian leadership, loyal to Moscow, and disorganized and demoralized the authorities of one of the most stable Warsaw Pact countries.

At the same time, Hungarian society was largely conservative, dating back to the Horthy-Szálasi era, having avoided large-scale "purges." The security forces included many officers from the semi-fascist Horthy era. The country was governed by a narrow stratum of committed communists, who relied on the small apparatus of the State Security Directorate and the authority and power of the USSR. Khrushchev personally destroyed this system.

Crowds took to the streets, and demonstrations "for democratic socialism" quickly escalated into unrest, with the Stalin monument torn down and attempts to seize buildings. Mass desecrations of the graves of Soviet soldiers who liberated Hungary in 1944–1945 began. The protesters demanded the removal of the pro-Soviet leadership in Budapest, the withdrawal of Soviet troops, the introduction of democracy, and the withdrawal of Hungary from the Warsaw Pact and its establishment as a neutral country like Austria. The idea of ​​creating a Central European Confederation comprising Hungary, Austria, and Yugoslavia was put forward.

The first attempts at armed attacks could have been suppressed by local state security forces. But traitors in the Hungarian leadership ordered that there be no resistance to the "people" and that the government lay down its arms. weaponAfter this, the rebels rounded up local security officers on the streets, identifying their affiliation with the UGB by their yellow leather uniform shoes. Those caught were killed on the spot, sometimes without identification; the corpses were lynched and hung by the feet from trees and lampposts.

On October 23, 1956, the first clashes between Soviet troops and Hungarian rebels occurred. Under the influence of the rebellious crowds, the liberal Imre Nagy became prime minister of Hungary. He declared that Hungary demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops and the country's exit from the Warsaw Pact. The Hungarian army was subordinated to Nagy. The rebels seized weapons depots.

At this stage, the rebellion could have been suppressed by Lashchenko's Special Corps (which had two Guards Mechanized Divisions – the 2nd and 17th). However, Khrushchev, who wanted to appear to the "world community" as a supporter of freedom and human rights, ordered the withdrawal of troops from Budapest. The country finally descended into bloody chaos.

The collective West of that time provided informational support for the uprising. "Free Europe" instilled in the rebels the idea that NATO would come to their aid. This was a deception; back then, Westerners were still afraid of the Russians. NATO didn't dare engage in a "hot" war. The underlying assumption was that Moscow would waver and give in. It would withdraw its troops and surrender Hungary.


The severed head of Stalin's monument

All that remains of the Stalin monument are the accordion boots with the inscription "Boots No. 1"

Putting things in order


In a matter of days, a hostile state with thousands of armed gangs, joined by regular units of the Hungarian army, emerged in place of friendly, allied Hungary. Weapons are being shipped to Hungary under the guise of "humanitarian aid."

The country is experiencing an outbreak of inferno (from the Latin word for "lower, underground," meaning hell, the underworld). Brutal "freedom fighters" hang and beat their victims to death. They gouge out their eyes and cut off their ears. Thirty people were hanged by the feet in Moscow Square in Budapest, doused with gasoline, and burned alive. The Hungarian fascists brutally murdered not only their own "traitors." Our captured soldiers were also tortured, abused, and then killed.


The mutilated corpse of a state security officer, hanged upside down

On October 28, de facto power in the country fell into the hands of the Revolutionary Military Council, led by General Király and Colonel Maleter. On October 30, Soviet troops withdrew from Budapest, a National Guard was created from rebel units, and Mindszenty, head of the Hungarian Catholic Church, was released from custody. The Nagy government decided to restore a multiparty system in Hungary. On November 1, it announced its withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact.


Withdrawal of Soviet troops from Budapest, October 31, 1956

Moscow could no longer allow this. The General Staff developed the "Whirlwind" plan. By November 4, 1956, a 60-strong force with 3 tanks was assembled in Hungary under the command of our outstanding commander, Marshal Konev. Units from 16 divisions—tank, mechanized, rifle, airborne, and aviationThey were part of Babajanyan's 8th Mechanized Army, Mamsurov's 38th Combined Arms Army (both armies were transferred from the Carpathian Military District), and Lashchenko's Special Corps.

Formally, Soviet troops invaded Hungary at the invitation of the government hastily formed by János Kádár. ​​Kádár initially joined the revolutionary government and promised to "lie under the first Soviet tank." When he realized the uprising would be crushed, he defected to the victorious side.

This time, the Russians acted quickly and decisively. Airborne troops captured all Hungarian airfields. By 7:00 a.m., the assault on Budapest had begun. The city was taken by troops of the reinforced Special Corps: the 2nd and 33rd Guards Mechanized Divisions and the 128th Guards Rifle Division. Assault detachments were formed within the divisions to capture key objectives. These included an infantry battalion, an airborne company in armored personnel carriers, and more than ten tanks.

Fierce fighting continued in the Hungarian capital. The most intense battles took place at the Central Telephone Exchange, the Corvin Cinema, the Royal Fortress, Keleti Station, and Moscow Square.

The Soviet command cancelled the originally planned bombing of the city to avoid mass civilian casualties. Only MiG-17 fighters flew over the very rooftops, tearing them down with their shockwaves to suppress the shooters' activities.

The enemy had managed to prepare anti-tank defenses and an organized fire system. Many buildings, as in 1945, became strongholds. But the assault was still led by Stalin's imperial army, which had vast combat experience. Experienced front-line officers. Therefore, overall losses were relatively small: about 2000 men, 28 tanks and self-propelled guns, and 40 armored vehicles.

The fighting in Budapest lasted until November 9. November 5 artillery The enemy's stronghold and headquarters in the Corvin Cinema were suppressed by fire. Major Donchenko's paratroopers captured the Hungarian Ministry of Defense building without firing a shot, paralyzing any potential center of resistance. Thirteen generals and over 300 officers surrendered.

The fighting continued. Units of the 33rd Division fought their way into the center of the capital, capturing the Kossuth radio station and the Danube docks where the naval flotilla was based on the 6th. Fierce fighting raged for the former Horthy Palace and the Royal Fortress. Over a thousand rebels fought here, skillfully exploiting underground communications. Heavy tanks and self-propelled guns were deployed.

On November 7, another defensive stronghold, Gellért Hill, fell. On the 8th and 9th, the last pockets of resistance in Budapest were suppressed – on Csepel Island, where military factories were located, and in Buda.

Meanwhile, Babajanyan and Mamsurov's units liberated most of the country from the enemy. Cities were occupied, the Hungarian army (25 soldiers) was disarmed, and the Hungarian air force was captured on the ground. Main roads and the border with Austria were secured. Most of the Hungarian troops offered no resistance. Kádár was allowed to form two divisions from supporters of the new government.

On November 11, the operation was successfully completed. Total rebel losses amounted to approximately 16 people, and civilian casualties exceeded 3.

Imre Nagy was hanged on June 16, 1958, for treason, along with Pál Maléter and Miklós Giemis. Béla Király successfully escaped to Austria, from where he moved to the United States. He was sentenced to death in absentia and lived a long life (he died in 2009).

Moscow reclaimed its trophy from World War II, for which it had paid a heavy price. There were no other options. Only defeat. Hungary would then join the West and NATO. We would gain a strategic NATO foothold there, aimed at the USSR and our forces in Eastern Europe.

That's why, by the way, we can't give up Ukraine now. Either our troops will be in Kharkiv, Odessa, and Kyiv, or NATO tanks and planes.

Hungary's example would also have immediately resonated with Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, and so on. This was precisely what Paris, London, and Washington were counting on. The Soviet Empire had its own logic and justice, which had little in common with the liberal propaganda notion of the happiness of the "little man" or the "tear of a baby." The intelligentsia of any small nation, perhaps one that was once "great," will always hate the great imperial Russian nation.

Hungary itself, under Kádár, who effectively ruled the country until 1988, received socioeconomic freedom in exchange for political loyalty. Kádár's regime provided citizens with a relatively good standard of living and was dubbed "goulash socialism" (Hungarians could afford to eat well, eating meat every day). This was, however, thanks to cheap Soviet energy and Western loans.

Appendix. Memories of ordinary participants in the operation—soldiers and junior officers. From V. Shevchenko's monograph "Reminder."

Mechanic-driver of the T-34 tank, senior sergeant Alexey Ovcharenko:

Taking advantage of the seemingly calm situation, the loader opened the hatch, climbed halfway out, and was about to empty the cartridges from the container. At that moment, a burst of automatic fire rang out, and he was wounded. We returned fire toward the forest from which the gunfire had emanated. And after driving a few hundred meters, an explosion thundered. The grenade explosion damaged the tank's track, and we radioed for backup. Our loader had to be pulled out through the lower hatch and taken up a defensive position. I was well aware that I had to save my last round.

Senior Lieutenant of the Airborne Forces Ivan Boychenko: "Colonel General Margelov gives the order to the regiment in front of the formation: 'Guards paratroopers, be in Budapest tomorrow, November 4th (600 km). The counterrevolution has come out with weapons there. You are to fire 100 shots per shot. Everyone return home.' A column of 83 vehicles drove out into the night through the border village of Beregovo, and we were on Hungarian soil. I won't lie. The feeling was unpleasant, incomprehensible. The soldiers weren't fired upon, something was yet to come... After 120 kilometers, we entered the town of Nyíregyháza. The column turned at a 90-degree angle near the church, and suddenly automatic rifle fire erupted from the right side of the street, and heavy-caliber gunfire erupted from the church at the column. The order was given to fight. The entire paratrooper force opened fire on the houses to the right, where the fire was coming from. The order was given to cease fire, but again fire erupted from the attics. The landing force opens heavy fire. Fires are visible. The landing column is ordered to cease fire again. Result: three houses are burning. One paratrooper killed, eight wounded."

Private Ivan Yershov, tank driver-mechanic: “Our tank was first. Burning bottles rained down on us, and one tank caught fire, while another, following behind, accidentally fired a shot, knocking the flames off the tank. And then everyone immediately radioed, ‘Extinguish yourselves with a shot.’ … Then we entered the city streets again. And suddenly, a shot hit our tank, and we stopped. There was smoke inside, you couldn’t see anything… So, the officer turned off the radio, and we sat in silence, waiting for the smoke inside to clear… We drove two kilometers—explosions, fire, machine gun fire all around. There was even an incident where the machine gun on one of our heavy tanks was blown off by the blast wave. There’s so much more to remember from those terrible days. It was difficult, dangerous, but we made it. We won.”
212 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    20 November 2025 04: 01
    Khrushchev's role in the Hungarian uprising is unclear...
    1. +27
      20 November 2025 05: 19
      Quote from Uncle Lee
      Khrushchev's role in the Hungarian uprising is unclear.

      The author writes
      In 1956, Khrushchev, an active Trotskyist, began to destabilize the Soviet Union from within, undermining its unity and ideology. In February, at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev rushed to "expose Stalinism." In doing so, he undermined the unity of the socialist bloc.
      Why he's a Trotskyist is unclear. The fact is that by slandering Stalin and flirting with the West, he first undermined the ideological foundations of the state, and then amnestied over 100 Bandera supporters, Vlasovites, and other oppressors. It's surprising the USSR didn't collapse in those years. Apparently, the resilience gained after WWII helped.
      1. +21
        20 November 2025 08: 21
        After Stalin's death, there was an amnesty, and many Hungarian prisoners, former Wehrmacht soldiers, were released home... but they again participated in the rebellion on the other side. In general, during WWII, the Hungarians proved themselves to be brutal punitive forces.
        1. +12
          20 November 2025 08: 29
          Quote from Aleprok
          Hungarians have proven themselves to be cruel punishers

          Hungarians, Romanians, Western Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, and many others responded to Nazi slogans and perks. The problem is that they were portrayed as the extreme leaders of the fascist regime. But no one, then or now, drew any ideological conclusions about the consequences of Nazism and nationalism.
        2. +9
          20 November 2025 12: 37
          Most Hungarians returned from our captivity to their homeland under Stalin, in the late 40s—according to various estimates, 350–450 people. After Stalin's death, a small number—around 3—returned.
          1. +1
            21 November 2025 01: 00
            Quote from solar
            After Stalin's death, a small remaining part returned - about 3 thousand people.

            These 3 thousand led the previous 450 thousand who had previously returned to peaceful life?
            1. +1
              21 November 2025 11: 54
              These 3 thousand led the previous 450 thousand who had previously returned to peaceful life?

