"My name will be slandered."

27 116 293
"My name will be slandered."
Soviet poster. Author: V. Pravdin. 1949.


Anti-Stalinism and its meaning


The first famous anti-Stalinist was Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, who on February 25 at the 20th Congress of the CPSU presented his sensational report “On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences” to the participants.



In his report, Khrushchev laid out theses incriminating Stalin: the "cult of personality"; violation of the rules of collective leadership; large-scale repressions and falsification of cases; the deportation of peoples and the exaggeration of Stalin's role in the Great Patriotic War; the Doctors' Plot, etc.

The report was classified, but that was merely a convention. By early March, a brochure marked "not for publication" was distributed to all party organizations. Later that year, it was publicized by Western media.

This was a powerful blow to Soviet civilization and the new type of society Stalin was building—a society of knowledge, service, and creation. In essence, Khrushchev, in his pursuit of unlimited power, closed the door to the future for the Soviet Union. It was finally closed under Brezhnev, when they failed to publicly refute Khrushchev's anti-Stalin policies and tell the people the truth. After this, the Union was doomed and began to decay with increasing speed. And Gorbachev and his team of "perestroika" leaders simply abandoned the USSR.

Therefore, Khrushchev's anti-Stalin propaganda campaign was greeted with great approval by all anti-Soviet, Russophobic Western politicians. It was a huge gift to the entire Western world during the so-called Cold War—the West's Third World Hybrid War against the USSR and the socialist bloc.

With his own hands, Khrushchev undermined the foundations of the entire socialist system, an alternative model of human development based on social justice.

"Kukuruznik" gave the West a powerful informational, psychological and ideological weapon Against the Soviet Union and the socialist system of society. Now, any pro-socialist propaganda could be countered, while you had repression and a personality cult. "Bloody Stalin." Which the West did with great pleasure. And in the new "perestroika" and "democratic" Russia of the 90s, they repeated it. Western propaganda, with the help of Khrushchev, tried to smear the name of Stalin, the people's leader who was the banner of the fight against imperialism and Nazism, creating a whole host of dark myths of an anti-Stalinist, anti-Soviet nature.

A "fifth column" was quickly created in the USSR, comprising the remnants and heirs of Trotskyists, nationalists, Basmachi, collaborators, Banderites, and others. Many newly minted historians, publicists, philosophers, and other "researchers" emerged, eager to contribute to the "dirty dancing" at the grave of the great leader. Naturally, not for free. They did so in exchange for medals, awards, titles, trips abroad, and other perks.

They began to furiously argue that Stalin's era was an era of darkness and gloom. The entire country was turned into a concentration camp, where millions were repressed, shot, tortured, and starved. They emphasized the kinship between the regimes of Stalin and Hitler. They argued that Stalin's USSR started World War II by invading Poland and Finland.

They launched a monstrous myth about tens of millions of people repressed by Stalin—arrested, executed, killed in camps, and exiled. The professional liar Solzhenitsyn confidently claimed in his works, particularly in "The Gulag Archipelago," that between 66 and 100 million people were repressed. Stalin's horrific atrocities were reported "from every corner," broadcast daily by radio, television, and the press. Yet no one mentioned that their figures were false; just look at the statistics, and everything will be clear.

Stalin's critics weren't interested in accuracy or truth. By slinging mud at his name, they unhesitatingly upended the entire history Russia and the USSR were turned upside down, untruth was called truth, white was turned into black. A favorite method, by the way, of Western manipulators. The US, which bombed countless countries in the 20th and 21st centuries, is considered a "beacon of freedom and democracy," while the USSR, which saved the world from the black-brown plague of Nazism and fascism, destroying the colonial system that parasitized most of the planet, is considered an "evil empire."

"My name will be slandered and defamed."


In his quest for unlimited power, the latent Trotskyist Khrushchev relied on a "fifth column" of saboteurs and enemies of the people, opportunists and imitators who had no desire to build communism (a community of people living by truth and conscience). They wanted to return the Union to the past, with princes, khans, barons, and other nobles living off the people.

They hated the creator, protector, and architect of a new society—a new civilization reaching for the stars. Naturally, they received full support in the West, where they were terribly afraid of a new alternative reality, a society that was objectively generations ahead of all humanity.

With a new ideology of building socialism in one country, which minimized the shortcomings of Western Marxist philosophy, Stalin effectively recreated the Russian Empire as the Red Empire, restoring the might and grandeur of the Russian state. He reclaimed the Baltics, Western Belarus, Western Ukraine, and Bessarabia-Moldova. Red Russian banners of victory rose over Warsaw, Budapest, Vienna, Berlin, and Prague.

Stalin reclaimed the ancient Slavic lands of Porussia-Prussia with Königsberg-Kaliningrad. He created a powerful security sphere in Europe. He made Poland and East Germany allies and friends, dislodging them from the camp of enemies of Russian civilization. He regained our positions in the Far East.

We created a powerful industrial, technological, and scientific nation, with the best schools in the world. The Union became a superpower – ideological, military-political, and economic. We were respected and feared across the globe. Our Chinese comrades considered us an older brother.

It was for this heroic, great period that the children of "fiery revolutionaries" condemned Stalin, under the false pretense of a "corn-man." Khrushchev had previously been known as one of Stalin's buffoons, someone who could dance the hopak. "Mikita," with such authority, was not fit for the role of leader.

So the incompetent and dim-witted servant of the late Tsar, yet cunning and cruel, "bite the dead lion." Naturally, Russia's enemies found this to their liking. The West began playing the Khrushchev card. And they achieved enormous success. They denigrated the civilization and society that Stalin had created. They destroyed the socialist camp, as many communists and socialists condemned the revisionist "corncob" and his experiments. They destroyed the USSR's national economy with Khrushchev's help."Khrushchev" as the first restructuring; "Khrushchev Thaw" - the first attempt to destroy the Soviet civilization).

In general, most of the dark myths that were invented about Stalin have already been dispelled by objective researchers of this period of Russian history. The Stalin period was a time of power, greatness and prosperity of the socialist Great Russia (USSR). To this day, perestroika supporters and democratizing optimists of all stripes have struggled to squander the legacy of the great Soviet civilization in Stalin's name. The "cult of Stalin" is the nationwide love and respect for the leader who addressed national and strategic challenges in the name of the state and the people.
293 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 91+
    25 February 2026 03: 50
    Stalin took over the country with a plough and left it with atomic weapons at the peak of its power.
    Modern "activists" are not fit to hold a candle to him.
    1. 48+
      25 February 2026 04: 38
      The "Cult of Stalin" is the nation's love and respect for the leader.
      1. 27+
        25 February 2026 07: 27
        exaggeration of Stalin's role in the Great Patriotic War;

        Interesting thesis. Has anyone done more?
        1. 22+
          25 February 2026 11: 36
          The Stalin period was a time of power, greatness and prosperity of the socialist Great Russia (USSR).
          It was for this heroic, great period that the children of the “fiery revolutionaries” condemned Stalin under the false arguments of the “corn duster”.

          Unfortunately, in 1991 Stalin was no longer alive.
          "Having seized power and established a Bonapartist order in the country, relying on the counter-revolutionary rabble armed by them, not to mention criminal and declassed elements, these despicable and pathetic traitors intended, first of all, to renounce socialist property by selling our economically important economic assets into private ownership to capitalist elements.
          Under the guise of unprofitable liquidate state farms and dissolve collective farms.
          Transfer tractors and other complex agricultural machinery to individual peasants, known as farmers, to revive the kulak system in the village.
          To enslave the country through foreign loans.
          Grant our industrial enterprises that are important to imperialist states as concessions <...>
          Among other things, convicted enemies of the people tried by all means to undermine the combat effectiveness of the Soviet armed forces."

          From the speech of I.V. Stalin at the extended meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the General Staff of the Red Army at the end of 1941 regarding the trials of 1937-38.
          1. 15+
            25 February 2026 12: 32
            The problem was that a system for transferring power and leaders without a complete change in the state's course hadn't been developed or tested. As a result, with each new General Secretary, the country lurched from one extreme to another, leading to zugzwang—it became easier to do nothing and stagnate than to try to revive the system! Although, of course, Khrushchev did more to bring about the collapse of the country than anyone else!
            1. 12+
              25 February 2026 13: 44
              Quote from: Peter1First
              The bad thing was that a system for the transfer of power and the change of leaders without a total change in the course of the state had not been developed or tested.

              The fact is that Stalin did not have time to change the course of the state - that is, to transfer the management of state property from the overfed Trotskyist party nomenklatura to the people's councils.
              The party nomenklatura found out about this and declared war on Stalin.

              As a result, Zhdanov, Stalin's future successor, was killed, and Stalin himself was left without medical care for a long time during an attack—whether a heart attack, a stroke, or simply food poisoning with a special toxin. In other words, he was essentially killed by the failure to provide him with timely medical care. And the doctors who conducted the examination were later simply physically eliminated by Khrushchev's conspirators.

              In other words, the hidden Trotskyists in power and their party nomenklatura staged their own conspiracy against Stalin to physically liquidate him because of Stalin's attempt to remove them from the nomenklatura-party privileged material trough at the expense of the people.
              And the first thing Khrushchev did after Stalin's death was to abolish criminal liability for nomenklatura party workers when some of them were accused of sabotage, embezzlement, and sabotage as treason against the socialist state.

              TOTAL. After WWII, the Soviet Trotskyist party nomenklatura, led by Khrushchev, simply refused to surrender their party-nomenklatura privileges, which Stalin had stripped away in the form of material benefits from the people. They were happy not to bear criminal liability for their negligence, including sabotage and harm to the country and the people.
              1. +4
                25 February 2026 15: 10
                Quote: Tatiana
                Zhdanov, as Stalin's future successor, was killed

                Zhdanov had so utterly botched the organization of the first phase of the Finnish War that he was no longer a viable successor. He remained a member of the inner circle, not even held accountable for his own failures, but Stalin never forgot such serious mistakes.

                And in general, the emergence of any successor would have meant that a significant portion of the party nomenklatura would have begun to forge ties with him. And Joseph Vissarionovich strongly disliked any weakening of his power. Therefore, there was no real successor, although, of course, a controlled transfer of power, preferably with Stalin alive and well, would have been far more acceptable for the country. request
                1. +5
                  25 February 2026 16: 18
                  Zhdanov was effectively the second-most powerful man in the country from 1945 to 1947, Stalin's chief deputy in the party. It's no coincidence that he was buried near the Kremlin wall, not in it.
                  1. -1
                    25 February 2026 17: 59
                    Quote: Sergej1972
                    Zhdanov was actually the second person in the country in 1945-1947.

                    But already in 1948, Zhdanov once again seriously screwed up Tito and the Cominform as a whole. And the concept of "influence in the country" was generally quite arbitrary. Stalin deliberately created competition between various comrades in his circle, and their "influence" fluctuated quite dramatically.