              This is not a question for me.
        3. +2
          20 November 2025 23: 54
          But now we're making Orban out to be some kind of little brother, even though he admitted in an interview that he was always against the USSR and that the Nazis in the article are heroes and a source of pride for him.
          1. +5
            21 November 2025 06: 52
            Hungary currently supplies electricity to 404, generated from Russian gas. Orbán simply prioritizes the well-being of his own country: if it's profitable to buy cheap Russian gas, he buys it; if it's profitable to sell energy to 404, he sells it. Friendship or hostility has nothing to do with it.
            In big politics, there are no friends, only situational allies. Just a few years ago, even Belarus was close to becoming another "Anti-Russia" if the liberals won.
            I suspect that in 15-20 years Serbia will happily forget the NATO bombing of Belgrade.
            1. +1
              21 November 2025 12: 24
              It's obvious - if NATO invades Russia, Hungary and Orban will happily burn Russian civilians in churches, as they have already done many times.
              1. 0
                21 November 2025 22: 43
                Well, if they're paid handsomely for it, then yes. And they'll find justifiers like, "Well done, they're taking care of their people," and that it's at our expense—well, what a trifle...
          2. 0
            23 November 2025 13: 33
            In the 80s, I subscribed to the "Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta" newspaper. According to its coverage of the CMEA, the Magyars were living the best lives in the Council for Mutual Assistance. And many of them remember and understand this well.
            I tried searching YouTube for a Hungarian pioneer song I learned in school (YUGV). I found two collections of school songs from the 60s-80s. What surprised me was the overwhelmingly positive comments, a nostalgia for a bygone era...
            1. +1
              24 November 2025 06: 52
              The fact that they lived better than us is not our merit, but our failure. After all their crimes, starting from the 19th century.
        4. 0
          21 November 2025 15: 50
          But now they only care about their own country! And not about the EU!
        5. 0
          23 November 2025 16: 40
          I remember there was an order not to take Hungarians prisoner after they learned about their atrocities against the civilian population...
      2. +4
        21 November 2025 08: 21
        Quote: Vitaly.17
        It is not clear why he is a Trotskyist.

        We need to call it something! lol
      3. +5
        21 November 2025 10: 18
        So many of the traitors were killed right away... In my village, they didn’t even survive an hour after returning: one - 30 meters from the bus stop, the second - right in the store.
      4. +1
        22 November 2025 23: 47
        Quote: Vitaly.17
        It is not clear why he is a Trotskyist.

        Read Mukhin's book "The Killer of Stalin and Beria", everything is there in detail and with documents. He was officially a supporter of Trotsky's group, but after his expulsion from the country he "repented", "condemned" and through Stalin's wife Aliluyeva (she studied with Khrushchev in the same group at ... either university, or at the party school ... in general, it was she who somehow brought a young classmate home and introduced him to her husband. He was already wearing a kosovorotka and deliberately emphasized his "peasant" origin. But his real origin was different - a bastard (illegitimately born) of a Polish land magnate and his housekeeper, on the eve of the revolution his father sent him to his friend "to gain practice" in the Donbass, who owned coal mines there. He worked in the mine management of this company. During the revolution (and Poland was then already under the Germans) he quickly changed into a kosovorotka, got together with a revolutionary activist whose career took off , was in her shadow. It was later, when he met Stalin through Svetlana Aliluyeva, that his career took off, and his wife became a housewife and had children. He had many children. But it's better in the book.
      5. -1
        23 November 2025 22: 06
        It seems to me, after numerous publications and the last thing I read (the memoirs of the first KGB minister Serov, two suitcases of incriminating evidence), that Khrushchev was guided from beginning to end not by political ideas like Trotskyism, that is, permanent revolution throughout the world, but by personal gain.
        1. He got away from the repressions by blaming everything on Stalin.
        2. The first order is to assign a group of 160 investigators to purge archival documents on involvement in the repressions.
        3. He gave Crimea to the Ukrainians to fuel his own
        Electoral contingent.
        4. Amnesty for Bandar-logs, including those who fought with weapons against the Germans.
        And then there are many examples of his voluntarism.
        I was doing this at the time. Let's catch the cow from Iowa!
        Because of this goat, bread was limited and only rations were issued. The bread with feed grain was bitter.
        Corn epic.
        The Ukrainian Zaglada has three hero stars! Although there are complete failures and falsifications nearby. Ambition and a personal decision are evident throughout. There was no democracy. The Politburo, remembering Stalin, kept silent and assented.
        The coup arose after an obvious threat to Khrushchev's colleagues. They decided to save their asses.
        I think in the case of Hungary he decided for himself.
        One trait bordering on recklessness is the meekness of a Khrushchev. Perhaps out of stupidity he dealt harshly with Kennedy.
        And he was afraid of crazy Nikita.
      6. +1
        30 November 2025 01: 59
        It is not clear why he is a Trotskyist.

        It's a good thing they didn't call me a Jew in this article.
    2. +2
      20 November 2025 06: 53
      Khrushchev's role in the Hungarian uprising is unclear.

      Yes, it looks like he organized it. laughing And the imperialists suppressed... negative
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. +6
    20 November 2025 05: 12
    Hungary demands the withdrawal of Russian troops and the country's exit from the Warsaw Pact.
    No Soviet leadership would have tolerated such impudent demands!
    1. 0
      23 November 2025 22: 08
      I agree that Khrushchev was in zugzwang.
      Every move made things worse.
      I chose the one that gave me a chance to win, and the West was strong.
      This means that NATO's 5-point agreement does not guarantee that the United States will intervene even today.
  5. +14
    20 November 2025 05: 18
    If Khrushchev had not spoken out against Stalin at the 20th Congress, would the collective West have continued to sit quietly?
    1. +9
      20 November 2025 06: 26
      Quote: Dmitry Sozonov
      If Khrushchev had not spoken out against Stalin at the 20th Congress, would the collective West have continued to sit quietly?

      And there would have been no friction with China... In the times of the NSH and LIB, we could not even imagine that the PRC lost, according to various estimates, about 35 million people in WWII:
      According to the Chinese government, China lost approximately 35 million people during World War II, including both troops and civilians.
      1. +2
        21 November 2025 14: 30
        Quote: ROSS 42
        During the times of the NSH and LIB, we could not even imagine that the PRC lost, according to various estimates, about 35 million people in WWII:

        Under Stalin, Soviet losses in World War II were officially considered to be no more than 10 million.
    2. 0
      23 November 2025 22: 10
      The 20th Congress provoked a reaction in the socialist bloc.
      And the West swallowed the decision by force
      I'll note that the United States had nuclear power.
      We didn't take the risk.
      So the West sat and sat.
  6. +9
    20 November 2025 05: 22
    It's scary to even think what would have happened next! But our guys managed to stop this chaos! Moreover, all the privates and most of the sergeants were conscripts! I'll add that I served in the Southern Group of Forces in Kecskemét from 1987 to 1991, and I was impressed back then by how friendly the ordinary Hungarians were to our troops. I was reminded of Gaidai's film "Ivan Vasilyevich Changes Profession" and the Tsar's line (slightly modified, of course): "That's what a life-giving tank does!" A personal aside: "Arrived on time."
    1. +12
      20 November 2025 06: 43
      Quote: Traveler 63
      I'll add that I served in the Southern Group of Forces in the city of Kecskemét from 1987 to 1991. I had the impression then of how friendly ordinary Magyars were to our troops.

      Everyone who served in the Southern Group of Forces says so. And now, unlike the Poles and Czechs, the Hungarians have a good attitude toward us. And what order is there in our military cemeteries? There are simply no cases of vandalism.
    2. +7
      20 November 2025 07: 01
      Quote: Traveler 63
      From 1987 to 1991, I had the impression then: how friendly ordinary Magyars were to our troops.

      The article once again (if we throw out the Trotskyist Khrushchev) demonstrates that socialism in the Soviet sense cannot be brought in on bayonets or carried out in tanks. Well, yes, it can be done, but then you'll have to feed all your "brothers in the camp" at your own expense, taking it from your own people. In other words, you'll have to buy their brotherly love, just like you buy the love of women with little social responsibility. Incidentally, I was also in Hungary in 2015 and spoke with those who studied in the USSR. They remember the rebellion as being carried out by the surviving fascists. But they're offended by the 1991 incident. "You abandoned us! Although... yes, of course, it was hard for you yourselves!" It felt more comfortable than in Poland.
      1. +23
        20 November 2025 07: 22
        Vyacheslav! I'll answer you. No, we didn't "dump" them, just like the GDR! We were dumped, meaning both them and us. Do you think it was easy to live in tents in an open field? And then "settle down" in a gym divided into rooms using plywood? I was very "lucky" – I lived through the withdrawal from Hungary to Ukraine for a year and a half, and in 1992 I transferred to the Leningrad Military District (I don't think I need to give a reason), and... I ended up in the same regiment, just withdrawn from the GDR! And everything started over, except there were no tents! After all, it's not comfortable in tents in the Arctic, even in summer! And for all this, huge "thanks" to Gorbachev and Shivornadze. May their earth be made of glass wool!
        1. +3
          20 November 2025 10: 39
          Quote: Traveler 63
          both them and us

          Well, that's understandable to both of us. They wanted to think differently...
      2. +14
        20 November 2025 08: 38
        Quote: kalibr
        The article once again (if we disregard the Trotskyist Khrushchev) demonstrates that socialism in the Soviet sense cannot be brought in on bayonets or carried out in tanks. Well, yes, it can be done, but then you'll have to feed all your "camp brothers" at your own expense, taking from your own people. In other words, you'll have to buy their brotherly love, just as you buy the love of women with little social responsibility.

        Yes... you can't say that, but let's say comprador capitalism, what's it worth? Of course, Mr. Shpakovsky always needs to kick the Soviet Union; there's no other way. So, whose tanks were stationed in Europe in 1956, and are they still there? Where is the US European Command located? And the fact that in 1956 the number of US armed forces in Europe reached its maximum—438,9—is so-so, and shouldn't be taken into account. No one considered the countries of Eastern Europe to be fraternal, except perhaps propagandists. lol Friendly, yes. There was the CMEA, and Ikarus buses can still be seen, though rarely, across the Russian Federation. Tatra trucks, Škoda 706s, and Avias, JAVA motorcycles, and GDR IFAs were also present. Pumping station units were supplied from the GDR, automation equipment from Hungary, and various fittings and valves from Czechoslovakia. Ships, railcars, diesel engines, chemical equipment, and communications equipment came from Poland. The USSR imported agricultural raw materials and food from CMEA countries. Between 1976 and 1980, mutual deliveries accounted for about 40% of the total fresh fruit imports by CMEA countries, about 50% of meat imports, and over 80% of fresh vegetable imports. Czechoslovakian clothing and footwear, East German cameras, typewriters, and computer equipment were also imported. Imports under the CMEA played a significant role in Soviet citizens' consumption patterns: footwear, clothing, furniture, and household goods from socialist countries partially offset the shortages in the domestic market. So, we won't be buying, feeding, taking away, and other such trivial items. From 1992 to 2021, $4,5 trillion was withdrawn from Russia! And what kind of love did they buy in the West for that kind of money? Europe, like a woman with low social responsibility, she just dumped me, without giving anything, but only promising. recourse Isn't this something taken from our own people? Over 30 years, it's amounted to more than 400 trillion rubles! So, we've lost 10 annual budgets! And that's not counting the lost profits from the returns that such huge investments in the real economy could have generated. So who are we feeding? our score?
        1. -5
          20 November 2025 10: 45
          Quote: Unknown
          You always have to kick the Soviet Union,

          And you, as always, need to accuse me of something that doesn't exist. Are you sick or something? What do Western tanks have to do with this? We bought the "affection" of all the socialist countries. You yourself wrote that they only compensated for the aid "partially." If we hadn't helped them, everything would have been ours, and "partially" wouldn't have been necessary. And the fact that exporting revolution is a failure is an indisputable fact. From 1992 to 2021, $4,5 trillion was taken out of Russia! So what? Then our socialism "fed" us, now our "capitalism" does. What's the difference? The main thing is that our "brothers" all ran away from us. So what was the basis of our friendship?
          1. +6
            20 November 2025 12: 37
            Quote: kalibr
            And as always, you need to accuse me of something that doesn't exist. Am I sick or something? What do Western tanks have to do with this?

            What reproach was undeserved?
            to bring socialism in the Soviet sense of the word on bayonets or to bring it in tanks.
            I didn't write this, and the tanks are right on topic. Would anyone be normal and constantly spit on the Soviet regime, which has been gone for over thirty years, and the current one has had scant success? "Carthage must be destroyed," but Carthage no longer exists—wake up.
            Quote: kalibr
            We bought the "attachment" of all the socialist countries. You yourself wrote that they only compensated for the aid "partially." If we hadn't helped them, everything would have been ours, and the "partially" wouldn't have been necessary.

            We - no one's affection didn't buy, were - national interests Comrade Stalin said it correctly;
            We must not forget the following circumstance. The Germans invaded the USSR through Finland, Poland, Romania, and Hungary. The Germans were able to invade through these countries because the governments in these countries at the time were hostile to the Soviet Union. As a result of the German invasion, the Soviet Union irrevocably lost approximately seven million people in battles with the Germans, as well as due to the German occupation and the deportation of Soviet citizens to German penal servitude. In other words, the Soviet Union lost several times more people than England and the United States combined. Perhaps in some places there is a tendency to forget these colossal sacrifices of the Soviet people, which ensured the liberation of Europe from the Nazi yoke. But the Soviet Union cannot forget them. The question arises: what is surprising in the fact that the Soviet Union, wishing to protect itself in the future, is trying to ensure that these countries have governments loyal to the Soviet Union? How can one, without going crazy, qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist tendencies of our state?
            And the Soviet leadership adhered to this principle in the future. "Might is always right," said Otto von Bismarck and the world. still This is how it lives, despite various pacifist talks, etc. Why shouldn't the USSR assert its national interests, all by any possible means? There are the States, по всему миру They defend their interests with dollars, fortunately they can print as much as they need, and by force of arms; there are plenty of examples.
            Quote: kalibr
            The fact that exporting revolution is a failure is an indisputable fact.

            What kind of indisputable fact is this? China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba are still socialist. And are the US-sponsored color revolutions successful? Well, not really.
            Quote: kalibr
            Back then, socialism "fed" us; now, it's "capitalism" that "feeds" us. What's the difference? The main thing is that our "brothers" all ran away from us. So, what was our friendship based on?
            Our socialism fed us without harming itself, that's the difference. And the "brothers" ran away because their elder brother gave them the go-ahead, out of his own stupidity. When the States stop supporting whoever they need, then we'll see what the friendship is based on. They'll immediately scream, "Yankee, go home!" If the US wants... the moment will collapse the financial and economic foundation of all capitalist states without exception. So, is might right or wrong?
            1. -2
              20 November 2025 13: 49
              Quote: Unknown
              to bring socialism in the Soviet sense of the word on bayonets or to bring it in tanks.

              But wasn't it like that? Wasn't our socialism, or rather our understanding of it, different from that of Poland, Yugoslavia, and China? And if our troops hadn't been present in Eastern European countries, would their communists have won?
              1. +3
                20 November 2025 15: 43
                And if our troops hadn’t been in the Eastern European countries, would their communists have won there?

                You forget that communists in Central and Eastern Europe were physically exterminated from the beginning of our revolution until the end of the Second World War.
                1. -3
                  20 November 2025 15: 44
                  Quote: Wened75
                  physically destroyed from the beginning of our revolution until the end of the Second World War.

                  So who founded the communist parties of the Eastern European countries? Martians?
              2. +2
                20 November 2025 20: 33
                Quote: kalibr
                But wasn't it so? Wasn't our socialism, or rather our understanding of it, different from that of Poland, Yugoslavia, and China? And had our troops not been present in Eastern European countries, would their communists have won?

                Of course not, and you know this as a former propagandist. People have always lived in Russia. not this way Just like in Europe. The non-Black Earth region and central Russia were poorer than, for example, the Black Earth region and the south. Some ate wheat bread, others rye, but that's not the point. Hadn't there been Anglo-American troops in Italy and France? Would the bourgeoisie have come to power there? As a propagandist, you know that the Communist Parties of those countries were strong and their authority was high after WWII. But whose troops were there?
                1. +2
                  21 November 2025 01: 02
                  Greece suffered a terrible civil war after WWII, from 44 to 49. The communists didn't win only because of the occupying British troops. 100 "Red Andartes" died. Even more emigrated. They were granted amnesty only in 1981. So who brought their ideology with bayonets?
              3. +2
                21 November 2025 01: 07
                Quote: kalibr
                And if our troops hadn’t been in the Eastern European countries, would their communists have won there?

                And if there had been no American/British troops in France, Italy, Greece, would the communists have lost there?
                1. 0
                  21 November 2025 06: 57
                  Quote: Chief Officer Lom
                  And if there had been no American/British troops in France, Italy, Greece, would the communists have lost there?

                  So, it's all about the support of someone's troops?! But we don't know whether they would have won on their own. It's a 50/50 chance!
                  1. 0
                    22 November 2025 08: 32
                    Quote: kalibr
                    So, everything is decided by the support of someone’s troops?!

                    This was particularly evident in Greece, where the odds were no longer 50/50, but 95/5 in favor of the communists. When the Germans left, the British organized the "humanitarian" Operation Manna to physically destroy the Greek People's Liberation Army.
                    1. 0
                      22 November 2025 09: 11
                      Quote: Chief Officer Lom
                      In Greece this was particularly evident.
                      !!!
            2. -2
              20 November 2025 13: 52
              Quote: Unknown
              Why shouldn't the USSR assert its national interests by all possible means?

              Why shouldn't it? It should. So we approved them with money and tanks, but there wasn't enough money, and tanks alone would have been indecent... and then everyone ran off to their national quarters. Isn't that right?
              1. +1
                20 November 2025 20: 39
                Quote: kalibr
                Why shouldn't it? It should. So we approved them with money and tanks, but there wasn't enough money, and tanks alone would have been indecent... and then everyone ran off to their national quarters. Isn't that right?

                But at least they agreed that he should, and thanks for that. Yes If they hadn't agreed to the "divorce," where would they have gone? Who would they have gone to complain to?
            3. 0
              20 November 2025 13: 53
              Quote: Unknown
              Once the States stop supporting whoever they need, then we'll see what the friendship is based on.

              And they will run away from them in exactly the same way!
              1. 0
                20 November 2025 20: 40
                Quote: kalibr
                And they will run away from them in exactly the same way

                That's right.
            4. 0
              20 November 2025 13: 54
              Quote: Unknown
              So is might right or wrong?

              Of course, he's right, and his interests are paramount. But in 1991, we weren't in his position.
              1. +1
                20 November 2025 20: 56
                Quote: kalibr
                Of course, he's right, and his interests are paramount. But in 1991, we weren't in his position.

                So who is to blame for allowing 91 to happen?
                then I am... a Trotskyist,
                What questions could there be? How many people like you were there, starting from the middle echelons of power and ending with the highest?
                "After the 20th Congress, in an extremely small circle of our closest friends and associates, we often discussed the problems of democratizing the country and society. We chose a method as simple as a sledgehammer—propaganda for the ideas of Lenin's late years. A group of true, not imaginary, reformers developed (verbally, of course) the following plan: to use Lenin's authority to strike at Stalin and Stalinism. And then, if successful, to use Plekhanov and Social Democracy to strike at Lenin, and liberalism and moral socialism to strike at revolutionism in general.

                The Soviet totalitarian regime could only be destroyed through glasnost and totalitarian party discipline, all under the guise of perfecting socialism. Looking back, I can proudly say that this cunning yet very simple tactic—the mechanisms of totalitarianism against the system of totalitarianism—worked."
                This is what Yakovlev, the chief ideologist of perestroika, said: "Their name is legion."
                1. 0
                  20 November 2025 21: 34
                  [quote=Unknown][quote=kalibr]This was said by Yakovlev, the main ideologist of perestroika. "Their name is legion."[/quote]
                  I don't know him. But figure it out yourself, if you're up to it. At the level of CPSU history teachers at regional universities, NO ONE would have tried to cut off the branch he was sitting on. There were no fools among us, you see. And we didn't care about Moscow's perks either.
                  1. 0
                    21 November 2025 00: 29
                    Quote: kalibr
                    I don't know him. But figure it out yourself, if you're up to it. At the level of CPSU history teachers at regional universities, NO ONE would have tried to cut off the branch he was sitting on. There were no fools among us, you see. And we didn't care about Moscow's perks either.

                    Well, don't be so nervous. I'm smart enough for a lot, even though I didn't graduate from a university, and I can see that regional teachers of the CPSU history aren't starving and aren't sitting around without work these days, let alone those in Moscow. "Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis" — "Times change, and we change with them," so there's no talk of the grind they're sitting on.
                  2. 0
                    21 November 2025 14: 43
                    Quote: kalibr
                    At the level of teachers of the history of the CPSU at regional universities, NO ONE WOULD HAVE SAWED OFF THE BRANCH ON WHICH HE WAS SITTING.

                    If someone is intelligent, they can easily find success as a historian or philosopher in a capitalist society. They'll just end up teaching philosophy, management, and economics instead of the history of the CPSU and scientific communism. A fellow student of mine, an electrical automation specialist, successfully retrained as an economist, organizing an economics department at Stankino. Incidentally, it offers the cheapest tuition compared to other majors, comparable to HSE.
                    1. 0
                      21 November 2025 16: 43
                      Quote: gsev
                      If a person is intelligent, then as a historian and as a philosopher he can easily succeed in a capitalist society.

                      I always thought so too, and I was sure that... even in the Sahara, I could have settled down well among the Tuaregs. But... why seek one good thing from another? That is, sawing off the branch you're already sitting on? When it collapses... for some reason, then we'll think about how to settle down among the Tuaregs!
                      1. 0
                        21 November 2025 22: 39
                        Quote: kalibr
                        But... why seek one good thing from another? That is, sawing off the branch you're already sitting on?

                        What's the point of a true scientist lying that Bukharin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev aren't worthy of rehabilitation and that Stalin wasn't involved in Kirov's assassination? A person with above-average talent strives to demonstrate their abilities in a fair fight. Bureaucratic Stalinism was needed by drab individuals like Present and Lysenko, incapable of rising to the current level of scientific advancement and aware that they only impress frivolous students because their more talented colleagues were repressed by utterly stupid KGB agents who didn't even bother to conduct experiments on peas or flies to test the validity of genetic theory themselves.
                      2. 0
                        22 November 2025 07: 44
                        Quote: gsev
                        Bureaucratic Stalinism was needed by drab individuals like Present and Lysenko, incapable of rising to the modern level of scientific development and aware that they impress frivolous students only because their more talented colleagues were repressed by completely stupid KGB officers who didn't even bother to conduct an experiment with peas or flies to test the validity of genetic theory themselves.

                        Exactly. I completely agree with you. And I always write that developmental difficulties are precisely due to the 80% of people who are just "gray." And among that 80%, there are everyone from janitors to academics.
                    2. +1
                      21 November 2025 16: 45
                      Quote: gsev
                      It will simply begin teaching not the history of the CPSU and scientific communism, but philosophy, management, and economics.

                      It wasn't easy back then. None of this existed in the USSR. And starting from scratch, especially in a foreign language, was a real headache.
                      1. 0
                        21 November 2025 22: 45
                        Quote: kalibr
                        It wasn't easy at the time. There simply wasn't anything like that in the USSR.

                        I enrolled at Stankin under Brezhnev. There, at seminars for advanced students in the philosophy department, they discussed the problems raised at the meetings of the Billbirds Club. Of course, I only heard about this from a student who attended the Stankin philosophy circle. Similarly, under Stalin, information from the West entered the USSR, and government agencies and the scientific community were interested in analyzing it. Information moves in mysterious ways.
                      2. 0
                        22 November 2025 07: 47
                        Quote: gsev
                        The ways of information are mysterious.

                        In Penza there was nothing like this in the universities.
                2. 0
                  20 November 2025 21: 35
                  Quote: Unknown
                  So who is to blame for allowing 91 to happen?

                  I'll write a detailed article about this, I promise.
                  1. 0
                    21 November 2025 00: 37
                    Quote: kalibr
                    I'll write a detailed article about this, I promise.

                    No need, it will be pure anti-Sovietism.
                    1. 0
                      21 November 2025 06: 53
                      Quote: Unknown
                      No need, it will be pure anti-Sovietism.