                    It was one thing to kick the defenseless Akhmatova—Zhdanov could have achieved that—but to push Malenkov around was a big question. Only Stalin's influence was absolute, and there was no sign that Joseph Vissarionovich intended to change anything in this regard. request
              2. +4
                25 February 2026 18: 57
                Quote: Tatiana
                transfer control of state property from the overfed Trotskyist party nomenklatura to the people's councils

                Commenting here would only spoil things... modern celestials are truly modest.
            2. 0
              6 March 2026 21: 18
              Everything had been tested, but the Trotskyists came to power and turned everything back.
          2. 12+
            25 February 2026 12: 54
            This was said in 1941, but it applies to today! I.V. Stalin is truly the greatest ruler!
          3. 0
            27 February 2026 09: 47
            2. Stalin's USSR achieved an unprecedented civilizational leap during industrialization and the first five-year plans, becoming the world's second-largest economy within 10 years, and after World War II, raising the country from ruins to become the world's second pole. After the drabness and conservatism of Tsarist Russia, the people saw light, care, and development.
            The leader's distinctive traits were his drive for leadership, brilliant foresight, and advanced planning—something we sorely lack today. Stalin was personally modest, but his life was driven by an endless desire to serve the people and enhance the greatness of our homeland. Under Stalin, the country had a monolithic government that served both the people and the state. Today's Russia is divided, struggling to balance two sides: patriotism and Western globalism, which continues to be stubbornly propagated by the oligarchic system and the interests of global trade. 8. Stalin is the creator of the modern system of social security and social justice, which has influenced the entire world, also improving the face of capitalism ("The Man Who Saved Capitalism" - Kaplan, USA). No country in the world offered free education, healthcare, and housing, as did the USSR.
            1. +3
              27 February 2026 12: 28
              Quote: Alexander Odintsov
              Stalin's USSR made an unprecedented civilizational leap
              I second that! This applied to practically everything!
              The workers understood this and loved Stalin for it!

              I remember when I was little, like kindergarten age, how on Sundays after the war, in good weather, my mother and I would stroll along Nevsky Prospekt. Happy, joyful music and songs would blare from the street speakers. Nevsky Prospekt was always crowded. We would stop in the shops. My mother would always buy me something tasty, and we would make plans for the future. My mother was a fashionista and loved to dress beautifully. And we would always stop in the shops and fabric departments. We would imagine what beautiful, elegant, and practical dresses we could sew for ourselves from different fabrics. That's why I developed an interest in sewing, and I learned to sew from childhood. First for dolls, then for myself and for my mother. At school parties, I had the most beautiful and original dresses, and they fit me like a pin. In my youth, I wanted to become a fashion designer.
              I remember the day they announced Stalin's death. We lived in a communal apartment with eight families. Everyone in the apartment was genuinely shocked to tears by the grief that had befallen them – the death of the Leader! Utterly distraught and in tears, everyone asked the same fundamental question: "How will we, and our entire country, live without Stalin? How?"

              I remember the Khrushchev era with his "corn" reform. How the police once struggled for a long time to remove the shameful quality of Khrushchev-era loaves of bread that someone had hung in front of the horses' faces on the statues of Claude Bridge on Nevsky Prospect, saying that even horses wouldn't eat such quality bread! I witnessed it myself. People walked by and laughed at the authorities and that stupid Ukrainian party "corn" man, Nikita Khrushchev. And no one got into trouble—neither the passersby nor the authorities!
        2. +9
          25 February 2026 13: 58
          Who's that? United Russia, of course. Didn't you know that the soldiers actually went on the attack shouting, "For United Russia," "For raising housing and utilities rates," "For Tereshkova, the architect of the retirement age increase"?
          1. -3
            25 February 2026 16: 31
            How is that?

            Did anyone rise up during the Great Patriotic War shouting "For the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)" or during the Afghan War shouting "For the Communist Party of the Soviet Union"?
            1. 0
              26 February 2026 21: 13
              During the Great Patriotic War, we climbed up! See the pictures below. Or do you need more photos?
        3. +2
          25 February 2026 18: 55
          Yes, the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) party was created by Lenin.
        4. 0
          27 February 2026 09: 48
          13. Stalin became a great organizer, inspirer, and victor in the bloodiest war in human history – World War II, which became known as the Great Patriotic War. World War II was the first attempt by Western globalists to destroy the USSR – the nascent, successful alternative to capitalism. Despite the Red Army's defeats in the first period of the war, when the Germans reached Moscow in October 1941, Stalin remained steadfast and managed to concentrate the state's power, unite the people, transfer industrial enterprises beyond the Urals, boost arms production, and crush the fascist vermin that had the whole of German-enslaved Europe working for them. Despite the rationing system, the entire country, including teenagers, worked for victory, digging trenches and producing tanks, cannons, and shells. And it was a great time!
      2. +2
        25 February 2026 11: 54
        Quote from Uncle Lee
        nationwide love and respect for the leader

        Our Soviet people sings a lot of songs
        Above the fields, dense forests.
        Sounds in every song, lives in every song
        The popular name of Stalin.

        This name we carry everywhere with us
        With him, all breadth is open, all have given.
        We will all follow you for the feat
        Our banner of victory, our Stalin!

        We will part the forests, conquer the skies.
        Inaccessible do not know the barriers.
        The leader inspires us to do miracles,
        Inspired by a great example.

        We, by the courage of grief, sail the seas, -
        Enemies cannot whiten us.
        Over Soviet soil, the light will not be replaced by darkness,
        The Sun-Stalin shines above her.


        This name we carry everywhere with us
        With him, all breadth is open, all have given.
        We will all follow you to any feat,
        Our banner of victory, our Stalin!

        Stalin is a nation that goes to victories
        On tops of cloudless slopes.
        Stalin is our business
        Stalin - the wings of an eagle,
        Stalin is the will and mind of millions!

        And then UNANIMOUSLY the cream of the party, the delegates of the 20th Congress, condemned the cult of personality, including Molotov, Kaganovich, Voroshilov, Malenkov, and other associates of the leader

        V.M. Molotov:

        "Both our significant successes in the affairs of the country's internal life and our important successes in the field of foreign policy are connected with the fact that after the 19th Congress the Central Committee implemented the Leninist principle of collective leadership.

        Supported by the entire party, the Central Committee firmly opposed the cult of personality, alien to Marxism-Leninism, which played such a negative role in a certain period. We can express confidence that this congress will fully approve this fundamental installation" (p. 467).

        L. M. Kaganovich:

        "After the 19th Party Congress, the Central Committee boldly (I mean principled, ideological, and theoretical boldness) raised the question of fighting the personality cult. This is not an easy question.The cult of personality is a harmful cult; it demeans the masses, the party, and its leadership..

        "The exposure of the personality cult and a correct Marxist-Leninist understanding of the role of the masses, the role of the party and its leadership, and the role of leaders is of exceptional importance for strengthening the unity of the party. The fight against the personality cult has proven to be a crucial factor in the formation and consolidation of the collective leadership of our party" (p. 532).

        A. I. Mikoyan:

        "The principle of collective leadership is elementary for a proletarian party, for a party of the Leninist type, but it is necessary to emphasize this old truth because that for about 20 years it had virtually no collective leadership, and a personality cult flourished, condemned by Marx and then by Lenin, and this, of course, could not help but have an extremely negative impact on the situation in the party and on its activities” (p. 302).

        G. M. Malenkov:

        "...There is no doubt that the entire Party has received with great satisfaction the important measures adopted by the Central Committee during the reporting period, which were aimed at decisively eliminating serious abnormalities in Party life and methods of Party leadership, and at ensuring the precise implementation of the principles of Party leadership developed by Lenin. Everyone understands the fundamental and vital significance of the firm course pursued by the Central Committee against the cult of personality, which is alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. The report rightly emphasizes that The cult of personality is a perversion of Marxist-Leninist teachings. .

        And then they destroyed tens of thousands of monuments, busts, and paintings of the leader, burned millions of his books, threw him out of the mausoleum, and what happened? .A -nothing... ...
        1. +2
          25 February 2026 14: 27
          At a party congress, no delegate has the right to challenge the party's course. Molotov's thoughts on Stalin have long been known from his conversations with F. Chuyanov. If I'm not mistaken, he never said anything negative about Stalin. If you look at biographies, Mikoyan was the most devious of the speakers, but he later betrayed Khrushchev, too. As the people said of him, "From Ilyich to Ilyich, without a heart attack or stroke." Malenkov was vilified, but he proved his professionalism in every area of ​​his work. A king is played by his retinue, but the retinue is appointed by the king.
          1. 0
            25 February 2026 16: 34
            Quote: Sergei Fonov
            At the party congress, none of the delegates has the right to revise the party's course.

            and what do they have the right to raise their hands for? lol
            Learn the CPSU charter:

            has the right to membership
            b) discuss freely at party meetings, conferences, congresses, at meetings of party committees and in the party press, issues of policy and practical activities of the party, make suggestions, openly express and defend your opinion

            at) criticize at party meetings, conferences, congresses, plenary sessions committees of any communist, regardless of their position. Those guilty of suppressing criticism and persecuting it must be held strictly accountable by the Party, including expulsion from the CPSU.

            Quote: Sergei Fonov
            And what did Molotov think about Stalin?

            You were given his speech at the MAIN congress on Stalin, but what he then said in security - who cares?
          2. +4
            25 February 2026 16: 34
            At the party congress, none of the delegates has the right to revise the party's course.

            What is this nonsense?
            Have you read the CPSU charter?
            It is the congress that is the highest organ of the party and it is the congress that DETERMINES THE COURSE.
            This is how the Bolshevik Party was formed: some of the delegates went their own way.

            THIS CENTRAL COMMITTEE BETWEEN CONGRESSES does not have the right to revise the course; Comrade Stalin did not have such a right.
            1. -1
              25 February 2026 17: 27
              You'd better explain why today's servants of the people are buying palaces abroad, just as those who praised Yeltsin yesterday are criticizing him today. Why, when everyone, including the president, talks about predatory privatization, doesn't its results change? Don't confuse the Second Congress of the RSDLP in London with the congresses of the victorious party in the USSR, and the principle of the subordination of the minority to the majority has not been abolished.
              1. +6
                25 February 2026 17: 46
                The principle of subordination of the minority to the majority has not been abolished.

                How old are you? It seems you haven't even read the Komsomol charter.
                The principle of democratic centralism (not the principle of subordination) is something more complicated than you think.
                Just as those who praised Yeltsin yesterday are criticizing him today.

                So this is normal for a lot of people.
                Especially Soviet ones.
                They praised Stalin.
                Then they praised Khrushchev and called Stalin a tyrant.
                Then they praised Brezhnev and called Khrushchev a corn grower.
                Then they praised Gorbachev and called Brezhnev an old senile man.
                Then they praised Yeltsin and called Gorbachev a spy.
                Then they praised Putin and called Yeltsin an alcoholic.
                And all this time they had a party card in their desk drawer.
                I've seen a lot of them.
                1. +1
                  25 February 2026 18: 21
                  Democratic centralism speaks of subordinating the minority to the decisions of the majority. But Molotov, Kaganovich, and Malenkov tried to fight Khrushchev, and it's no wonder they were later accused of creating an anti-party faction. They didn't give in, even though after Beria's assassination, it was clear Khrushchev valued people not by their business abilities, like Stalin, but by their personal loyalty. The party congress doesn't determine the party's course; the congress approves it. All decisions, resolutions, and so on are written before the congress or meeting. During the congress, conference, and other gatherings, they are simply adjusted based on proposals received. Of course, many people kick Stalin; a dead lion is no terror. Incidentally, in his speech from the mausoleum after reviewing the Victory Parade, Zhukov said that thanks to Stalin's leadership, the war was won. Despite all this, Zhukov was the "Marshal of Victory," and Molotov, who flew a dangerous route during the war to England and the United States to negotiate a second front, was a coward who was afraid to speak out against Khrushchev at the congress.
                  1. +1
                    25 February 2026 18: 41
                    Democratic centralism speaks of the subordination of the minority to the decisions of the majority.