                      You have to, Fedya, you have to. You never graduated from university, you don't even know which way the archive doors open, you haven't defended a dissertation on party leadership, and yet... you're just trying to be clever. We'll have to force some sense into you through the back door!
                      1. 0
                        21 November 2025 20: 42
                        Quote: kalibr
                        You have to, Fedya, you have to. You never graduated from university, you don't even know which way the archive doors open, you haven't defended a dissertation on party leadership, and yet... you're just trying to be clever. We'll have to force some sense into you through the back door!

                        As for the doors in the archives, it’s not difficult to figure it out, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist, but about life, how many different ones there are in it rogues with dissertations on various topics similar to deliriumIt's difficult to understand; you need to work with people. For example, the topic is "using unconventional raw materials for sausage production" or philosophy - "Masochism in the system of philosophical and anthropological knowledge." Or maybe something like "The burrowing activity of a boar." lol There's no need to be clever here, but rather to cry or laugh. They probably gained their knowledge through those very gates.request I witnessed the collapse of the Union before my eyes. The interpretation of events that will be presented is biased and anti-Soviet. So why is it necessary?
                      2. 0
                        22 November 2025 07: 49
                        Quote: Unknown
                        So why her?

                        "The ignoramus often, in his blindness, scolds science and teaching and all scholarly works, not realizing that he himself is enjoying their fruits." N. Krylov
                      3. +1
                        22 November 2025 07: 53
                        Quote: kalibr
                        "The ignoramus often, in his blindness, scolds science and teaching and all scholarly works, not realizing that he himself is enjoying their fruits." N. Krylov

                        "I learned to read and write, and learned to sing and dance." Vladimir Dahl lol
                      4. +1
                        22 November 2025 07: 55
                        Quote: Unknown
                        Quote: kalibr
                        "The ignoramus often, in his blindness, scolds science and teaching and all scholarly works, not realizing that he himself is enjoying their fruits." N. Krylov

                        "I learned to read and write, and learned to sing and dance." Vladimir Dahl lol

                        This doesn't apply to me. 52 books in the USSR, Russia, England, Germany, and Singapore, 2430 articles on VO alone? You have to be skilled at that, right? It's not from dancing!
                      5. 0
                        22 November 2025 16: 35
                        Quote: kalibr
                        This doesn't apply to me. 52 books in the USSR, Russia, England, Germany, and Singapore, 2430 articles on VO alone? You have to be skilled at that, right? It's not from dancing!

                        Modesty won't kill you. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize? You need to be more modest. lol These days, writers are as numerous as dogs. Libraries and bookstores aren't exactly overflowing with Shpakovsky's works, and they're not Tolstoy or even Dontsov; they're unknown to the general public. On VO, who doesn't write? Samsonov, for example, also gets a lot of comments. But he's modest and doesn't try to push himself. lol
                      6. 0
                        22 November 2025 16: 45
                        Quote: Unknown
                        You won't die from modesty

                        Modesty, the French say, is like underwear. You have it, but you shouldn't show it off. And I like their point of view.
                        Quote: Unknown
                        also collects a lot of comments.

                        With a lot of my -ha-ha and your help
                        Quote: Unknown
                        are not known to the general public.

                        Ha! Go and see. More than one generation of Soviet kids grew up on my books on technical creativity; they're in every SUT. They're recommended reading in all sixth-grade history textbooks.
                        Quote: Unknown
                        are not known to the general public.

                        It depends on which one: in England, Germany and Singapore they are read with great pleasure.
                        But... I see you're trying to prove something to me again? And who are you? An anonymous, no-nonsense person, giving me advice? Let me give you some advice, or rather, repeat it: if you're drawn to writing such massive comments, it means you've developed a passion for writing. So write us an article on VO about something you know well. About your life. About how you did something in the Baltics. Believe me, it will be much more effective than sparring with me. You gain nothing from it, except once again showing everyone how easy it is to manipulate some people and take advantage of their narrow-mindedness. I'm even willing to provide you with a platform for publication and help with editing... You might even come up with an interesting article that VO readers will welcome.
                      7. 0
                        22 November 2025 17: 20
                        Quote: kalibr
                        Modesty, the French say, is like underwear. You have it, but you shouldn't show it off. And I like their point of view.

                        "Arrogance makes us artificial, but humility makes us real." - Thomas Merton.
                        Quote: kalibr
                        With a lot of my -ha-ha and your help

                        Yes, you are right, no doubt about it. lol
                        Quote: kalibr
                        Ha! Go and see. More than one generation of Soviet kids grew up on my books on technical creativity; they're in every SUT. They're recommended reading in all sixth-grade history textbooks.

                        I already said that in my Zhukovsky city library there are no books by Shpakovsky.
                        Quote: kalibr
                        It depends on which one: in England, Germany and Singapore they are read with great pleasure.

                        It only seems that way to you.
                        Quote: kalibr
                        But... I see that you're trying to prove something to me again? And who are you? An anonymous, no-name-or-nothing, giving me advice?

                        If you're interested, I can give you the address, I didn't hide it. As for the name, what will it give you personally? Notice the advice, I'll give you I don't give and I'm not going to prove anything.
                        Quote: kalibr
                        Let me give you some advice, or rather, repeat it: if you're drawn to writing such massive comments, it means you've developed a passion for writing. So write us an article on VO about something you know well. Something about your life. About how you did something in the Baltics. Believe me, it will be much more effective than sparring with me. You gain nothing from it, except once again showing everyone how easy it is to manipulate some people and take advantage of their narrow-mindedness. I'm even willing to provide you with a platform for publication and help with editing... You might even come up with an interesting piece that VO readers will welcome.

                        In the future, we will shorten the comments and engage in witty exchanges. laughing Regarding the materials for VO, I've already mentioned it—I'll think about it. But writing, even for VO, requires skill and time, and that's not always enough. You have to be on your toes, time is of the essence, you see.
                      8. 0
                        22 November 2025 17: 33
                        Quote: Unknown
                        Regarding materials for VO, I already said - I'll think about it... but to write, even for VO, you need skill and time,

                        Patience and hard work will overcome anything! No one demands articles from you every day. One or two based on what you personally know best are etched in your memory. Don't you have my books in your library? All I can say is it's a shame – your children have missed out on a lot. And adults too. But they're available at Chitai-gorod stores, and on the AST website too. On the Osprey and Dream websites... You can order them, and you can read online, including for free, as much as you like. And as for time... there's always time for everything. You just need to manage it properly.
                3. +1
                  20 November 2025 21: 39
                  Quote: Unknown
                  then I am... a Trotskyist,
                  What questions might there be?

                  Read Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed," and you won't be writing nonsense; you'll understand that he was right about many things. Bogdanov's novel "Red Star" is also a must-read to understand the essence of his divergence from Lenin and his departure from the Bolshevik Party.
                  1. +1
                    21 November 2025 00: 36
                    Quote: kalibr
                    Read Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed," and you won't be writing nonsense; you'll understand that he was right about many things. Bogdanov's novel "Red Star" is also a must-read to understand the essence of his divergence from Lenin and his departure from the Bolshevik Party.

                    You know, I'd rather read I.V. Stalin, the victors always more interesting they write what the defeated write.
                    1. +1
                      21 November 2025 06: 54
                      Quote: Unknown
                      Winners always write more interestingly than losers.

                      And if you read it, you'd learn how much Stalin took from Trotsky. And then... did Stalin win? Trotsky did... in 1991!
                      1. +1
                        21 November 2025 21: 03
                        Quote: kalibr
                        And if you read it, you'd learn how much Stalin took from Trotsky. And then... did Stalin win? Trotsky did... in 1991!

                        Well, they say there were no Trotskyists, they say they were all wiped out in '37. Of course, they suddenly appeared, like mushrooms after the rain, when Gorbachev came. It turns out, didn't bring it out, remained and in considerable quantities
                      2. 0
                        22 November 2025 07: 42
                        Quote: Unknown
                        It turns out they weren't removed, they remained in considerable quantities.

                        It wasn't the Trotskyists who won, but rather those who remained true to his ideas. You can't be that stupid.
                      3. 0
                        22 November 2025 07: 49
                        Quote: kalibr
                        It wasn't the Trotskyists who won, but rather those who remained true to his ideas. You can't be that stupid.

                        There's no need to get personal, Mr. former pro... product number 2. And what are the purveyors of ideas called? Not Trotskyists, or something else?
                      4. 0
                        22 November 2025 07: 51
                        Quote: Unknown
                        Quote: kalibr
                        It wasn't the Trotskyists who won, but rather those who remained true to his ideas. You can't be that stupid.

                        There's no need to get personal, Mr. former pro... product number 2. And what are the purveyors of ideas called? Not Trotskyists, or something else?

                        There's a good movie called "Dumb and Dumber." Watch it, and yes, I recommend reading Trotsky's book. Don't be afraid to lose your virginity; books don't bite.
            5. -2
              20 November 2025 13: 55
              Quote: Unknown
              China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba are still socialist

              There's no need to laugh. I'm not the only one here, and other people might read this.
              1. 0
                20 November 2025 20: 58
                Quote: kalibr
                There's no need to laugh. I'm not the only one here, and other people might read this.

                What's there to laugh about? Yourself?
                1. -1
                  20 November 2025 21: 37
                  Quote: Unknown
                  Above oneself?

                  Did I write about socialist Cuba, Vietnam, and China? They'll laugh at you.
                  1. 0
                    21 November 2025 20: 55
                    Quote: kalibr
                    Did I write about socialist Cuba, Vietnam, and China? They'll laugh at you.

                    The conversation was about
                    The fact that exporting revolution is a failure is an indisputable fact.
                    Well, there, the party is still in power with a corresponding ideology, and in our apartment... gas, which is available left and right, is practically free.
                  2. +2
                    21 November 2025 22: 55
                    Quote: kalibr
                    They will laugh at you.

                    The PRC is developing not according to Western models, but along its own path of creative development of Maoism. Land reform there was carried out using socialist methods. All Chinese businessmen operate under the guidance of party organs. After all, the Bolsheviks, when they first came to power, advocated not for land redistribution but for the transfer of landowners' estates to state farms, whereby the activities of former landowners and capitalists were to be constantly monitored by a workers' and peasants' inspectorate to prevent excesses such as the beating to death of workers by a clerk slightly above the rank of foreman, which regularly occurred in the village of Sibirovka between the cities of Kozlov and Tambov.
          2. +3
            20 November 2025 23: 35
            I don't quite agree with you! Stalin's remark, "We can't feed that many," is also relevant, of course! But Stalin occupied half of Europe not so they could be a burden on him, but for a larger defense area! Everyone seems to understand that! And so they wouldn't be a burden on us, we should have organized a mutual economy. You tell me that, I'll tell you that! Khrushchev, of course, was a pale shadow of Stalin as a person! But even he understood that we shouldn't give anything to our ENEMIES! It's clear who our main enemy was! While the article is interesting (about the events in Hungary), some of the remarks are clearly out of place. Respect to the people of Hungary, especially everyone who served there, who has fond memories!
      3. +4
        20 November 2025 09: 14
        Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

        Quote: kalibr
        The article once again (if we throw out the Trotskyist Khrushchev) shows

        If only... After Stalin's death, which ended the NEP 1.0 project, the Trotskyists came to power and returned to the plan of building NEP 2.0. The top brass of the CPSU completely submitted to the West. By the 90s, they had succeeded...

        To erase Trotskyism from our history means encouraging today's Trotskyites from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, who hide behind the Vlasovites—United Russia—and continue to destroy the country. They destroyed the USSR then, and now they are destroying Russia.
        1. +4
          20 November 2025 09: 59
          Yeah, they just went and laid down. If that were the case, the USSR would have disappeared by the 60s.

          Of course, Uncle Zyu hid behind the Vlasovites of United Russia, while the Bolshevik fighters in the towers are exhausted and unable to do anything about it. They just don't have enough poor people, enough power, and enough opportunities. laughing
          1. +5
            20 November 2025 10: 42
            The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

            Quote: Essex62
            Yeah, they just went and laid down. If that were the case, the USSR would have disappeared by the 60s.

            Khrushchev's executions of workers across the country could have swept away the Trotskyists who had seized power (Khrushchev was originally a member of Trotsky's party, but defected to the Bolsheviks in time and was spared the repressions). The Trotskyist instincts ultimately prevailed. When the Trotskyists realized they couldn't break the people at once, they took a different path. Brezhnev got them drunk, and Gorbaty talked them into it... It took them 40 years to achieve all this.