                    Democratic centralism consists not of one but of four parts.
                    And one says that the decisions of the highest party bodies are binding on the entire vertical.
                    And the highest body is the congress.
                    NOT the Politburo, NOT the Central Committee and NOT the General Secretary.
                    And back to your FALSE statement.

                    At the party congress, none of the delegates has the right to revise the party's course.


                    In reality, the party congress is convened precisely for this purpose: for delegates to revise the party's policies. Moreover, this has been done constantly: the New Economic Policy (NEP) and its abolition, collectivization and excesses within it, industrialization, and the exposure of the cult of personality.
                    All these are revisions of the party’s course at congresses.
                    Learn materiel ..

                    1. -1
                      25 February 2026 19: 12
                      "And the highest organ is the congress. Not the Politburo, not the Central Committee, and not the General Secretary." "In reality, the party congress is convened for this purpose, to
                      The delegates revised the party's course."
                      The Politburo governs the country between congresses and develops the country's future development course. These developments are discussed at the congress, and approved with suggestions and comments. The NEP, collectivization, and industrialization are not revisions of the party line; they are the implementation of the party's decisions. It wasn't the congress that imposed industrialization on the party; it was the party that charted this course, and the delegates implemented its decisions. I was taught this kind of material in the USSR; maybe they teach something different elsewhere, but it's too late for me to relearn.
                      1. -2
                        26 February 2026 11: 44
                        Quote: Sergei Fonov
                        The Politburo runs the country

                        Read the USSR Constitution - there is no PB there.
                      2. -1
                        26 February 2026 17: 00
                        How old are you? Read the USSR Constitution. It's written there in black and white about the Party's role in governing the country, that the Party is the organizing and guiding force. You need to not only read the Constitution but also understand what it says.
                      3. -2
                        26 February 2026 17: 09
                        Quote: Sergei Fonov
                        How old are you? Read the USSR Constitution. It's written there in black and white. the role of the party in leadership country

                        belay lol laughing
                        how old are you?

                        - After Stalin, this nonsense appeared. You can know such things...
                      4. 0
                        26 February 2026 18: 10
                        "How old are you?
                        "After Stalin, this nonsense appeared. You can know about this kind of thing..."
                        Indeed, it is possible to know this.
                        You are not even allowed to do this, but you need to know how much you write about this, teaching others and reproaching them for their ignorance.
                        Stalin's Constitution of 1936 does speak about the leading role of the party, Article 126 of the Constitution
                        "...the most active and conscious citizens from the ranks of the working class, the toiling peasants, and the working intelligentsia voluntarily unite in the Communist Party... which is the vanguard of the workers in their struggle to build a communist society and represents the LEADING CORE of all workers' organizations, both public and state organizations."
                        Stalin also proposed holding elections and introducing universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot. So much of Stalin's legacy remains, but implementation is another matter. So, for your age, you're clearly jumping to conclusions without considering whether they correspond to the truth.
                        -
                      5. -1
                        27 February 2026 12: 31
                        Quote: Sergei Fonov
                        LEADING CORE of all workers' organizations, both public and state organizations.

                        read the highlighted no
                        Quote: sergey backgrounds
                        The Politburo runs the country
                        not at all.

                        The country is governed by the Supreme Soviet and the Council of People's Commissars - read on the constitution 36g.

                        And only in 77 the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) was officially defined as the “leading and guiding force” of Soviet society, and this was especially enshrined in Article 6 of the 1977 USSR Constitution.
                      6. -2
                        27 February 2026 16: 49
                        Can you comment on the substance of Article 126 of the 1936 Constitution? If not, there's no need to respond.
                      7. -1
                        27 February 2026 18: 29
                        [
                        Quote: Sergei Fonov
                        What can you say regarding the essence of Article 126 of the 1936 Constitution?

                        this is nonsense:Quote: sergey backgrounds
                        The Politburo runs the country


                        What's not clear?!

                        Article 30. The highest body of state power of the USSR is Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

                        Article 64. Supreme executive and administrative body
                        state power of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
                        is the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

                        That's it, there are no PBs.

                        =
                      8. -1
                        27 February 2026 22: 40
                        Give me a link to who made the decision to send troops to Afghanistan and how. I thought it was the Politburo, but you think it was probably the members of parliament?
                      9. 0
                        28 February 2026 11: 23
                        Based on Article 6 of the 1977 Constitution of the USSR, the decision to introduce Soviet troops into Afghanistan was made
                        On December 12, 1979, at a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, a narrow circle of the top leadership of the USSR: L.I. Brezhnev, Yu.V. Andropov, D.F. Ustinov and A.A. Gromyko
                      10. 0
                        28 February 2026 19: 06
                        So, did anything depend on the Politburo in the USSR?
                        Your comments on the article: from 26.02. you write to me "Read the Constitution of the USSR, there is no Politburo there", and on 27.02. "This is a nonsense quote from S. Fonov - the Politburo runs the country."
                        It turns out this is not nonsense and the Politburo did in fact rule the USSR.
                        The decision to deploy troops to Afghanistan wasn't made immediately. A CPSU Central Committee commission on Afghanistan was established before December 12, 1979. Some historians, based on Brezhnev's diaries, believe the decision was made on February 13, 1979, and the December 12, 1979 date was set because NATO decided on December 12, 1979, to deploy nearly 600 new missiles in Western Europe. Considering that the USSR refused to deploy troops to Afghanistan in March 1979, the December 12, 1979 decision appears to be a response to the missile deployment.
                      11. -2
                        1 March 2026 18: 04
                        Quote: Sergei Fonov
                        So, did anything depend on the Politburo in the USSR?

                        yes, but it was unlawfully-What's not clear?

                        After 77 it was legal.
                      12. 0
                        1 March 2026 18: 48
                        What's illegal about Article 126 of the 1936 USSR Constitution? That you can't grasp that the Communist Party is the guiding core of all organizations, both public and state? And this party core existed everywhere, right up until the collapse of the USSR. Name a single People's Commissar who wasn't a Party member.
                      13. -1
                        2 March 2026 10: 17
                        Quote: Sergei Fonov
                        What is illegal in Article 126 of the 1936 USSR Constitution?

                        The PB had NO right to govern the country - when will this happen?!

                        I'm tired of it all
                      14. The comment was deleted.
                      15. The comment was deleted.
                  2. +1
                    25 February 2026 22: 38
                    Molotov, Malenkov, and Kaganovich accused Khrushchev of deviating from the decisions of the 20th Congress and from the principles of collective leadership.
                2. +1
                  26 February 2026 21: 17
                  Under Yeltsin, party cards were no longer a thing. And under Putin, few people remain who, under Stalin, praised Stalin. And I don't recall anyone praising Gorby. Even when he was in power. And no one praised the cornfield. Well, paid propagandists don't count.
      3. +8
        25 February 2026 13: 50
        "There was a cult, but there was also a PERSONALITY!"
      4. +2
        27 February 2026 09: 44
        The country sorely lacks the harmony of strength, order, and justice created by Stalin. As the people aptly say, "We need Stalin for you." The people not only revere him, they love him—and there is a profound, ineradicable truth in this.
        After 1917, globalists believed the Russian empire would collapse, disintegrating into fragments. But Stalin created a powerful anti-Western project and reunited the Russian lands. History often repeats itself. Before it's too late, remember Stalin – his legacy is the key to solving our problems!
        According to opinion polls (September 2022), almost two-thirds of Russians (62%) favor socialism, the highest level in the history of polling. According to VTsIOM data as of the end of 2022, almost 50% of Russians want the restoration of the USSR, while 58% regret its collapse. According to monitoring data from the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2023, approximately 80% of the Russian population negatively evaluates the "inertial" economic development scenario, which, in their view, is leading the country to a dead end.
    2. 11+
      25 February 2026 11: 37
      Quote: soundmind
      Stalin took over the country with a plough and left it with atomic weapons at the peak of its power.
      Modern "activists" are not fit to hold a candle to him.

      This was written in the obituary dedicated to Stalin in 1953 in The Times newspaper, verbatim

      "Nevertheless, over the past three decades, the face of Russia has begun to change. The essence of Stalin's truly historic achievement is that he took over Russia with a wooden plow and left it with nuclear reactors. He raised Russia to the level of the world's second most industrialized country. This was not the result of purely material progress and organizational work. Such achievements would not have been possible without a comprehensive cultural revolution in which the entire population attended school and studied very intensively.».

      And we've conveniently forgotten that education is the most important thing in the economy. For some reason, many people think the atomic bomb is an important argument.
      We need to study, study and study, and let's wait with deep social currents: we haven't grown up to them yet and, frankly, don't understand anything about them.

      Lenin V.I.
    3. +2
      25 February 2026 18: 00
      And it doesn’t matter at all whether Churchill said these words or not, or maybe someone else - but everyone knows that it’s true.
    4. +1
      25 February 2026 20: 51
      From the first lines it is clear what kind of author he is...unfortunately.
      There are many extreme poles of truth, and Samsonov's arguments are also extreme...(senseless).
      But the truth is somewhere in the middle.
      Yes, Stalin was a great man and did great things. But I deeply doubt he ever set the goal or even considered reviving the Borea.
      What kind of crap won't they attribute to you...
    5. +3
      27 February 2026 09: 45
      Stalin is the Russian people's foremost national hero, an ineradicable symbol of progress, justice, order, strength, and Russia's glory. 1. Stalin is the greatest and most brilliant administrator of all time, building a uniquely effective, socially just, independent, anti-Western, and anti-globalist state. No other leader in history has a comparable list of achievements. His development plans had a colossal synergistic effect. The leader tightly controlled his officials, who worked for the public interest, without the opportunity for unlimited personal enrichment. Financial theft and corruption on the scale of the current system were impossible in the USSR. Stalin's elite was a donor and creator for the country, while today's elite is a consumer and conservative.
    6. +2
      5 March 2026 15: 32
      The current government took over a country with nuclear weapons and left it with a broken cart...
  2. 18+
    25 February 2026 04: 35
    Khrushchev was the first to attempt to destroy the Soviet system... And Nikita carried it out systematically, not because he wanted to, he was simply so stupid that he didn't understand what he was doing.
    1. 19+
      25 February 2026 06: 43
      Quote: AK-1945
      He was simply so clueless that he didn't understand what he was doing.

      Nikita Khrushch understood everything because he wore an embroidered shirt.
      1. 11+
        25 February 2026 07: 33
        Quote: carpenter
        Quote: AK-1945
        He was simply so clueless that he didn't understand what he was doing.

        Nikita Khrushch understood everything because he wore an embroidered shirt.

        If Khrushchev had such intentions, he wouldn't have entered into confrontation with the West. The wartime generation had no intention of destroying the USSR. Just as the Romans had no intention of destroying the Roman Empire, nor England its own. These are all historical processes. It's curious that the Russian Empire had no intention of granting anyone the right to secede.
        1. +7
          25 February 2026 10: 34
          He may have banged his shoe on the podium for the domestic audience, but in practice, he gave Austria (and other countries) to the Anglo-Saxons and pushed China into the arms of the Americans. Who was he working for?
          1. 0
            25 February 2026 22: 42
            China began to improve relations with the United States in the late 60s and early 70s, under Brezhnev. Under Brezhnev, anti-Maoist rhetoric was much stronger than under Khrushchev.
        2. 0
          26 February 2026 21: 19
          After Brezhnev ousted Khrushchev, his memoirs appeared in the West three days later. Why such speed under the Iron Curtain? Some believe Khrushchev was recruited. Not immediately, but sometime after the Caribbean crisis.
    2. +7
      25 February 2026 08: 07
      Don't be as short-sighted as your idea of ​​Khrushchev's mental abilities! Khrushchev was taking revenge on Stalin for his son, while the entire party elite was expecting another global purge, and many had their own culpability. That's why they conspired to poison Stalin before he could reform the party.
      As in the 1990s, the elite put their own selfish interests above the interests of the country, i.e., they betrayed their people.
      1. +2
        25 February 2026 08: 18
        Quote: Sofa General
        Don't be as short-sighted as your idea of ​​Khrushchev's mental abilities! Khrushchev was taking revenge on Stalin for his son, while the entire party elite was expecting another global purge, and many had their own culpability. That's why they conspired to poison Stalin before he could reform the party.
        As in the 1990s, the elite put their own selfish interests above the interests of the country, i.e., they betrayed their people.