            Quote: Essex62
            Well, of course, Uncle Zyu hid behind the Vlasovites of United Russia

            Exactly. In the second presidential election, Zyu handed his victory to Yeltsin, the Vlasovite.

            Quote: Essex62
            Well, they lack poor people, power and opportunities.

            With Khrushchev's rise to power and the introduction of closed party meetings, the party began to purge Bolsheviks and Stalinist cadres from its leadership. By the 90s, there were no Bolsheviks in any leadership positions in the CPSU. They remain absent today.

            The Ministry of Justice will never register the Bolshevik Party, which means that a Bolshevik candidate will never be included on the electoral lists for voting in any elections.
            1. +7
              20 November 2025 11: 02
              Don't beat around the bush. I'm talking about a clan of judokas in the towers, and you're talking about some Ministry of Justice. Aren't they Bolsheviks, just like you? laughing
              In a feudal-bourgeois society, no councils or justices can influence things. Everything is concentrated there, in the towers that protect the interests of big capital, among the common people, the oligarchs. The rest are extras.

              Lenya just went and got me drunk. Personally
              Poured a drink for every worker? It's getting more and more complicated. They decided to appease the anti-lihihens, to soften the consequences of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to equalize. And so the decay began, both from above and below. The bourgeoisie got sucked in.
              1. 0
                20 November 2025 11: 09
                Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                Quote: Essex62
                I'm telling you about the judo clan.

                The Duma forms domestic policy through the adoption of laws.

                Quote: Essex62
                Lenya just went and got me drunk. Personally

                Under his rule, alcohol consumption increased tenfold.
                1. +3
                  20 November 2025 11: 38
                  It doesn't shape anything. Whatever is sent down from the towers is what they accept.

                  Of course it has increased. With the fraternization with the bourgeois element, imposed by those at the top (the gerentocrats, you see, wanted peace and forgot about the class struggle), proletarian discipline has sunk to the ground.
        2. +6
          20 November 2025 10: 47
          Quote: Boris55
          This means encouraging today's Trotskyites from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, hiding behind the Vlasovites—United Russia—and continuing to destroy the country. They destroyed the USSR back then, and now they're destroying Russia.

          Oh, my God! What can't you hear here...
          1. +2
            20 November 2025 10: 56
            The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

            Quote: kalibr
            Oh, my God! What can't you hear here...

            What, did you get the wrong people again?

            In 1917, there were approximately eight Trotskyist, Socialist Revolutionary, and other representatives in the party for every Bolshevik. The Trotskyists had the overwhelming majority. However, they hid behind the Bolsheviks and committed genocide against the peoples of Russia in their name. The party was called the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), not the All-Union Communist Party (Turkish Communist Party). They don't like to be seen; their tactic is to act stealthily.

            In order to reduce the negative attitude towards the Bolsheviks, Stalin renamed the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in 1952, the abbreviation of which no longer mentioned the Bolsheviks.
            1. +1
              20 November 2025 10: 57
              Quote: Boris55
              act on the sly.

              Heavy are your blows, O Lord!
              1. +4
                20 November 2025 10: 59
                Quote: kalibr
                Heavy are your blows, O Lord!

                Some people have a master, others have a father. The master has slaves, the father has children.
            2. -3
              20 November 2025 10: 59
              Quote: Boris55
              What, did you get the wrong people again?

              Not a people. Some of its representatives...
              1. +6
                20 November 2025 11: 03
                The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

                Quote: kalibr
                Not a people. Some of its representatives...

                We are all citizens of Russia, with different visions for the future of our children. I am in favor of no one profiting from our labor and lives.
                1. 0
                  20 November 2025 11: 04
                  Quote: Boris55
                  I am in favor of no one parasitizing on our work and life.

                  Me too, but what do the mythical Trotskyists have to do with it?
                  1. +3
                    20 November 2025 11: 11
                    Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                    Quote: kalibr
                    Me too, but what do the mythical Trotskyists have to do with it?

                    Mythical? Nope. They're very real:

                    "Trotskyism is not at all one of the varieties of Marxism. A characteristic feature of Trotskyism in the communist movement, which operated in the 5th century "under the hood" of Marxism, was the complete deafness of the Trotskyists to the content of the criticism expressed in their addressXNUMX, combined with the commitment to the principle of suppressing in life the declarations proclaimed by the Trotskyists, a system of silence, on the basis of which they actually act, united in the collective unconscious.
                    This means that Trotskyism is a psychic phenomenon. Trotskyism, in a sincere personal manifestation of the well-being of its adherents, is characterized by a conflict between the individual consciousness and the unconscious, both individual and collective, generated by all Trotskyists in their totality. And in this conflict the collective unconscious of the Trotskyists viciously triumphs, suppressing the personal conscious well-intentionedness of each of them by the totality of their all.
                    This is a feature of the psyche of those who have managed to become a Trotskyist, and not a feature of a particular ideology. The psychic type of “Trotskyist” can be accompanied by a variety of ideologies. It is for this reason - of a purely psychological nature - that equal relations with Trotskyism and Trotskyists personally at the level of intellectual discussion, arguments and counterarguments are fruitless and dangerous. 6 for those who consider Trotskyism as one of the ideologies of 7 and do not see its real AML-ideological background, do not depending on the ideology that encircles it, which the psychotrocist can sincerely repeatedly change throughout his life 8.
                    Intelligence, which is addressed in discussions in an effort to enlighten the interlocutor, or to identify with him the truth, on the basis of which it would be possible to overcome previous problems in relations with him, is only one component of the psyche as a whole. But the psyche as a whole (in the case of its Trotskyite type) does not allow the psycho-Trotskyist to process information intellectually, which is capable of changing the doctrine that is currently being worked out by that of many ideologically formed branches of Trotskyism, to which the psycho-Trotskyist psychologically belongs.
                    This psychic feature of 9, characteristic of many individuals, is a historically more ancient phenomenon than the historically real Marxist Trotskyism in the 20th century communist movement. For this property of the psyche of individuals, there was no other word in the past besides the word "obsession." And in the era of the domination of the materialistic worldview, for this phenomenon there were no words in the language that corresponded to the essence of this type of mental impairment, which was called again, but not by its essence, but by the pseudonym of one of its most prominent representatives of Trotskyism in the 20th century communist movement.
                    Trotskyism in its essence is a schizophrenic, aggressive, politically-active psyche that can hide behind any ideology, any sociological doctrine.
                    Therefore, Marxism is originally an expression of psychic Trotskyism. Marx and Engels were psycho-Trotskyists. Hitler was also a psycho-Trotskyist: for the identity of the relation of Hitlerism and Marxism of the Trotsky version to many phenomena of society, see the work of the USSR Supreme Council “Look back in anger ...”. The anti-communist psychologists at the sunset of the USSR were dissidents. And now the majority of activists of bourgeois reforms in Russia and their opponents from the ranks of various patriotic parties and all supposedly communist parties who are not capable of abandoning Marxism are also the psychotrots.
                    Bolshevism, as the history of the CPSU teaches, arose in 1903* at the Second Congress of the RSDLP as one of the party factions. As its opponents claimed, the Bolsheviks had never represented a real majority of members of the Marxist party before 1917*, and therefore the opponents of the Bolsheviks in those years always objected to their self-designation. But this opinion arose from the misunderstanding of the essence of Bolshevism by the heterogeneous Mensheviks."

                    Quote from the book: "The Judas Sin of the 20th Congress".
                    1. +1
                      20 November 2025 11: 12
                      Quote: Boris55
                      They are quite real:

                      Well, there are people who believe that vampires are real and even fight them.
                      1. +3
                        20 November 2025 11: 15
                        The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

                        Quote: kalibr
                        There are people who consider it real

                        Do you believe Trotsky is a fiction, that such a person never existed, that his faction in the party didn't have a majority? And if they did exist, did they all disappear after Stalin's death?

                        So who is distorting history?

                        ps
                        Khrushchev was originally a Trotskyist.
                      2. +2
                        20 November 2025 11: 49
                        Quote: Boris55
                        Do you think that Trotsky is a fiction, that such a person did not exist, that his faction in the party did not have a majority?

                        Why do you think so? Where did I say that?
                        Quote: Boris55
                        Khrushchev was originally a Trotskyist.

                        It is when?
                        Quote: Boris55
                        And if there were, did they all disappear after Stalin’s death?

                        They had all disappeared before his death. Moreover, if we're talking about "Trotskyism" as defined by Trotsky's book, "The Revolution Betrayed," then I... am a Trotskyist, because I completely agree with its conclusions.
                      3. 0
                        21 November 2025 12: 05
                        The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

                        Quote: kalibr
                        Khrushchev was originally a Trotskyist.
                        It is when?

                        Stalin's associate, Lazar Kaganovich, when Khrushchev was nominated for the Moscow Committee of the Bolshevik Communist Party (Bolsheviks), described him as a former Trotskyist and reported this directly to Stalin. When Stalin asked, "And how is it now?" Kaganovich replied, "...He's fighting the Trotskyists. He's actively involved. He's fighting sincerely."

                        Details are available online and in the Lenin Library.
                      4. 0
                        21 November 2025 12: 06
                        Quote: Boris55
                        "...Fights the Trotskyists. Actively speaks out. Sincerely fights."
                      5. +1
                        22 November 2025 07: 44
                        The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

                        characterized him as a former Trotskyist

                        He switched from one faction to another in time and therefore remained under-repressed.
                      6. -2
                        20 November 2025 11: 53
                        Quote: Boris55
                        Do you think that Trotsky is a fiction, that such a person did not exist, that his faction in the party did not have a majority?

                        I was extremely interested.
                        From a Christian point of view, Trotsky is absolute evil, who possessed incredible satanic will and energy.
                        Leyba Davidovich has been undeservedly and brazenly pushed into the background by Soviet historians, but this demon was the creator of the Red Army and the Soviet state, the destroyer of Russian history, the Church, culture, and Russian civilization itself.
                        Quote: Boris55
                        Khrushchev was originally a Trotskyist.

                        He was never a Trotskyist.
      4. +3
        21 November 2025 07: 05
        My point is that it depends on the type of socialism. If it's one with strict control of state ideology by the secret services, then yes, such a model is ultimately unstable. It was necessary to "loosen the reins" a bit while maintaining overall control.
        Moreover, let's not forget that Khrushchev razed the cooperatives, which under Stalin produced fashionable clothing, fashionable shoes, sought-after furniture, food, televisions and radios (and even two helicopter design bureaus, which were cooperative, meaning not state-owned), and much more. He confiscated the cooperatives' property and funds for the benefit of the state without any compensation.
        Ultimately, under Brezhnev, only the procurement and production of food by consumer cooperatives was restored. Fashionable clothing and footwear, like many other items, became scarce. Clearly, the best imported products (and often these were purchased abroad) were superior to Soviet ones, but cooperatives could have alleviated the situation.
        1. +1
          21 November 2025 07: 10
          Quote: Azimutt
          It was necessary to "loose the reins" a little, while maintaining overall control.

          I completely agree with you. And that's exactly what they did in China...
  7. +7
    20 November 2025 06: 23
    That's why, by the way, we can't give up Ukraine now. Either our troops will be in Kharkiv, Odessa, and Kyiv, or NATO tanks and planes.

    A remarkable conclusion to draw from the tragedy that took place in 1956...
    1. +1
      20 November 2025 15: 20
      The conclusion is correct. Nothing has changed; we're still locked in a deadlock. For centuries. And the fight is for every piece of land under our control. Either we take back what's ours, or the flight time will become even shorter.
  8. +6
    20 November 2025 07: 00
    The article contains facts unknown to me - that's interesting. I didn't like the word "rebels" at all. If
    Khrushchev provoked the Hungarian revolt
    then its participants --- rebels, and not rebels
    1. +3
      20 November 2025 08: 12
      then its participants are rebels, not insurgents

      Yeah, that's a *spy-intelligence* statement! laughing Ours are rebels, the enemy is a rioter. What's unclear? bully
      1. 0
        20 November 2025 10: 40
        That's the only way. Us and them is a given. And names carry ideological meaning.
        1. 0
          20 November 2025 13: 18
          And the names carry an ideological meaning.