        Leadership can be changed. There was no talk of changing the system. Khrushchev came and went, followed by Brezhnev. The USSR did not collapse.
        1. +2
          25 February 2026 10: 19
          A chicken with its head cut off can also run around the yard for a couple of days.
          The USSR created by Stalin and the People is not a chicken, and it lasted until the 90s on Stalin’s achievements.
          1. +2
            25 February 2026 10: 27
            And at the expense of what was created, built, and produced in the USSR, the enemies of the USSR, who captured the USSR, have been parasitizing and enriching themselves for all 35 years after their destruction of the USSR, and will continue to parasitize and enrich themselves, because with their great show-off, they have proven capable only of destroying and plundering everything.
            1. +1
              25 February 2026 18: 59
              Quote: tatra
              And at the expense of what was created, built, and produced in the USSR, the enemies of the USSR, who captured the USSR, have been parasitizing and enriching themselves for all 35 years after their destruction of the USSR, and will continue to parasitize and enrich themselves, because with their great show-off, they have proven capable only of destroying and plundering everything.

              So they are parasitizing on Stalin's name...that's what parasites are for, to parasitize...
        2. +5
          25 February 2026 10: 33
          Quote: Panin (Michman)
          Khrushchev came and went, followed by Brezhnev. The USSR did not collapse.
          Khrushchev rejected John F. Kennedy's proposal to collaborate on landing a man on the moon, believing the Americans were lagging behind in manned spaceflight. As American historian John Logsdon, a former member of NASA's Advisory Board and founder of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, noted, Kennedy approached Khrushchev twice. Leonid Ilyich was a different matter, where the American Moon landing triumphs suddenly made unprecedented concessions to the Soviet Union, defeated in the Space Race, and offered expensive gifts personally to Brezhnev. The Apollo-Soyuz agreement, a détente that devolved into stagnation, is now a murky topic, a "conspiracy theory," but without a completed deal, it's difficult to explain what happened.
          Khrushchev, by denigrating Stalin, essentially denigrated socialism itself. Dear Leonid Ilyich, by acknowledging the US moon landing, gave birth to the fetish of the West and stagnation. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union was "canceled" by three alcoholics in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, and capitalism was quietly imposed on Russia in place of the promised democracy by outright traitors and renegades.
          1. +1
            25 February 2026 14: 09
            Quote: Per se.
            Quote: Panin (Michman)
            Khrushchev came and went, followed by Brezhnev. The USSR did not collapse.
            Khrushchev rejected John F. Kennedy's proposal to collaborate on landing a man on the moon, believing the Americans were lagging behind in manned spaceflight. As American historian John Logsdon, a former member of NASA's Advisory Board and founder of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, noted, Kennedy approached Khrushchev twice. Leonid Ilyich was a different matter, where the American Moon landing triumphs suddenly made unprecedented concessions to the Soviet Union, defeated in the Space Race, and offered expensive gifts personally to Brezhnev. The Apollo-Soyuz agreement, a détente that devolved into stagnation, is now a murky topic, a "conspiracy theory," but without a completed deal, it's difficult to explain what happened.
            Khrushchev, by denigrating Stalin, essentially denigrated socialism itself. Dear Leonid Ilyich, by acknowledging the US moon landing, gave birth to Western fetishism and stagnation.

            Space is too expensive, even for the US, to waste money on the race. The USSR's refusal to acknowledge certain things wouldn't have changed much. Besides, the policy shift depends on who's in the White House. There are sober people in America, too, after all.
            1. 0
              25 February 2026 14: 28
              Quote: Panin (Michman)
              Space is too expensive even for the US to spend money on races.
              I think you're underestimating the reason for the "Space Race." It wasn't just a rivalry between two superpowers; it was a rivalry between two systems, socialism and capitalism. Victory in space became a litmus test of technological progress and a triumph of ideology.
              America needed revenge, a success unattainable by the USSR, a victory that would prove the complete superiority of capitalism and the United States in all spheres of development. To this end, conquering the Moon became a goal worth pursuing. It was planned to spend $9 billion on this goal in the first five years alone. The total cost of the Apollo program by 1973 was $25,4 billion (at the exchange rate of the time).
              Now the Yankees have become indifferent to the Moon, promoting their achievements with Mars rovers without having tested the Moon itself with rovers. It's strange... There are very sober people in America, since the USA has become the leader and master of world capitalism.
              1. 0
                25 February 2026 16: 57
                Quote: Per se.
                America then needed revenge, a success unattainable by the USSR, a victory that would prove the complete superiority of capitalism and the United States in all spheres of development. To this end, conquering the Moon became a goal worth pursuing. It was planned to spend $9 billion on this goal in the first five years alone.

                Okay. We flew to the moon and proved our superiority. I don't dispute that there was a space race.
                But detente had nothing to do with this.
                1. +1
                  26 February 2026 10: 34
                  Quote: Panin (Michman)
                  But detente had nothing to do with this.
                  I beg to differ. Why, then, did the capitalists, victorious in space, so overjoyed at the "Evil Empire"? I won't be unfounded here: firstly, the embargo on Soviet oil supplies to Western Europe was lifted, and the USSR began penetrating the Western gas market. Secondly, an agreement was signed to supply the USSR with American grain at prices below the world average, which even negatively impacted the well-being of the Americans themselves. Thirdly, Western companies built chemical plants in the USSR in exchange for finished products from these same plants. In other words, the Soviet Union received modern enterprises without investing a single penny. Furthermore, over 700 foreign firms from 19 European countries (the CMEA and Western Europe), the USA, Canada, and Japan participated in equipping KamAZ. The Americans even transferred the designs for their "International" truck, which later became the prototype for KamAZ, for production in the Soviet Union. Finally, the full production cycle of modern electronic components, including semiconductor integrated circuits, also appeared in the Soviet Union at this time.
                  This all relates to the USSR being "defeated" in space, plus the Americans ending the Vietnam War, and the same Apollo-Soyuz, where the conquerors of the Moon surprised with their extensive understanding of being in space.
                  The point is that all NASA's achievements in manned spaceflight were limited to suborbital hops on the Jamini rocket. Brezhnev had dirt on the US's daring flights, hence the grand concessions and the détente itself, which is directly related to the Moon. Whether you believe this "conspiracy theory" or not is up to you.
      2. ANB
        +8
        25 February 2026 09: 36
        As in the 1990s, the elite put their own selfish interests above the interests of the country, i.e., betrayed their people.

        She didn't betray or put anything at risk.
        This "elite" was like that from the start. The people weren't "their own" to them, but "cattle," "workers," "the limited."
        And “the interests of the country” - for them there was simply no such term.
        Well, that's how the selection process went. Join the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to get a foot in the door.
        At the same time, most of the communists were conscientious and upright people. But they didn't know how to elbow their way to the top.
        1. +2
          25 February 2026 10: 23
          Even many ordinary people far removed from power have a statist mentality, why do you deny this mentality to the ENTIRE elite?
          1. ANB
            +1
            25 February 2026 11: 04
            Why do you deny this thinking to the ENTIRE elite class?

            I don't refuse anyone. And I use "elite" in quotes.
            But it so happened that those very same people I described rose to the top, and there was no one to stop them (there was a ban on developing the nomenklatura). In the late 80s, the distribution statistics showed that this "elite" destroyed the country and rolled it back to capitalism. Incidentally, some of this "elite" themselves suffered at the hands of even more insidious ones. But that's just another example of "what about us?"
          2. BAI
            +1
            25 February 2026 13: 19
            Why do you deny this thinking to the ENTIRE elite?

            Because the elite lives on another planet. And its interests diverge from those of the state.
          3. The comment was deleted.
    3. +3
      25 February 2026 08: 10
      Quote: AK-1945
      And Nikita carried it out systematically, not because he wanted it, he just was so distant that he didn't understand what he was doing.

      The party nominated him for the role of the country's leader fool?! belay
      Even I, the "malicious scolder of the USSR" (c), never said such a thing - that the party elite of the USSR, for the sake of some of its own selfish interests, is capable of appointing a fool as the leader of the country...
    4. +2
      25 February 2026 10: 12
      Nowadays many comrades are making things up about Comrade Stalin.
      Some exalt, some denigrate. Moreover, those "toasting" themselves are "terribly far" from the truth of history. They haven't studied anything, they get drunk, and express discontent, knowing that now they can express it, even for the minimum, without getting a five-year sentence. wink
      Here's a question for them: Did Khrushchev lie about everything at the 20th Congress? Bring the facts that he lied!
      There was no cult or repression? Tranduns...
      Comrade Stalin's achievements speak for themselves. Any normal person knows them.
      But this does not mean that there were no terrible crimes and no unnecessary millions of victims.
      And the consequences, one of which is the collapse of the USSR with all the accompanying “charms”.
      1. +2
        25 February 2026 10: 19
        The enemies of the USSR are parasitic. It is YOU who must prove your accusations against Stalin with honest figures and facts, not the USSR's supporters.
        And you admit that ALL the facts that you, with your “philanthropy” and “righteous anger,” presented as Stalin’s crimes, you justify or “don’t notice” in ALL other cases, or is there at least one exception?
        1. +1
          25 February 2026 18: 38
          The enemies of the USSR have a parasitic nature.

          The whole point is that it was not just anyone who blamed Stalin, but the party.
          And after that she didn’t rehabilitate him.
          1. -1
            25 February 2026 18: 43
            Quote: bk316
            It was not just anyone who blamed Stalin, but the party.

            Tatra will say they were enemies of the communists. Well, once they're out of maintenance, of course, not before.
            1. -1
              25 February 2026 18: 53
              Well, okay, let Stalin be slandered by the enemies of the communists. laughing
              But no one rehabilitated him for 30 years!
              It turns out I am belay I was born and lived in a country called the USSR, which was ruled by the enemies of the communists.
              1. 0
                25 February 2026 19: 09
                Quote: bk316
                It turns out that I was born and lived in a country called the USSR, which was ruled by the enemies of the communists.

                And me, just imagine. But to figure this out, you need Tatra. It has a complex classification: communists, enemies of communists, enemies of the enemies of communists... I'm out, basically. laughing
          2. +2
            25 February 2026 19: 32
            [bk316]
            The enemies of the USSR have a parasitic nature.

            The whole point is that it was not just anyone who blamed Stalin, but the party.
            And after that she didn’t rehabilitate him.

            There was the party and there was the party nomenklatura. Uncontrolled, supposedly elected, irreplaceable, and without competition, the party nomenklatura deteriorated at the trough; the succession of generations corrupted by such a system led to a sad but predictable result. Moreover, the West found an alternative to communism—liberalism, unfettered by morality and faith, and a consumer society, the sexual revolution, which turned out to be incredibly attractive to ordinary people... And a market economy is more competitive and energetic.
      2. +7
        25 February 2026 10: 27
        Every state, from the time of ancient Babylon to today's democratic America, is a repressive apparatus. It's always been this way, so why single out Stalin, claiming that only under him were there repressions?
        The cult of any leader, especially one who doesn't change, always exists every four years. No one realizes it, but there was a cult of Khrushchev.
        Speaking of Khrushchev, he repressed many people, even after Stalin's death. The Novocherkassk shooting is Khrushchev's doing.
        What about I.V. Stalin? Take any leader, even Brezhnev, Putin, or Reagan or Thatcher. And it turns out that Stalin was just one of many; others had repressions and cults.
        1. -6
          25 February 2026 10: 59
          Quote: Gardamir
          Every state, from the time of ancient Babylon to today's democratic America, is a repressive apparatus. It's always been this way, so why single out Stalin, claiming that only under him were there repressions?
          The cult of any leader, especially one who doesn't change, always exists every four years. No one realizes it, but there was a cult of Khrushchev.
          Speaking of Khrushchev, he repressed many people, even after Stalin's death. The Novocherkassk shooting is Khrushchev's doing.
          What about I.V. Stalin? Take any leader, even Brezhnev, Putin, or Reagan or Thatcher. And it turns out that Stalin was just one of many; others had repressions and cults.

          Tell me how many people Reagan or Putin shot. Or the rotten Tsarist regime.
          1. +2
            25 February 2026 14: 50
            "Tell me how many people Reagan or Putin shot. Or the rotten Tsarist regime."
            Tell me, please, how many people did Stalin execute? Do you mean how many he personally executed? Tsar Nicholas II didn't personally execute anyone, but the rotten tsarist regime did. There was the infamous Lena massacre, and others. Study history. Or do you think the Novocherkassk massacre under Khrushchev didn't happen simply because you don't know about it?
            1. -3
              25 February 2026 16: 51
              Quote: sergey backgrounds
              "Tell me how many people Reagan or Putin shot. Or the rotten Tsarist regime."
              Tell me, please, how many people did Stalin execute? Do you mean how many he personally executed? Tsar Nicholas II didn't personally execute anyone, but the rotten tsarist regime did. There was the infamous Lena massacre, and others. Study history. Or do you think the Novocherkassk massacre under Khrushchev didn't happen simply because you don't know about it?

              We're talking about the number of people killed during the reigns of different rulers, if that's not clear to you. Study history.
              Of course, someone like Pol Pot exterminated several million of his subjects, but that's an exception to the statistics. But the number of executions from Catherine II to Nicholas II has long been known.
    5. +4
      25 February 2026 11: 02
      Quote: AK-1945
      Khrushchev was the first to attempt to destroy the Soviet system... And Nikita carried it out systematically, not because he wanted to, he was simply so stupid that he didn't understand what he was doing.

      You're forgetting the circumstances under which Khrushchev came to power—Beria, who had a ton of dirt on everyone, was rapidly ascending. Under these circumstances, the world converged on whom it converged, but one thing is absolutely clear: none of the Politburo members wanted to see Beria in power.
    6. +2
      25 February 2026 11: 05
      Nikita carried out ... (everything) systematically, not because he wanted it, he was simply so stupid that he did not understand what he was doing.

      Yes, in Russia there is a saying about this: the only thing worse than a fool is an active person!
    7. 0
      25 February 2026 16: 41
      He was simply so clueless that he didn't understand what he was doing.

      Khrushch saw the heads of the party leadership fly in the 30s, and he himself signed the execution lists.
      Therefore, everything he did was an activity to maintain power, and he didn’t care about the country and the system, so he didn’t deliberately destroy anything.
      It’s just that some people are given power for the benefit of the fatherland, and some for its harm.
    8. +2
      25 February 2026 19: 14
      Khrushchev has so much blood on his hands; he headed the commission during the "purges." A telegram from Stalin to Khrushchev, "Calm down," has been preserved in the archives. This was due to his zeal for reporting on executions in the Ukrainian SSR. That's why he went out of his way to evade responsibility for his crimes. That's why he handed over Crimea to gain support from the large Ukrainian party organization in the USSR for the post of General Secretary.
      1. +1
        25 February 2026 19: 39
        "Calm down, 'stupid character'" - otherwise the censor won't let you through. What's not literary about that?
  3. 12+
    25 February 2026 05: 24
    Western propaganda, with the help of Khrushchev, tried to smear him with dirt
    Khrushchev had some pretty good followers! His son, a rocket engineer who emigrated to the United States, and his great-granddaughter, who also lives in the United States and yapped, like any other creature, at our country.
    1. +6
      25 February 2026 05: 36
      To be fair, it's worth noting that Stalin's daughter, Svetlana, also fled to the West. Sometimes, one yearns to see oneself in one's children, but the eternal conflict between fathers and sons takes its toll.
      1. +4
        25 February 2026 06: 47
        Quote: Glock-17
        To be fair, it should be noted that Stalin's daughter Svetlana also fled to the West.

        She didn't escape; they found her, and Khrushch himself asked her not to return from India, where she buried her diplomat husband. Nikita himself wrote about this.
        1. +7
          25 February 2026 07: 28
          Khrushchev could have written anything he wanted to cover up such a failure of the Soviet secret services. But the fact remains. Svetlana Alliluyeva took advantage of her husband's death to get to India, where she requested political asylum at the American embassy. If that's not an escape, I don't know what else. It certainly doesn't qualify as exile.
          1. +4
            25 February 2026 09: 30
            Khrushchev didn't stay in power for long either. For example, the sister of Ayn Rand, author of the cult classic "Atlas Shrugged," refused to move to the United States, not accepting the lifestyle, and lived in Leningrad until her death.
          2. +1
            25 February 2026 22: 44
            And this happened in 1967, under Brezhnev.
        2. 0
          25 February 2026 16: 21
          She fled under Brezhnev, in 1967.
      2. +1
        25 February 2026 12: 21
        Quote: Glock-17
        To be fair, it's worth noting that Stalin's daughter Svetlana also fled to the West.

        as the leader called her: "Mistress of the Kremlin!"

        Not only she: the leader's great-grandchildren Vissarion and Vasily Dzhugashvili and great-great-grandson Joseph (conductor) live in the USA

        and the descendants all general secretaries Also in the West - Brezhnev, Andropov, Gorbachev, even the ideologist Suslov and Beria...

        Did they have some butter on there or something?
        1. +1
          25 February 2026 18: 25
          It's just that here, they'll be reminded of all their fathers' "sins." Both imagined and real. At least on a mundane level, they'll be reminded. There's no such thing as "a son not answering for his father." Never has been... But there, they live peacefully... that's all...
          1. +2
            26 February 2026 11: 51
            Quote: Doc1272
            And there they live peacefully...that's all.

            And they live here peacefully—not all the descendants left—there are a lot of Stalins here, and Khrushev's son flourished in the USSR and left in 1994.
  4. +6
    25 February 2026 05: 32
    Khrushchev himself compiled and signed lists of people undesirable for the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
    That lackey was still there under Stalin.
    In all the photos and videos he was always playing the role of a gofer.
    Such scoundrels walk over people's heads under any government.
    1. +5
      25 February 2026 06: 49
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      Khrushchev himself compiled and signed lists of people undesirable for the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.

      He even went too far with the Ukrainian SSR, for which Stalin removed him from Kyiv.
      1. +3
        25 February 2026 16: 22
        Yep, and made him a member of the Politburo of the Party's Central Committee. Khrushchev led the Ukrainian SSR and the Kyiv Oblast until 1947. He even briefly held the posts of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine and Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of Ukraine, a feat not seen in any other republic.
  5. +7
    25 February 2026 05: 44
    "No matter how many times you say 'halva,' it won't make your mouth any sweeter."
    It would be more interesting to learn what steps were taken, and by whom, to finish off the USSR and the socialist system, and whether the idea of ​​reform was inspired by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, or whether they went this far hoping to remain in the history of the Russian state...
    It will be even more useful to determine where the policies of the country's current leadership will lead us, under which state symbols, state development, and those victories of which the Soviet people were truly proud have already been discredited.
    1. 13+
      25 February 2026 05: 54
      Quote: yuriy55
      both state symbols and state development and those victories have been discredited

      The coat of arms is Tsarist, the flag is unclear whose, the anthem is semi-Soviet, the achievements of the USSR are forgotten, or discredited...
      1. -3
        25 February 2026 08: 05
        Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

        Quote: yuriy55
        Where will the current leadership's policies lead us?

        We chose this government ourselves.
        There is no need to look for someone to blame, look in the mirror - he is there.

        Quote from Uncle Lee
        The coat of arms is Tsarist, the flag is unclear whose, the anthem is semi-Soviet, the achievements of the USSR are forgotten, or discredited...

        The coat of arms is Byzantine.
        The flag is anti-Russian (the Whites and Vlasovites always brought trouble to Rus' with this flag).
        The anthem - I agree, it's semi-Soviet.
        The USSR's achievements haven't been forgotten—they're being showcased to the world at the SVO. The world is delighted with our weapons!
        1. +1
          25 February 2026 08: 19
          We chose this government ourselves.

          Ha, who are we? Supporters of the USSR didn't elect this anti-Soviet government in June 1991, and the enemies of the USSR are cowardly whining in unison that they had "nothing to do" with what happened over the past 40 years with the anti-Soviet/anti-communist Perestroika.
          1. +2
            25 February 2026 08: 21
            Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

            Quote: tatra
            Who are we?

            All those who go to the polls and vote for candidates from the list the bourgeoisie kindly provided us. Don't tell me no one goes to the polls.
            1. 0
              25 February 2026 09: 14
              It's not those who vote who make the choice, but those who sit on their couches and say nothing depends on them! They're the ones who allow the authorities to paint the desired result on blank ballots!
              1. +1
                25 February 2026 09: 21
                Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                Quote: eleronn
                It's not those who go to the polls who make the choice.

                It makes no difference which candidate we vote for from the list of candidates presented to us by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will win anyway.

                Only by doing nothing, sitting on the couch, can we express our protest against the prevailing concept of management.

                Against the constant rise in prices on everything and everyone, against legislators who pass laws in the interests of the bourgeoisie, against the privatization of natural resources, etc.
              2. -3
                25 February 2026 09: 44
                Don't make me laugh, everyone has known for a long time that before every "election" the necessary figures are sent down from the Kremlin in advance.
                1. -1
                  25 February 2026 10: 51
                  Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                  Quote: tatra
                  Don't make me laugh, everyone has known for a long time that before every "election" the necessary figures are sent down from the Kremlin in advance.

                  From the Kremlin? laughing
                  Let me remind you. The chairman of the United Russia party is Medvedev, a Vlasovite. Putin is a Bolshevik. They have nothing in common!

                  "State policy and management in a crowd-" elite "society is an agreement reached on the capabilities of various clan-corporate groupings in using the state structure and system to achieve their narrowly corporate goals."
              3. 0
                25 February 2026 19: 53
                eleronn]It's not those who go to the polls who make the choices, but those who sit on their couches and say nothing depends on them! They're the ones who allow the authorities to paint the desired results on blank ballots!