          If you remove him, all that's left is just...an agent. From any side, the rest is emotions. bully
          1. +2
            20 November 2025 14: 25
            "Emotions" are divided into ours and others.
            This is subjective.
            1. -1
              20 November 2025 23: 18
              I thought that the "history" section actually implies a desire for objectivity and the absence of emotional manipulation; for emotions, there is the "opinions" section.
              1. 0
                21 November 2025 10: 17
                And how do you determine your sense of homeland through cold calculation and objective analysis? Comrade is certainly right, both are agents, but what about the agent's affiliation? That's all we're talking about, and the issue isn't worth breaking a stick of wood. hi
  9. +7
    20 November 2025 07: 04
    Khrushchev, by surrendering Austria shortly before the events in Hungary, greatly facilitated the possibility of preparing a rebellion. Nikita began to surrender the results of the Great Patriotic War, Gorbachev finished
  10. +3
    20 November 2025 08: 01
    My father, as a young soldier, participated in those events... He never talked about it. He only mentioned once that the war veterans immediately took control of the unit and imposed strict discipline... They didn't even bother with the rebels... Everyone captured with weapons was captured right there...
  11. +4
    20 November 2025 08: 02
    The enemies of the USSR are so brazen that they accuse the Soviet communists of committing "crimes" for not allowing them to carry out a counter-revolution in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
    1. +3
      20 November 2025 08: 17
      allowed them to commit

      Bravo, Irina! I rarely agree with you, but armed rebellion is certainly a crime. hiFrom me you definitely get *+* for this comment.
      1. +6
        20 November 2025 11: 06
        Quote: ArchiPhil
        Armed rebellion is of course a crime.

        Only if you lose. If you win, it's called a revolution!
    2. 0
      20 November 2025 08: 20
      Quote: tatra
      The enemies of the USSR are so brazen that they accuse the Soviet communists of committing "crimes" for not allowing them to carry out a counter-revolution in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

      The moral of this story is simple: each nation must decide for itself how to live.
      1. +6
        20 November 2025 08: 23
        But the people are different.
      2. +9
        20 November 2025 08: 23
        The moral of this story is simple: each nation must decide for itself how to live.

        In the spirit of today and yesterday, bold! A very bold statement! bully
        1. -1
          20 November 2025 08: 30
          Quote: ArchiPhil
          The moral of this story is simple: each nation must decide for itself how to live.

          In the spirit of today and yesterday, bold! A very bold statement! bully

          What's bothering you? Haven't you learned anything from the lessons of Afghanistan and Chechnya?
          1. +4
            20 November 2025 08: 31
            What's bothering you? Haven't you learned anything from the lessons of Afghanistan and Chechnya?
            Not at all, I just have a closer analogy. bully
        2. +2
          20 November 2025 10: 50
          Quote: ArchiPhil
          In the spirit of today and yesterday, bold! A very bold statement!

          There's nothing bold or seditious about it. He can and should! But he shouldn't do so at the expense of his neighbors. That is, someone who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones at others.
          1. +3
            20 November 2025 12: 12
            But without affecting the interests of their neighbors.

            And what did I write about? recourse
      3. 0
        21 November 2025 13: 33
        The non-brothers have already decided for themselves, but, as often happens now, not without the active assistance and funding of certain states.
  12. +1
    20 November 2025 08: 14
    My father, as a young soldier, participated in those events, but he never spoke about it. He did mention once that war veterans took control of the unit. When attacked, they immediately organized a fightback and raids. And anyone captured with weapons in hand, if they were lucky, was thrown on the spot, and if not, into the nearest trees...
  13. +5
    20 November 2025 08: 18
    This rebellion reminds me of something...
    1. +1
      20 November 2025 08: 21
      the rebellion is reminiscent of...

      The scenario is almost always the same, the only difference is in the local color. bully
  14. -3
    20 November 2025 08: 37
    The author did not mention that Yuri Andropov was the ambassador to Hungary during the rebellion, and that his role in suppressing the rebels was great. Khrushchev was frightened and advocated for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary.
    The main lesson that Andropov personally learned, and the Soviet communists, was that no ideological concessions should be made to the people, and especially to the intelligentsia; there must be strict censorship and the authorities must be feared.
  15. +5
    20 November 2025 09: 44
    Khrushchev also destroyed the chapel.
  16. -1
    20 November 2025 09: 50
    In February, at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev rushed to "expose Stalinism." In doing so, he undermined the unity of the socialist bloc.
    And this nonsense was not exposed:
    PEST DOCTOR GROUP ARREST

    Some time ago, state security agencies uncovered a terrorist group of doctors whose goal was to shorten the lives of active figures in the Soviet Union through sabotage treatment.

    Among the participants in this terrorist group were: Professor M. Vovsi, general practitioner; Professor Vinogradov V.N., general practitioner; Professor Kogan M. B., general practitioner; Professor Kogan B. B., general practitioner; Professor Egorov P. I., general practitioner; Professor A. Feldman, otolaryngologist; Professor Etinger J. G., general practitioner; Professor A. Greenstein, neuropathologist; Mayorov G.I., general practitioner.

    Documentary data, research, conclusions of medical experts and confessions of those arrested established that the criminals, being hidden enemies of the people, carried out harmful treatment of the sick and undermined their health.

    The investigation established that the members of the terrorist group, using their position as doctors and abusing the trust of patients, deliberately and villainously undermined the health of the latter, deliberately ignored the data of objective examination of patients, gave them incorrect diagnoses that did not correspond to the actual nature of their illnesses, and then killed them with incorrect treatment.
    ?

    And what is this horror?
    Of the 139 members and candidates of the Central Committee of the Party elected at the 17th Congress, 98 people, that is, 70%, were arrested and shot
    doesn't expose?

    А
    I could not bear the torture that Ushakov and Nikolaev subjected me to, especially the first of them - he knew that my broken ribs had not yet healed and, using this knowledge, inflicted terrible pain during interrogations.
    ?
    Etc.

    How can something like this be discredited?
    1. +1
      20 November 2025 10: 17
      Quote: Olgovich
      And what is this horror?
      Of the 139 members and candidates of the Central Committee of the Party elected at the 17th Congress, 98 people, that is, 70%, were arrested and shot
      doesn't expose?

      This exposes you as a complete idiot, because you take sources that suit your position (the bloody gulag, billions of innocents, etc.), but don't even bother to look into the sources themselves. They're based entirely on the narrative, and even with the clearly distorted personal opinions of Mikoyan and Fursov. I respect Fursov as a history expert, but I completely distrust his conclusions, which often have a downright tabloid tinge.
      Let me remind you that Mikoyan himself was one of the instigators of the process that was called Yezhov's purges, but you rely on his opinion. This is unprofessional, to say the least.
      1. +3
        20 November 2025 10: 53
        Quote: multicaat
        Of the 139 members and candidates of the Central Committee of the Party elected at the 17th Congress, 98 people, that is, 70%, were arrested and shot

        Aren't these figures accurate? Do you have other, more reliable ones? It would be nice to share them and a link to a reliable source. Otherwise, it's just empty words...
        1. +2
          20 November 2025 11: 01
          Quote: kalibr
          98 people, or 70%, were arrested and shot.

          the question is why they were arrested, when and by whom.
          The article claims it was Stalin, but it's well known that Stalin initiated the scaling back of the repressions and installed Beria, who, within a year and a half, acquitted 98% of those convicted on insufficient grounds. So, things aren't as clear-cut as the article describes.
          It's like saying that half a million people died in the USSR in a year and Stalin is to blame for everything, but forgetting to specify that people died from old age and disease.
          Without explanation, the given number is simply a meaningless scare tactic for impressionable, gullible old ladies.
          A separate question is how the Central Committee, which consisted on average of 11-15 people, ended up with as many as 139 elected candidates. I remember that during Brezhnev's time, there were usually 20 candidates for the Central Committee, rarely more, usually less.
          1. +2
            20 November 2025 11: 04
            Quote: multicaat
            more often less.

            So you remember, but you have no actual figures or sources? What were the delegates to the Congress of Victors arrested for? The question is, of course, for theft, overspending, drunkenness, and immorality. And they were put up against the wall for the same thing!
            1. 0
              20 November 2025 11: 07
              Quote: kalibr
              That is, you remember, but you don’t have any real figures or links to the source?

              Over the course of a year, there were a couple of articles in the newspapers about someone becoming a candidate for the Central Committee. I remember all of it. You don't need statistics to understand that there were about 10 times fewer of them than were written about the 17th Congress. I don't know whether this is true or not, but in the period I remember, this certainly didn't happen. I called this not untrue, but a strange discrepancy. And it's a fact, and one that doesn't require documentary confirmation. I myself find it strange.
              And don't confuse the two questions into one. The question about who was convicted has absolutely no connection to the assessment of the number of SELECTED candidates.
              1. +1
                20 November 2025 11: 11
                Quote: multicaat
                I don’t know if this is true or not, but in the period that I remember myself, this definitely didn’t happen.

                With precise data from an archive like the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), you don't have to guess or remember anything. Just go to their website and find everything you need.
                1. +1
                  20 November 2025 11: 20
                  Quote: kalibr
                  Quote: multicaat
                  I don’t know if this is true or not, but in the period that I remember myself, this definitely didn’t happen.

                  With precise data from an archive like the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), you don't have to guess or remember anything. Just go to their website and find everything you need.

                  Here is the link
                  https://bigenc.ru/c/tsentral-nyi-komitet-kpss-e134b9
                  It is clearly visible there that the number of candidates grew continuously, but even in 1952, much later than the 17th Congress, it grew to 111. And in 34 there were only 68
                  Accordingly, which 137 people are we talking about at the congress of “winners”?
                  again manipulation, because it is clear that the number includes candidates for candidates
                  Cheating again.
                  1. +1
                    20 November 2025 11: 51
                    Quote: multicaat
                    manipulation again,

                    This is how one should write from the very beginning, relying on a proven source base.
            2. +3
              20 November 2025 11: 14
              I found a more accurate report on the 98 "executed" people, by the way, from the CPSU Central Committee commission.
              but after '56
              According to updated data, of the 139 members and candidate members of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) elected at the 17th Party Congress, 97 people were repressed, 5 people committed suicide, 4 people were shot for violating socialist legality, and 1 person was killed as a result of an assassination attempt.

              Please note, 97 were repressed, not executed. Let me remind you that Khrushchev was also repressed, but given an honorable resignation and a quiet life at his dacha, not executed.
              Furthermore, of those 97, not 97 died, but only 10, of which five committed suicide, and one was not killed by the state. And the state only killed four. And notice, the number 98 suddenly shrank by a factor of 22.5. How do you like the lies in the article?
              1. +4
                20 November 2025 11: 46
                Quote: multicaat
                Well, how do you like the lies in the article?

                You see how useful it is to search and find everything yourself! I write about this all the time on VO.
                1. +1
                  20 November 2025 11: 50
                  Well, I was writing about a time I witnessed myself. I forgot, though, that back then, the media heavily filtered information, and it simply didn't reach us. And I was still a kid—I didn't understand everything.
                  1. +1
                    20 November 2025 11: 53
                    Quote: multicaat
                    Well, I wrote about the time that I observed myself.

                    What you wrote next fits perfectly with the amusing postulate: "Lies like an eyewitness!" This isn't meant as an insult. It simply highlights our subjective perception.
                    1. +1
                      20 November 2025 11: 55
                      Quote: kalibr
                      Quote: multicaat
                      Well, I wrote about the time that I observed myself.

                      What you wrote next fits perfectly with the amusing postulate: "Lies like an eyewitness!" This isn't meant as an insult. It simply highlights our subjective perception.

                      You reminded me that I can't trust this. Thank you for that. I agreed that I've lost my objectivity. History is constantly debating this issue.
              2. +2
                20 November 2025 12: 40
                Quote: multicaat
                Of these 97, not 97 died, but only 10, and 5 of them shot themselves

                belay lol fool You don't even know the order of the numbers. Take the list of Central Committee secretaries from the 17th congress and see that 97 were shot.
                917 1936 Zinoviev was shot
                1917 1936 Kamenev was shot
                1917 1936 Fedorov G.F. was shot
                1917 1937 Glebov-Avilov was shot
                1917-1937 Kiselev was shot
                1917-1937 Milyutin was shot
                1917 1937 Preobrazhensky was shot
                1917-1937 Teodorovich was shot
                1917-1938 Berzin was shot
                1917-1938 Bubnov was shot
                1917-1938 Bukharin was shot
                1917-1938 Krestinsky was shot
                1917 1938 Lomov (Oppokov) was shot
                1917-1938 Pravdin was shot
                1917-1938 Rykov was shot
                1917 1938 Smilga was shot, along with the other Shlyapnikovs, Tukhevskys and Yakirs.

                Bots can not so dont know
                1. +2
                  20 November 2025 12: 52
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  1917-1938 Bubnov was shot

                  I was chosen at random simply because of my last name, which I don't know.
                  1930 candidate, in 34 not a candidate for the Central Committee and certainly not a member of the Central Committee.
                  more...
                  1917-1938 Krestinsky was shot

                  In March 1921, where he presented the organizational report of the Central Committee, he was not elected to the Central Committee, the Politburo, and the Orgburo, vacating his post for V. M. Molotov, and ultimately for Stalin, as General Secretary of the Central Committee.
                  In 1930-1937 - Deputy, First Deputy People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the USSR.
                  At the time of the congress in 34, it also had no connection with the Politburo or the Central Committee.
                  I just picked two random people I don't even know. And in both cases, you lied. Both were completely unrelated to the Central Committee at the time of the congress. After all, the article is specifically about people like that.
                  I'm not going to argue about who was killed or not. The point is which of the people involved in the Central Committee at the congress were killed. It's not about the people who participated in the Central Committee's work in 26. And you provided a list of precisely those.
                  1. 0
                    20 November 2025 13: 33
                    Quote: multicaat
                    just by the last name which I don't know
                    1930 candidate, in 34 not a candidate for the Central Committee and certainly not a member of the Central Committee.

                    Not knowing Bubnov is a shame and you'll chop it off. Member of the Party Central Committee in 1917-1918 and 1924-1937
                    Quote: multicaat
                    The issue is about which of the people involved in the Central Committee were killed at the congress.

                    offers full list of delegates to the 17th Congress с biographies- take it and count it Tukhachevsky's Chkirs, Uborevich's Bauman's Alekseyevs, Bubnovs, etc., but before you, this was done by researchers and the Central Committee commission:

                    of the 139 members and candidate members of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), elected at the 17th Congress, were arrested and 98 people were shot during these years.
                    1. 0
                      20 November 2025 13: 40
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      Not knowing Bubnov is a shame

                      Go to hell with your imposed standards.
                      I will decide for myself what I need to know and what is shame.
                      Better yet, learn the manners of polite behavior.
                      Quote: Olgovich

                      Of the 139 members and candidate members of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) elected at the 17th Congress, 98 people were arrested and shot during these years.

                      I've proven this is a lie. With sources. You're insane for posting this nonsense over and over again.
                      1. -1
                        20 November 2025 13: 55
                        Quote: multicaat
                        walk in the forest

                        you
                        Quote: multicaat
                        learn manners of polite behavior.

                        Quote: multicaat
                        I'll decide for myself what I need to know.

                        Know what you want, but don't bring this "knowledge" to people:
                        Quote: multicaat
                        Of these 97, not 97 died, but only 10, and 5 of them shot themselves
                        lol
                      2. 0
                        20 November 2025 14: 16
                        What can you expect from you hysterical liberals?
                        You rearrange phrases and take them out of context. Disgusting people.
                        Just a minus, no complaints. The grave will correct the hunchback, and I won't say I'll be upset when it corrects you.
                  2. +1
                    20 November 2025 23: 53
                    A.S. Bubnov was a member of the Central Committee from 1924 to 1937. He was a well-known figure.
                    1. 0
                      22 November 2025 11: 14
                      Quote: Sergej1972
                      The personality is actually well-known.

                      and also how - in prison the NKVD was Blucher's hen...
              3. +1
                20 November 2025 14: 13
                Quote: multicaat
                I found a more accurate report on the 98 "executed" people, by the way, from the CPSU Central Committee commission.
                but after '56
                According to updated data, of the 139 members and candidate members of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) elected at the 17th Party Congress, 97 people were repressed, 5 people committed suicide, 4 people were shot for violating socialist legality, and 1 person was killed as a result of an assassination attempt.

                Please note, 97 were repressed, not executed. Let me remind you that Khrushchev was also repressed, but given an honorable resignation and a quiet life at his dacha, not executed.
                Furthermore, of those 97, not 97 died, but only 10, of which five committed suicide, and one was not killed by the state. And the state only killed four. And notice, the number 98 suddenly shrank by a factor of 22.5. How do you like the lies in the article?

                Let's not cast aspersions. Let's take specific names and examine their biographies:
                Antipov
                Balitsky
                Bauman
                Bubnov
                Vareikis
                Gamarnik
                Evdokimov
                Yezhov
                Yenukidze
                Zelensky
                Ivanov
                Tarasov
                Kabakov
                Kaganovich
                Knorin
                Kosarev
                Kosior I. V.
                Kosior S. V.
                Krinitsky
                Swan
                Lobov
                Lyubimov
                Mezhlauk
                Mirzoyan
                Noses
                Postyshev
                Pyatakov
                Pyatnitsky
                Rudzutak
                Rumyantsev
                Rakhimovich
                Stetsky
                Sulimov
                Sukhanov
                Khataevich
                Chernov
                Chubar
                Sheboldanv
                Eikhe
                Jahoda
                Yakir
                Yakovlev
                These are only the members of the Central Committee, there are also candidates.
                1. -2
                  20 November 2025 14: 17
                  What are you trying to say? I'm too lazy to guess by looking at a list of some names.
                  1. 0
                    20 November 2025 14: 21
                    Quote: multicaat
                    What are you trying to say? I'm too lazy to guess by looking at a list of some names.

                    I want to say that this is a list of members of the Central Committee elected at the 17th Congress and executed
                    1. -2
                      20 November 2025 14: 26
                      Quote: Panin (Michman)
                      This is a list of members of the Central Committee elected at the 17th Congress.

                      42 people in the Central Committee??? Isn't that a bit much?
                      Regarding those executed at the congress. Most of those executed were Yagoda or his replacement, Yezhov. If Yagoda was executed, what is he doing on this list?
                      Some kind of uraboros is emerging. Yakovlev from the list seems to have definitely survived. These are just names I know for sure. Something's wrong with your list.
                      1. +3
                        20 November 2025 16: 00
                        Quote: multicaat
                        Quote: Panin (Michman)
                        This is a list of members of the Central Committee elected at the 17th Congress.

                        42 people in the Central Committee??? Isn't that a bit much?
                        Regarding those executed at the congress. Most of those executed were Yagoda or his replacement, Yezhov. If Yagoda was executed, what is he doing on this list?
                        Some kind of uraboros is emerging. Yakovlev from the list seems to have definitely survived. These are just names I know for sure. Something's wrong with your list.

                        Didn't you know that Yagoda was shot in 38?
                      2. +5
                        20 November 2025 16: 11
                        Quote: multicaat
                        42 people in the Central Committee??? Isn't that a bit much?

                        Actually, no:
                        Of the 139 members and candidates for members of the Party Central Committee elected at the 70th Party Congress, 1937% were arrested and shot in 1938-1966. as "enemies of the people." Of the 1108 delegates to the same congress with a decisive and deliberative vote, more than half - XNUMX people were convicted of counter-revolutionary speeches
                      3. +2
                        20 November 2025 16: 16
                        Quote: multicaat
                        Yakovlev from the list seems to have definitely survived.

                        Yakov Arkadevich Yakovlev
                        Soviet statesman and political figure, participant in the revolutionary movement in Russia. Academician of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences
                        October 12, 1937. Arrested. At the time of his arrest, he was the head of the agricultural department of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). He lived in Moscow at 3 Granovsky Street, Apt. 81. His wife, Sofia Sokolovskaya (director of Mosfilm), was arrested along with him.
                        By the verdict of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the USSR on July 29, 1938, he was executed on charges of participating in a counter-revolutionary terrorist organization.
                      4. 0
                        20 November 2025 23: 58
                        Yakovlev was a renowned party figure, the first People's Commissar for Agriculture of the USSR, who played a major role in collectivization. He always sided with Stalin during the intra-party struggle, but was executed in 1938.
          2. +2
            20 November 2025 12: 02
            You are confusing the Politburo of the Central Committee and the Central Committee.
      2. -3
        20 November 2025 12: 00
        Quote: multicaat
        This exposes you as a complete idiot, because you take sources that are convenient for your position (bloody gulag, billions of innocents, etc.)

        fact The destruction of 75% of the Central Committee, ALL army commanders, etc. speaks to the inadequacy of the government and those who justify it.
        Quote: multicaat
        according to the opinion of Mikoyan and Fursov

        No one was involved, everyone was shocked by the savagery. Khrushchev merely voiced the well-known Doctors' Plot and the executions.

        If everything was correct, then why are you embarrassed? Be proud of your report.
        1. -1
          20 November 2025 12: 06
          Quote: Olgovich
          the fact of the destruction of 75% of the Central Committee

          I've already discussed this "fact" in this thread. The fact is that after the 56 report, a revision of the data was released, revealing that out of 137, 97 were convicted, but only 4 were executed. And the crimes were incredibly complex: 5 were suicides, and 1 died as a result of an assassination attempt. Note that the number of those executed shrank by a factor of 22.5.
          Here's the price of your "fact." I've already provided all of this here—search for it, and I'll provide links.
          Aren't you tired of falling into disrepute with your blind faith in the bloody Soviet Union and the KGB?
          Maybe you'll at least look at who's saying all this nonsense before you believe it?
          I wouldn't be surprised if in another thread you start defending the position that in the USSR all the billions of flat-earthers were shot for nothing, because Stalin believed that the earth was round.
          1. +1
            20 November 2025 16: 18
            Quote: multicaat
            Quote: Olgovich
            the fact of the destruction of 75% of the Central Committee

            I've already discussed this "fact" in this thread. The fact is that after the report in '56, a clarification of this data was released, which revealed that out of 137, 97 were convicted, and only 4 were executed.

            https://hrono.ru/vkpb_17/pril_3.html
          2. +4
            20 November 2025 17: 35
            Quote: multicaat
            multi-category
            (Serge)

            Dear Sergey, you're wrong. You were pointed to the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF) as a source of verified information. But you're still spouting nonsense. This isn't right. Don't rush to respond to comments; instead, thoroughly research this issue. Everything is available online, and flat-earthers have nothing to do with it.
  17. +2
    20 November 2025 09: 54
    The author mentions that Russians fought, the Russian army, and so on, as if there was no one else but Russians—not Belarusians, Estonians, Yakuts, Kazakhs, Tatars, Jews, anyone, in short. Even though it was the Soviet Army.
    1. +1
      20 November 2025 11: 03
      This is a standard pedaling of the topic by shifting the balance of truth.
      It's like talking about a war where tanks and infantry fought, but not saying a word about artillery.
      The whole point is to reduce the issue to some kind of internal Moscow showdown a la communal kitchen, although it concerns the entire country
  18. +5
    20 November 2025 09: 59
    N.S. Khrushchev made a lot of mistakes, but everyone should be grateful to him for his talent for bluffing the United States, which was actually preparing to launch a nuclear strike on the USSR and wipe out most of the population. To prevent the attack, N.S. reduced the army, closed secondary advanced weapons projects, and used the freed-up funds to develop nuclear missile potential, thereby preventing a nuclear attack from the United States, and for this, we bow deeply to him.
  19. +2
    20 November 2025 10: 10
    active Trotskyist Khrushchev

    Khrushchev wasn't a Trotskyist. In fact, the article contains many overly strong statements.
    This means that she is clearly not telling the truth about something.
    here is another quote
    The General Staff developed the "Whirlwind" plan. By November 4, 1956, a 60-strong force with 3 tanks was assembled in Hungary under the command of our outstanding commander, Marshal Konev. Units from 16 divisions participated in the operation.