                To achieve this, they push unelected personalities or marginalized candidates like Sobchak-the-horse and others into the race, choosing the best of the worst. And they dilute the competitors with similar candidates to reduce each person's vote share. There are many different election technologies, including illegal ones, but they serve the interests of those in power. The main thing is who counts. Elections have been turned into a sham; real, dangerous, and worthy candidates will never get in. They'll be "neutralized" in advance.
              4. 0
                1 March 2026 19: 54
                Yeah, that's exactly why they removed the "against all" option from the ballots. Because it was the one that got the most votes. It was a protest, after all. A peculiar one, but a protest nonetheless...
          2. +2
            25 February 2026 11: 29
            Supporters of the USSR did not elect this anti-Soviet government in June 1991.

            I would say the collapse of the USSR began in February-March 1990, with the elections of deputies to the first Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR. Then the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR was created, with Yeltsin as its chairman, and the Declaration of June 12 was adopted, which established the supremacy of the laws of the RSFSR over those of the USSR.
            "The unbreakable union of the free republics
            Great Russia forever.
            Long live the people's will
            One, mighty Soviet Union! "
            It ceased to exist because "Great Rus'" refused to unite it. Something like that. We can also mention the creation of the Russian Bureau within the CPSU Central Committee. But the party card indicated the name of the party as "Communist Party of the Soviet Union," not the CPRF, CPB, etc.
        2. +1
          25 February 2026 08: 20
          Quote: Boris55
          Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

          Quote: yuriy55
          Where will the current leadership's policies lead us?

          We chose this government ourselves.
          There is no need to look for someone to blame, look in the mirror - he is there.

          Quote from Uncle Lee
          The coat of arms is Tsarist, the flag is unclear whose, the anthem is semi-Soviet, the achievements of the USSR are forgotten, or discredited...

          The coat of arms is Byzantine.
          The flag is anti-Russian (the Whites and Vlasovites always brought trouble to Rus' with this flag).
          The anthem - I agree, it's semi-Soviet.
          The USSR's achievements haven't been forgotten—they're being showcased to the world at the SVO. The world is delighted with our weapons!

          List the names of the types of these weapons and Russia's share of the world market.
          1. +3
            25 February 2026 08: 22
            Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

            Quote: Panin (Michman)
            List the names of the types of these weapons and Russia's share of the world market.

            The Internet will help you!
            1. 0
              25 February 2026 08: 56
              Quote: Boris55
              Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

              Quote: Panin (Michman)
              List the names of the types of these weapons and Russia's share of the world market.

              The Internet will help you!

              I see. You have mantras about the best weapons in the world, but you have no desire to back it up with numbers.
              1. +1
                25 February 2026 09: 15
                Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                Quote: Panin (Michman)
                but there is no desire to back this up with numbers.

                The war on the territory of Ukraine between Western and Russian civilizations clearly showed who has the superior weapons (and spirit).
                1. +1
                  25 February 2026 11: 14
                  Quote: Boris55
                  Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                  Quote: Panin (Michman)
                  but there is no desire to back this up with numbers.

                  The war on the territory of Ukraine between Western and Russian civilizations clearly showed who has the superior weapons (and spirit).

                  It hasn't shown anything yet. Two Slavic peoples are fighting. Meanwhile, Ukraine's population is three times smaller, its territory five times smaller.
                  Russia has some more modern weapons, but they don't affect the outcome, as they're produced on a case-by-case basis. Some don't participate at all. Meanwhile, Russian territory suffers from drone strikes, and the Black Sea Fleet is stationed at its base.
                  1. 0
                    25 February 2026 22: 56
                    The population of the territory of Ukraine controlled by its authorities as of February 24, 2022, was approximately 3,5 times smaller than that of Russia. The territory is not five times smaller, but 28 times smaller. What, you're reducing Russia's territory by almost six times? Russia's 17 million-plus square kilometers, compared to 600,000 square kilometers for Ukraine. And that's without the territories that came under our control, and we've taken control of approximately a fifth of its territory since 2014.
                    1. 0
                      26 February 2026 07: 17
                      I don't think there were 41 million people in Ukraine's territory "under Kyiv's jurisdiction" on February 24, 2022. Hopefully, there were 35.
                      The number 41 was around in the early 2000s. And as far as I remember, they didn't have a census. They came up with some kind of population estimate.
                      1. 0
                        26 February 2026 09: 44
                        Perhaps so. I'd just like to point out that the purpose of censuses around the world is not to count the population. This can be determined even without a census.
                  2. 0
                    25 February 2026 22: 58
                    As of 2024, Russia's share of global arms exports was 12,32%. In monetary terms, this amounted to $13,75 billion. This metric placed Russia second among the world's leading arms exporters. The United States led with a 37,92% share ($42,329 billion). https://1prime.ru/20250317/oruzhie-855860404.html
                    Considering that the population of the Russian Federation is 2,5 times smaller than the population of the United States, and the economy is much smaller, this is a very good indicator.
                    1. +1
                      26 February 2026 05: 49
                      Quote: Sergej1972
                      As of 2024, Russia's share of global arms exports was 12,32%. In monetary terms, this amounted to $13,75 billion. This metric placed Russia second among the world's leading arms exporters. The United States led with a 37,92% share ($42,329 billion). https://1prime.ru/20250317/oruzhie-855860404.html
                      Considering that the population of the Russian Federation is 2,5 times smaller than the population of the United States, and the economy is much smaller, this is a very good indicator.

                      So, 13% is a lot. In 2021, the share was 18%. And in 2013, it was 27%. As you can see, the reduction is obvious.
          2. -1
            26 February 2026 08: 47
            Quote: Panin (Michman)
            List the names of the types of these weapons and Russia's share of the world market.

            I respect you for your firm position. Regarding weapons: our air defense systems are simply the best, from the Verba to the S-500. Electronic warfare systems are also the best. Missiles, from tactical to strategic, are a cut above, if not two, those of our enemies. The only thing is, with MLRS, we haven't exactly fallen behind, we've actually slowed down a bit (the American Hymars is very good). There are problems with combat aircraft, but they are gradually being resolved. The same is true for transport and civil aviation. Our nuclear submarine fleet is one of the best, if not the best. With warships, things aren't so great (the best shipyards remain in Mykolaiv). All other types of weapons are up to par, even with drones, we're doing more or less well. As for arms sales abroad, yes, but that's more a matter of geopolitics than the quality of our weapons. And, by the way, all of this is a Soviet legacy. hi
    2. 0
      25 February 2026 06: 58
      Quote: yuriy55
      It will be more interesting to know what steps were taken and by whom to finish off the USSR, the socialist system.

      The naive Gorbachev, with his reforms and perestroika, created chaos. And Yeltsin completed the collapse, mercilessly finishing off the USSR.
      Why? Yeltsin had an insatiable thirst for power and greed. That's why oligarchs and impoverished people emerged under him.
      1. +7
        25 February 2026 07: 50
        Naive Gorbachev with his reforms

        Gorbachev wasn't naive. Just look closely at his actions. On the contrary, he was a very clever enemy who knew exactly where to strike to inflict maximum damage.
        A naive person could not have hit with such effectiveness.
        1. 0
          25 February 2026 08: 05
          Quote: October
          Gorbachev wasn't naive. Just look closely at his actions. On the contrary, he was a very clever enemy who knew exactly where to strike to inflict maximum damage.
          A naive person could not have hit with such effectiveness.

          To be fair, back in 1985, only a very talented anti-crisis manager could have pulled the USSR out of the impending crisis, but there weren't any after Stalin. A mediocrity or a good talker wouldn't have been able to handle it, as happened.
          1. +3
            25 February 2026 08: 23
            Enough lying, nothing was happening there. The enemies of the USSR have already concocted a bunch of myths and nonsense in order to cowardly blame the Soviet communists for the destruction of the USSR, because by doing so they themselves admit that they seized the USSR for criminal purposes.
            1. 0
              25 February 2026 08: 30
              Quote: tatra
              The enemies of the USSR have already come up with a bunch of myths and nonsense in order to cowardly shift the blame for the destruction of the USSR onto the Soviet communists.

              From your words it follows that the "Soviet communists" who allowed the "enemies of communists" to seize and destroy the USSR were weaklings and losers.
              1. 0
                25 February 2026 08: 35
                You, enemies of the USSR, live as if in a looking glass and do not want to see reality.
                The fact that ALL the enemies of the USSR under communist rule lied and were hypocritical—both those who pretended to be communists and their supporters for the sake of profit and careers, and those who pretended to be the opposition, falsely and hypocritically crucifying themselves for democracy, freedom of speech, and human rights—wasn't so obvious, so they would have pretended until their deaths. And only your "Liberator" Gorbachev revealed his true nature and allowed you all to
                1. -7
                  25 February 2026 08: 37
                  Quote: tatra
                  The fact is that ALL the enemies of the USSR under communist rule lied and were hypocritical - both those who, for the sake of profit and career, pretended to be communists and their supporters, and those who pretended to be the opposition, falsely and hypocritically crucified that they were for democracy, freedom of speech, human rights,

                  The commas are placed funny; people don't write like that. Tatra, is it true that you're mechanical? Admit it, you won't get into trouble for it. laughing
                  1. +6
                    25 February 2026 08: 38
                    Oh, I forgot that you are a bot and you are trying to get everyone to comment here.
                    1. -7
                      25 February 2026 08: 39
                      Quote: tatra
                      Oh, I forgot that you are a bot and you are trying to get everyone to comment here.

                      The change of direction, how sweet. And even one comma was placed correctly. Out of three. Is she really alive? So happy, and free? belay
                    2. +9
                      25 February 2026 08: 44
                      Quote: tatra
                      Oh, I forgot that you are a bot and you are trying to get everyone to comment here.

                      I looked at his comments and you're probably right...he doesn't have a single substantive comment, he only comments on other people's comments.
                      1. -7
                        25 February 2026 08: 52
                        Quote: Konnick
                        Quote: tatra
                        ...
                        ...

                        I'm glad you found each other. I'm sure you have a lot to talk about—you're as alike as two peas. I'm truly happy for you. Yes

                        But it's better not to write any more nonsense. Yes
                      2. +2
                        25 February 2026 10: 14
                        Quote: Konnick
                        and perhaps you are right.

                        This is Cat Manul, Golovan Jack and someone else....
                      3. +1
                        25 February 2026 10: 15
                        Quote: Uncle Lee
                        Quote: Konnick
                        and perhaps you are right.

                        This is Cat Manul, Golovan Jack and someone else....

                        Maybe also a repellent
                      4. +1
                        25 February 2026 10: 16
                        Quote: Konnick
                        Maybe also a repellent

                        No, it can't, but definitely!
                      5. +2
                        25 February 2026 13: 51
                        Quote: Konnick
                        looked at his comments

                        Judging by the downvotes, someone was offended that Paranoida's incognito was revealed... crying
                      6. -3
                        25 February 2026 13: 55
                        Quote from Uncle Lee
                        Judging by the downvotes, someone was offended that Paranoida's incognito was revealed.

                        Well, definitely not me. I don't care. Yes
                      7. -1
                        25 February 2026 13: 59
                        Quote: Paranoid62
                        I don't care

                        Okay... And who wrote the other day: "Don't burn the office"? feel
                      8. -1
                        25 February 2026 14: 00
                        Quote from Uncle Lee
                        And who wrote the other day: "Don't burn the office"?