    This is a distortion. The operation involved far more forces; mobile reserves were organized across the country, capable of being airlifted, or deployed, to a hot spot in 1-2 days. The vast majority of these reserves didn't participate, but they were also deployed. It was precisely the presence of reserves, not just out there, but readily available, that allowed for decisive action and urgency.
    Moreover, not all of Hungary rebelled; the events in the capital were largely the focus.
  20. +3
    20 November 2025 10: 17
    You can immediately scroll to the bottom of the article, look at the author and finish reading.
  21. +5
    20 November 2025 10: 22
    "That's why, by the way, we can't give up Ukraine now. Either our troops will be in Kharkiv, Odessa, and Kyiv, or NATO tanks and planes will be there."
    Doesn't the author himself find it funny? Sweden, Finland, the Baltics, Turkey, Romania. Whether Ukraine is there or not, nothing will change dramatically. I remember a certain Putin gave an ultimatum to NATO—don't go east and leave the countries that were in power after 1991. They, of course, immediately got scared and, out of fear, immediately accepted Sweden, which had previously been completely neutral, and pro-Soviet Finland into NATO, thereby showing how much they feared the Russian Armed Forces and Putin personally. And Hungary couldn't be given up then. The Warsaw Pact was just being built, flexing its muscles, and the Soviet Union had every right to create a buffer between the source of all wars—England, France, and Germany—and its own borders. And the Hungarians and, later, the Czechs should be grateful to the USSR for having treated them so easily, in a brotherly manner.
  22. +3
    20 November 2025 10: 39
    I'll add my own personal opinion. The suppression of the Hungarian uprising was complicated by Khrushchev—that's true, but the author describes it poorly. The main problem was that after the "debunking of the Stalin cult" began, the USSR suddenly found itself politically isolated, because the entire Warsaw Pact was Stalin's creation, and China had even turned its back. In Hungary itself, many sensed the fragility of communist ideology. And in this situation, many formally allied states began to delay providing assistance, which is radically different from the events in Czechoslovakia—there, quite the opposite, all the neighbors quickly intervened.
  23. +3
    20 November 2025 12: 02
    Quote from Uncle Lee
    Alexander Samsonov

    What is incomprehensible here?
    They began with the replacement of the Soviet ambassador to Hungary. The new ambassador, Yuri Andropov, managed to oust the communist Rákosi and his comrades from the leadership of the Hungarian Workers' Party and replaced him with the Trotskyist Imre Nagy.
    Then the new leadership of the Hungarian party announced "more socialism," "multi-party democracy," "correcting the crimes of Stalinism," and so on, and began the collapse of socialism from above with the full support of the Soviet ambassador Andropov and his boss Khrushchev.
    (By the way, this same Andropov who later became Gorbachev’s patron and guardian angel).
    But let's return to Hungary. Everything was planned correctly, but the Hungarian fascists (Szálasists) predictably ruined the Trotskyist celebration. With murders and atrocities against local communists and Soviet soldiers, they terrified both their patrons in Hungary and the USSR. The memory of the war and the fascists was still too vivid, and the Soviet military leadership responded as expected, while the political leadership was hesitant to stop them.
  24. 0
    20 November 2025 13: 32
    The author has two interesting and, in my opinion, mutually exclusive messages.
    First
    1) At the same time, Hungarian society as a whole was a conservative society of the Horthy-Szálasi era, which avoided large-scale “purges”. The security forces included many officers from the semi-fascist Horthy era. The country was ruled by a narrow stratum of ideological communists, who relied on the small apparatus of the State Security Directorate., on the authority and power of the USSR. Khrushchev destroyed this system with his own hands.

    once more
    2) In a matter of days, on the site of friendly, allied Hungary A hostile state was formed with thousands of gangs, which were joined by regular units of the Hungarian army.

    In my opinion, the first premise is more accurate. Hungary was like a radish. Red on the outside, but completely white on the inside. And any problems in this thin layer of red skin would expose the white content underneath.
    That is, in fact, at that time the majority of the Hungarian people were not friendly towards us, towards the USSR.
  25. 0
    20 November 2025 13: 35
    Thousands of Russians of the 3rd Ukrainian Front
    ,
    Moscow has returned its World War II trophy.

    Am I the only one who finds these formulations, let's say, a bit strange?
  26. +3
    20 November 2025 13: 42
    Your chronology doesn't match up.
    Quote: Kostadinov
    They started with replacing the Soviet ambassador to Hungary. The new ambassador, Yuri Andropov, managed to remove the communist Rakosi and his comrades from the leadership of the Hungarian Workers' Party and replace him with Trotskyist Imre Nagy.
    Mátyás Rákosi was criticized and dismissed from his post as head of government at a plenum of the Central Committee of the VPT. June 27–28, 1953. At the same plenum, the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Workers' Party was replaced by the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Workers' Party, which was retained by Rákosi. Imre Nagy was elected as the new head of the Hungarian government at the plenum.
    Yu. V. Andropov arrived in Hungary as a Minister-Counselor of the USSR Embassy in the Hungarian People's Republic only in October 1953.
    And Yury V. Andropov became the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the USSR to Hungary only
    July 6 1954
    and worked in this position until February 21, 1957.
  27. +3
    20 November 2025 13: 42
    I'm not a supporter, but
    The active Trotskyist Khrushchev began to "rock" the Soviet Union from within with his own hands

    Has this already been proven by any documents? Or is this the author's value judgment?
  28. -1
    20 November 2025 13: 49
    Quote: kalibr
    We didn't buy anyone's affection, we had national interests.

    It's the same thing, just in different words!
    1. -1
      20 November 2025 16: 15
      And being a propagandist in the 70s and 80s, I wonder what they were telling citizens about the socialist camp??? You've probably forgotten already, haven't you?
      1. 0
        20 November 2025 17: 21
        Quote: Andrey VOV
        You've probably forgotten already, haven't you?

        No, I remember it very well. I was talking about how well and mutually beneficially we had united. But that's the trouble with incomplete knowledge. Neither you nor I knew what we know now, and we acted accordingly. In any case, I hadn't read Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" back then...
  29. 0
    20 November 2025 17: 57
    I once heard a story that when the Germans were brought in, they drew a circle around themselves, making it clear whoever would step into it would be eliminated. They were afraid of the Germans. Perhaps this is just a fairy tale.
    1. 0
      21 November 2025 00: 04
      Firstly, the tales concerned the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia. Secondly, they were just that – tales.
  30. +2
    20 November 2025 18: 31
    I love after-knowledge...
  31. -1
    20 November 2025 19: 21
    Thousands of Russians of the 3rd Ukrainian Front died in brutal battles.

    Were only Russians fighting? Is the author familiar with the term "Soviet soldier"?
    1. 0
      21 November 2025 10: 51
      Quote: MrFox
      Were only Russians fighting? Is the author familiar with the term "Soviet soldier"?

      In all of the author's articles, the Russian army fought in the Great Patriotic War, but under the leadership of the Soviet command. smile
      And the author is not even bothered by the fact that the unit, which had the words “Russian” and “army” in its name, fought on the other side of the front during that war.
      1. 0
        21 November 2025 15: 32
        Maybe he meant the Vlasovites)
  32. 0
    20 November 2025 20: 25
    Already during the uprising in Munich, a recruiting center was set up in the Free Europe building.

    The sentence really needs the word "Hungarian uprising", otherwise it's talking about some mythical "uprising in Munich".
    1. 0
      21 November 2025 10: 57
      Quote: faterdom
      The sentence really needs the word "Hungarian uprising", otherwise it's talking about some mythical "uprising in Munich".

      At the words Munich uprising One unfortunate applicant to the Vienna Academy of Arts immediately comes to mind. wink
  33. 0
    20 November 2025 20: 38
    Quote: Unknown
    But whose troops were there?

    But where our troops were not present, the communists, despite all their authority, somehow did not come to power...
    1. 0
      21 November 2025 11: 04
      Quote: kalibr
      But where our troops were not present, the communists, despite all their authority, somehow did not come to power...

      Because Yalta and the division of spheres of influence. In Greece, the communists were crushed first by the British, and then by local loyalists, who staged purges and a full-blown civil war.
      1. 0
        21 November 2025 12: 00
        Quote: Alexey RA
        In Greece, the communists were first suppressed by the British and then by local loyalists, who staged purges and a full-fledged civil war.

        There you go! If there had been Soviet troops there, there would have been no one to crush them!
  34. 0
    20 November 2025 20: 41
    Quote: Unknown
    If they hadn't given consent for the "divorce"... then where would they have gone?

    "By" is not necessary. We couldn't not give it.
  35. 0
    20 November 2025 20: 56
    During the Hungarian uprising, Andropov and Aliyev were there.
  36. 0
    20 November 2025 20: 57
    Quote: 23ronin
    I once heard a story that when the Germans were brought in, they drew a circle around themselves, making it clear whoever would step into it would be eliminated. They were afraid of the Germans. Perhaps this is just a fairy tale.

    It's more likely about 68.
  37. +2
    20 November 2025 22: 41
    Quote: kalibr
    Quote: Unknown
    But whose troops were there?

    But where our troops were not present, the communists, despite all their authority, somehow did not come to power...

    Soviet troops didn't defeat Spain, Cuba, or Vietnam. And in Italy, France, and Greece, communists failed to come to power because of US and British troops. In Greece, the British intervened directly with force.
  38. 0
    20 November 2025 23: 10
    Your chronology doesn't match up.

    Thanks for the clarification, but there is, as they say, a "nuance." Rakosi resigned under pressure from Moscow as prime minister, but retained the party leadership and obstructed the "reforms" of the new prime minister, Imre Nad. In 1955, Nad was removed from the Hungarian government. So the struggle took place when Andropov was the Soviet ambassador, and the Soviet embassy became the center of the Hungarian "perestroika" of 1956.
  39. 0
    21 November 2025 09: 59
    How Khrushchev provoked the Hungarian revolt

    This bald guy has so much shit on his conscience that he and his descendants will never be able to cleanse themselves... True, Russia is now paying for all this shit. But never mind, we'll finish off the bastards. The main thing is that Russia doesn't get another figure like Khrushchev or a marked man with a drunkard...
    1. 0
      21 November 2025 15: 56
      Dear sir, you'd have to look far to find someone who drank as much as Peter the Great, but the state grew in both land and people. It's not about drinking. You have to be a statesman, and not everyone has that.
  40. -1
    21 November 2025 19: 00
    "13 generals and more than 300 officers surrendered." So why? Why is the life of a pig more valuable than hundreds of its own citizens?
  41. -5
    22 November 2025 00: 09
    It's well known that the cult of Stalin ruled Europe. But does the author's revelation suggest that his revelation was a mistake? I think the historical value of Khrushchev's report is difficult to overestimate. Hungary would have been worth sacrificing for it. There was no Warsaw Pact, anyway. No alliances whatsoever, including the Soviet Union.
    1. 0
      22 November 2025 00: 30
      Quote from ZnachWest
      But it turns out, according to the author, that his exposure is a mistake?

      No, it’s not a mistake, it’s worse.
    2. +1
      24 November 2025 12: 41
      I think it's hard to overestimate the historical value of Khrushchev's report. ...there was no Warsaw Pact. No alliances at all, including the Soviet one.

      You're being a bit overzealous, sir. Check your blood pressure. It's definitely spiked from all those rants.
      And so, everything is correct. The USSR existed, Khrushchev's report was made, and Russia is still struggling to get out of the mess it left behind. And you're also right to rant about the Warsaw Pact. It's really hard to imagine such a thing existing while in a drunken stupor.
      So, the bottom line: either wake up or give up drinking. Maybe then something in your brain will clear up, and you'll be able to see the USSR, the Warsaw Pact, Khrushchev's betrayal, and many, many other interesting things in history...
      1. 0
        24 November 2025 18: 58
        Turn everything the same towards yourself.
  42. +1
    23 November 2025 08: 25
    Author, you're just a complete loser. What the hell is a Soviet empire? Are you sick?
  43. +1
    24 November 2025 19: 41
    Quote: kalibr
    But where our troops were not present, the communists, despite all their authority, somehow did not come to power...
    Well, why didn't they come? For example, the communists came to power in Albania, where Soviet troops never even came close.
    But even where Soviet troops were present, communists didn't always come to power. In Austria, for example, Soviet troops were stationed until October 19, 1955, including in the Austrian capital, Vienna. But the communists never came to power in Austria.
  44. -1
    26 November 2025 16: 30
    Let me remind you that Khrushchev was a member of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Stalingrad Front, meaning he was a WWII veteran!!! There's an article against slandering veterans, under which a deceased extremist was tried.
  45. 0
    14 December 2025 22: 55
    Quote: Author
    ...a half-million-strong group with 900 tanks and self-propelled guns

    By the way, this menagerie was extinguished exclusively with artillery.
  46. 0
    14 December 2025 23: 48
    Quote: Author
    ...That's why, by the way, we can't give up Ukraine now. Either our troops will be in Kharkiv, Odessa, and Kyiv, or NATO tanks and planes.

    good
    There is some hope that the Kremlin clique understands this. hi
  47. 0
    21 January 2026 16: 08
    Thousands of Russians
    , exactly?, maybe still Soviet?
    desecration of the graves of Soviet soldiers
    Why not Russians?
    What is the author trying to say by this?