                        Not only everyone understands jokes, but only a few can do it request

                        And so, if anything, I can also go over the history of some nicknames, and where their epaulettes come from laughing
                      9. 0
                        25 February 2026 14: 04
                        And today, tomorrow, not everyone can watch. Rather, not only everyone can watch. Few can do this. recourse
                      10. 0
                        25 February 2026 14: 49
                        So you don't care? There were also planted Cossacks in the Order? A hint at that?
          2. +3
            25 February 2026 09: 59
            To be fair, in 1985, a very talented anti-crisis manager could have pulled the USSR out of the impending crisis

            To be fair, there was no crisis in the USSR in 1985, except that Gorbachev came to power.
            It would be interesting to ask where people like you get this idea about the "crisis in the USSR" in 1985?
            1. -1
              25 February 2026 10: 52
              Quote: October
              It would be interesting to ask where people like you get this idea about the "crisis in the USSR" in 1985?

              I understand that governing a country, in your opinion, is like flying a fighter jet—just flip the stick and you're off in the opposite direction? A crisis doesn't start on a specific date; the preconditions for it are laid over the years.
              1. 0
                25 February 2026 12: 03
                The crisis does not begin on a specific date; its preconditions are laid in previous years.

                I think we've gotten started. Look at the statistics – they show excellent economic growth and all planned targets are being met.
                I'm sorry, I'm a materialist, I'm not interested in your "chakras" that you see beyond the objective numbers.
                1. -1
                  25 February 2026 12: 11
                  Quote: October
                  I'm sorry, I'm a materialist, I'm not interested in your "chakras" that you see beyond the objective numbers.

                  Statistics are good... let's take an example... but in planned statistics, what is taken into account, for example, how technologically advanced and competitive are the goods out of the total mass? How many goods are produced on new machines, reducing waste? How many of them use the latest R&D? What stage is scientific progress in general? Or do you think that if the production of "tanks" is growing, that's the important thing, and not the fact that low-quality and expensive "tanks" from 40 years ago are being produced? And does it show the cost? No, you need to look at economics and science... Statistics themselves have both pros and cons. must not It's not enough to judge everything in the country by it alone. Today, in my opinion, the government is making the same mistake - it's very fond of statistics to the detriment of everything else, considering only it. objective figures...besides, I wouldn't say that statistics is strongly related to materialism, especially in our and Soviet realities, where they are ready to "stretch" it wherever necessary at any moment hi
                  1. 0
                    25 February 2026 12: 19
                    considering only its objective figures

                    Indeed, statistics can be manipulated if desired.
                    By the way, this is exactly what the authorities are doing now, for example, with their GDP indicator (not Putin).
                    In the USSR, in contrast, statistics were based on the real economy.
                    In science and technology, you can look at the number of inventions and publications, the number of engineers.
                    So there are no questions here.
            2. -1
              25 February 2026 11: 26
              Quote: October
              To be fair, in 1985, a very talented anti-crisis manager could have pulled the USSR out of the impending crisis

              To be fair, there was no crisis in the USSR in 1985, except that Gorbachev came to power.
              It would be interesting to ask where people like you get this idea about the "crisis in the USSR" in 1985?

              Is the rationing system normal for you? In the USSR, the economy was fueled by the military. Much was purchased with foreign currency. The country couldn't provide itself with food.
              In principle, Gorbachev did the right thing by cutting the army and seeking peace with the West, but then Yeltsin, the Americans' best friend, came along and instituted shock therapy, and the republics fled.
              1. -4
                25 February 2026 11: 40
                What's normal for you? A country and its people in a state of chronic hunger, like the "Russia We Lost" vaunted by the USSR's enemies in October 1917, or poisoning the people with counterfeit, low-quality "food" at high prices, like the enemies of the USSR did when they captured it?
                You YOURSELF generally purchase everything with the currency that you receive for the export of products from the Soviet raw materials and industrial sectors.
                And you managed, out of nowhere, to make relations with the USSR's enemies in the West worse than relations between the USSR and the West were during the Cold War.
                1. +1
                  25 February 2026 13: 21
                  Quote: tatra
                  What's normal for you? A country and its people in a state of chronic hunger, like the "Russia We Lost" vaunted by the USSR's enemies in October 1917, or poisoning the people with counterfeit, low-quality "food" at high prices, like the enemies of the USSR did when they captured it?
                  You YOURSELF generally purchase everything with the currency that you receive for the export of products from the Soviet raw materials and industrial sectors.
                  And you managed, out of nowhere, to make relations with the USSR's enemies in the West worse than relations between the USSR and the West were during the Cold War.

                  Madam, we're talking about the USSR now, not today's Russia. Don't lump everything together. No one has died of hunger in the last 20 years.
                  1. 0
                    25 February 2026 19: 04
                    Quote: Panin (Michman)
                    Madam, we're talking about the USSR now, not today's Russia. Don't lump everything together. No one has died of hunger in the last 20 years.

                    Rosfed is a remnant of the USSR and rests solely on its economic foundation. The less the USSR remains in modern Russia, the worse, don't you think?
                    Well, hunger is something that can be acquired - do you really believe that someone will feed Russian office plankton for free all the time?
              2. +2
                25 February 2026 12: 04
                Is the coupon system normal for you?

                Where did you see a coupon system before Gorbachev?
                The country could not provide itself with food.

                lie
                I don't want to watch the rest
                Sorry, your bourgeois cliches are getting on my nerves.
                1. -2
                  25 February 2026 12: 13
                  These are not even bourgeois, but parasitic/gluttonous "priorities" of the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people. They have proven that for them the State is what they got a lot of money from, thinking "we don't owe anything to this country and these people, everyone owes us," they bought a lot of imported goods with it, apartments, houses, wandered around the world, gorged themselves on counterfeits of Soviet products - after all, there are a lot of them.
                2. 0
                  25 February 2026 13: 29
                  Quote: October
                  Is the coupon system normal for you?

                  Where did you see a coupon system before Gorbachev?
                  The country could not provide itself with food.

                  lie
                  I don't want to watch the rest
                  Sorry, your bourgeois cliches are getting on my nerves.

                  You probably live in Moscow? We lived in a military town until 1986, and even there they already had a rationing system for meat, butter, and sausage. We'd go to my grandmother's place during the holidays in 1982, and she'd line up early in the morning, and we'd come back later and get 300 grams of sausage each. Sausage was delivered twice a week. Those who got it first ate it.
                  1. 0
                    25 February 2026 18: 33
                    You probably live in Moscow?

                    No, not in Moscow.
                    We lived in a military town until 1986, and even there there was already a coupon system for meat, butter, and sausage.

                    Sorry, if this is not a feature of your military town, then I will allow myself not to believe you.
                    I trust Soviet statistics above all else. According to the book
                    Ioffe Ya.A. We and the Planet: Facts and Figures
                    7th edition, supplemented. - M.: Politizdat. 1988. - 256 p.

                    page 179
                    I'll limit myself to one table (see below), it will be interesting to look at other summary tables
                    It can be seen that since 1960, meat production per capita has increased from 40 kg in 1960 to 61 kg in 1985.
                    If there were no coupons in 1960, then there certainly won’t be any in 1985.
                    1. 0
                      25 February 2026 19: 42
                      Quote: October
                      You probably live in Moscow?

                      No, not in Moscow.
                      We lived in a military town until 1986, and even there there was already a coupon system for meat, butter, and sausage.

                      Sorry, if this is not a feature of your military town, then I will allow myself not to believe you.
                      I trust Soviet statistics above all else. According to the book
                      Ioffe Ya.A. We and the Planet: Facts and Figures
                      7th edition, supplemented. - M.: Politizdat. 1988. - 256 p.

                      page 179
                      I'll limit myself to one table (see below), it will be interesting to look at other summary tables
                      It can be seen that since 1960, meat production per capita has increased from 40 kg in 1960 to 61 kg in 1985.
                      If there were no coupons in 1960, then there certainly won’t be any in 1985.

                      Consumption may have increased, but only in Moscow and the republics. We used to go to Moscow for smoked sausage. Imagine a train arriving in the capital in the morning and returning in the evening, and everyone is carrying groceries. And in Moscow, there are ten kinds of ice cream at a kiosk...
                      1. 0
                        25 February 2026 21: 03
                        We went to Moscow for smoked sausage.

                        и
                        coupon system for meat, butter and sausage.

                        Different things
          3. 0
            25 February 2026 20: 00
            After the collapse, there was Prime Minister Primakov and his team: Maslyukov, Gerashchenko, and Kulik. They saved Russia from collapse in six months. Then came Stepashin, Putin, and the "I'm tired and I'm leaving..."
        2. +1
          25 February 2026 09: 35
          Quote: October
          No, Gorbachev wasn't naive.It is enough to look closely at his activities.

          Gorbachev had power snatched from under his nose twice, despite possessing a powerful army and an all-powerful KGB. As Prokhanov aptly observed of those events: "Two coups d'état occurred. First, the State Emergency Committee overthrew Gorbachev, and four days later, Yeltsin did the same." So, what was Gorbachev after that?
          1. -4
            25 February 2026 09: 48
            Gorbachev's goal is to destroy socialism and the power of the CPSU, which is why he launched a total slander against the Bolshevik communists with automatic justification of the crimes of external and internal enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people, to give freedom to the enemies of the USSR, and, led by them, to rule a new capitalist pro-Western State.
            .
            But the enemies of the USSR, "in gratitude," de facto, overthrew him as soon as they captured the USSR with his help, and divided the USSR among themselves.
            1. 0
              25 February 2026 20: 04
              Besides the marked one, there were Yakovlev, Shevardnadze, Kravchuk, and other "cadres"
          2. 0
            25 February 2026 10: 04
            Gorbachev had power taken from under his nose twice, even though he had the strongest army and the all-powerful KGB.

            Who took power from Gorbachev in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989?
            Have you looked at what laws he passed during these years?
            As for the State Emergency Committee, you apparently don’t even understand its true goal - the DESTRUCTION of the PRIMARY CELLS of the CPSU.
            Read
            [https://topwar.ru/234205-tehnologija-polzuchej-burzhuaznoj-kontrrevoljucii-19851993-gg-i-kak-ej-protivodejstvovat-chast-1.html]

            [https://topwar.ru/234344-tehnologija-polzuchej-burzhuaznoj-kontrrevoljucii-19851993-gg-i-kak-ej-protivodejstvovat-chast-2.html]

            [https://topwar.ru/234755-tehnologija-polzuchej-burzhuaznoj-kontrrevoljucii-19851993-gg-i-kak-ej-protivodejstvovat.html]

            [https://topwar.ru/237615-o-diktature-proletariata-trudjaschihsja-io-dvizhuschej-sile-burzhuaznoj-kontrrevoljucii-1985-1993-gg.html]
          3. +2
            25 February 2026 11: 30
            Quote: Stas157
            Quote: October
            No, Gorbachev wasn't naive.It is enough to look closely at his activities.

            Gorbachev had power snatched from under his nose twice, despite possessing a powerful army and an all-powerful KGB. As Prokhanov aptly observed of those events: "Two coups d'état occurred. First, the State Emergency Committee overthrew Gorbachev, and four days later, Yeltsin did the same." So, what was Gorbachev after that?

            Your all-powerful KGB, represented by Kryuchkov, orchestrated the State Emergency Committee. But the population was already against it; the population was for Yeltsin.
            1. 0
              25 February 2026 11: 36
              But the population was already against it, the population was for Yeltsin

              At that time, the population did not understand what was happening and simply watched the circus.
              But there was definitely no “for Yeltsin”.
              1. -2
                25 February 2026 11: 47
                Those 45 million people who voted for Yeltsin in 1991 were of two types: enemies of the USSR, who understood that without the communists they would be able to freely rob the country and the people, commit crimes with impunity, and the naive, who believed in the image created by Yeltsin - that he was for the people, against privileges for officials, that is, these people wanted officials to live the same way the people live.
      2. +1
        25 February 2026 08: 19
        Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

        Quote: Stas157
        Yeltsin completed the collapse - mercilessly finished off the USSR.

        Yeltsin and Gorbaty hammered the final nails into the USSR's coffin, but it all began after the death of the Bolshevik Stalin - with the Trotskyist Khrushchev, with the 20th Congress of the CPSU.

        The Bolsheviks are Lenin, Stalin.
        The communists are Trotsky, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev.
        Vlasovites are Yeltsin and Medvedev.

        The Trotskyists attempted to build capitalism (NEP 1.0) from 1921 to 1928. Stalin drove them into hiding. After Stalin's death, they returned to their idea and, by the end of the century, succeeded in building NEP 2.0. Their dream came true.
        1. 0
          25 February 2026 08: 52
          Quote: Boris55
          The Bolsheviks are Lenin, Stalin.
          The communists are Trotsky, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev.
          Vlasovites are Yeltsin and Medvedev.

          I'm afraid to ask, but which list would you put GDP on?
          1. 0
            25 February 2026 09: 10
            V.V. Putin is my president. He is a Bolshevik!

            Quote: Anatol Klim
            And which list would you put GDP in?

            "Judge them according to their works." What are his works?
            - did not allow Russia to fall apart;
            - filled the budget with money;
            - fed people;
            - provided work;
            - revived the "legendary and invincible" etc.
            In whose interests did he do all this? - In the interests of the majority, and therefore he is a Bolshevik.
            1. +3
              25 February 2026 09: 42
              Brings in migrants
              raised the retirement age, and now taxes are skyrocketing
              imports palm oil in huge quantities
              demolished a bunch of businesses
              instead of commanders, he put the merchants in charge
              in the interests of the minority, that is, the oligarchs, supports the bankers.
              1. -1
                25 February 2026 09: 53
                Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                Quote: Gardamir
                Importing migrants raised the retirement age

                Everything you've mentioned, and more, is the result of the Duma's work. It's the Duma that passes the laws that allow all this chaos to happen. But what does this have to do with the Paths?
                1. 0
                  25 February 2026 10: 03
                  What does he do then if the Duma is in his way everywhere?
                  1. 0
                    25 February 2026 10: 09
                    Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                    Quote: Gardamir
                    What does he do then if the Duma is in his way everywhere?

                    The Duma's powers are limited by domestic policy. Putin, through his foreign and global policies, influences domestic policy.

                    As an example, after the meeting in Anchorage, Trami imposed sanctions against Lukoil, which supplies fuel and lubricants to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
                2. +4
                  25 February 2026 11: 32
                  Quote: Boris55
                  Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                  Quote: Gardamir
                  Importing migrants raised the retirement age

                  Everything you've mentioned, and more, is the result of the Duma's work. It's the Duma that passes the laws that allow all this chaos to happen. But what does this have to do with the Paths?

                  Boris, you are as naive as workers on Bloody Sunday.
                  1. +1
                    25 February 2026 11: 42
                    He is not naive, he is here promoting the ideology of his rule as a “leader” in the style of “the bad boyars are to blame for everything, and the good Tsar has nothing to do with it.”
              2. +2
                25 February 2026 20: 09
                Domestic policy, immigration, the housing and utilities system, the judiciary, the work of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, financial and economic policy, Taburetkin's army reorganization, Chubais's work, the Academy of Sciences, demographic policy, pensions—legal failures everywhere...
            2. +5
              25 February 2026 09: 47
              Quote: Boris55
              In whose interests did he do all this? - In the interests of the majority, and therefore he is a Bolshevik.

              Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with Russian and foreign journalists in Krasnaya Polyana, confirmed that he is a "true liberal and holds liberal views."
              (from press reports) January 19, 2014
              Under his rule, the government was run exclusively by liberals, including himself during his premiership. They run the show there... Therefore, colossal sums of money, so desperately needed by the long-stalled economy, have flowed and continue to flow out of the country completely freely, so to speak, liberally. They flow into the coffers of an insatiable, greedy micro-stratum that has long identified Russia not with the Motherland, but with "this country," which can be safely and legally robbed and humiliated utterly. For the politics of liberalism is the free circulation of money, people, and ideas, with all that entails... Therefore, during the rampant liberal ideology, masses of immigrants flocked to Russia, a Niagara of liberal views and concepts poured in under the guise of rejecting one's own ideology, and an Amazon of funds flowed out. https://proza.ru/2019/06/28/540
              or https://topwar.ru/172131-pochemu-u-liberala-putina-vse-tak-slishkom-liberalno.html
              1. -3
                25 February 2026 09: 58
                Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                Quote: Anatol Klim
                Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with Russian and foreign journalists in Krasnaya Polyana, confirmed that he is a "true liberal and holds liberal views."

                And did you want him to put on a Budyonovka, take out his grandfather's saber and start waving it indiscriminately left and right? laughing

                The people vote for capitalism every time, at every election. Do you want Putin to go against the people's choice? Then he certainly won't be a Bolshevik!
                1. +3
                  25 February 2026 10: 05
                  Quote: Boris55
                  Every time, in every election, the people vote for capitalism.

                  Yeah, Ella Pamfilova won’t lie! fellow
                  Putin went against the people's choice?

                  Have you forgotten about the pension reform? Go away.
                  1. 0
                    25 February 2026 10: 20
                    Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                    Quote: Anatol Klim
                    Yeah, Ella Pamfilova won’t lie!

                    Don't you see queues of voters at polling stations?

                    Quote: Anatol Klim
                    Have you forgotten about the pension reform? Go away.

                    Who? Putin?! belay

                    Progress in the adoption of the pension form:
                    - initiator - K. Locard (IMF);
                    - Medvedev introduced a bill;
                    - The Duma adopted the Law (Volodin);
                    - The Federation Council approved it (Matvienko);
                    - Putin, not finding any contradiction between this Law (see ps) and the Constitution, signed it;
                    - The media published it;
                    - The law has come into force.

                    Do you still think that the president is almost the last one to blame on the entire list of participants?

                    ps
                    Constitution Art. 50.
                    n.3. Human and civil rights and freedoms may be limited by federal law. only to the extent necessary in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional order, morality, health, rights and legitimate interests of others, ensuring the country's defense and state security.

                    I did not find a list of other individuals in whose interests the retirement age was raised...
                    1. +2
                      25 February 2026 10: 30
                      Quote: Boris55
                      Is the president the last one to blame from the entire list of participants?

                      Do you really need to experience "Bloody Sunday" like Father Gapon to understand and say: "We no longer have a Tsar..."
                      1. +1
                        25 February 2026 10: 41
                        The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

                        Quote: Anatol Klim
                        "We no longer have a Tsar..."

                        And you think Putin is a tsar? At the behest of his right foot's little finger, his boyars (Duma members) take off their pants and back away with a jar of Vaseline held out to them, all the while chanting, "Choose me, choose me!" laughing

                        Russia is a state governed by the rule of law! This means that the law rules here. Our laws are passed by the Duma, and no one else.

                        Constitution. Section 105
                        n.1. Federal laws are adopted by the State Duma.

                        And what kind of king is this when he does not have the right to manage the treasury (Central Bank)?

                        Constitution. Section 75
                        Item 2. Protection and ensuring the stability of the ruble is the main function The Central Bank of the Russian Federation, which it carries out independently of other government bodies.

                        Including independently of the President, the Duma and other government bodies.
                      2. +1
                        25 February 2026 10: 50
                        Quote: Boris55
                        Russia is a state governed by the rule of law! This means that the law rules here.
                        Our laws are passed by the Duma and no one else.

                        I'll let you in on a terrible secret: not a single law in the State Duma is passed without the approval of the Presidential Administration and the Government of the Russian Federation.
                        Your attempts to make the president dependent on these gentlemen look ridiculous, you are not a stupid person, why are you doing this, do you really earn your living with these speeches, and are you not ashamed?
                      3. 0
                        25 February 2026 10: 56
                        Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

                        Quote: Anatol Klim
                        I'll tell you a terrible secret

                        And I'll let you in on an open secret:

                        "State policy and management in a crowd-" elite "society is an agreement reached on the capabilities of various clan-corporate groupings in using the state structure and system to achieve their narrowly corporate goals."

                        There are no friends or buddies at the top. There are only clan interests.
                        Clan representatives:
                        - Bolshevik Putin - for the interests of the majority;
                        - Vlasovite Medvedev - for the interests of the bourgeoisie.

                        These clans have different interests and one clan cannot tell another what to do.

                        Thanks everyone for the chat. Bye. hi
    3. 0
      25 February 2026 07: 36
      Quote: yuriy55
      "No matter how many times you say 'halva,' it won't make your mouth any sweeter."
      It would be more interesting to learn what steps were taken, and by whom, to finish off the USSR and the socialist system, and whether the idea of ​​reform was inspired by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, or whether they went this far hoping to remain in the history of the Russian state...
      It will be even more useful to determine where the policies of the country's current leadership will lead us, under which state symbols, state development, and those victories of which the Soviet people were truly proud have already been discredited.

      Any transformation is inevitable sooner or later. The only question is how to implement it.
    4. 0
      25 February 2026 08: 18
      Quote: yuriy55
      It will be more interesting to know what steps were taken and by whom to finish off the USSR, the socialist system.

      "Our task is to learn from the state capitalism of the Germans, to adopt it with all our might, and not to spare dictatorial methods in order to accelerate this adoption even more than Peter accelerated the adoption of Westernism by barbarian Russia, not stopping short of barbaric means in the struggle against barbarism." (Compendium of Lenin's Works. 5th edition. Vol. 36. P. 301)

      German state capitalism is also known as Prussian socialism. It is a movement toward centralized planning, a rigid social hierarchy, and the supremacy of the state over the individual in every matter. This is German civilization, as they envisioned it.
      A communist is a fighter against Russian barbarity. Russians MUST either die or adopt the German order. This runs through all communist propaganda, right up until the moment after Stalin's death when they began trying to unharness this cart, until it finally fell apart.
      1. +2
        25 February 2026 08: 21
        Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey
        German state capitalism has another name: Prussian socialism.

        What was socialism called in a country of workers and peasants? The state took on the burdens and expenses and didn't force the working people into lifelong bondage...
        1. -4
          25 February 2026 09: 34
          Quote: yuriy55
          What was socialism called in a country of workers and peasants? The state took on the burdens and expenses and didn't force the working people into lifelong bondage...

          Russian communism is a banal transfer of the German obsession with planning and rationalism to Russia.
          Essentially, prisoners were slaves, used for jobs that a free person would only agree to for enormous amounts of money. This primarily involved building infrastructure in remote areas, gold and coal mining, and logging. Including German prisoners of war and Soviet prisoners of war with disenfranchised prisoners, this number could have reached 3 million. However, by the early 50s, this system had already begun to collapse due to constant camp riots and a loss of economic efficiency. The abandonment of the slave sector of the economy necessitated an increase in living standards, that is, purchasing power, which in turn necessitated saturating the market with goods. This ultimately created a demand crisis, the very same shortage that the directive planning system had been unsuccessfully combating.
          Energy exports, which supported the import of food, a range of consumer goods, and equipment for the light and food industries, prolonged the life of the Soviet system. This was particularly beneficial after the 1973 fuel crisis, when oil and gas prices soared tenfold.
          The gradual economic liberation of peasants, which began around 1955, also created problems for real socialism. The reduction in exploitation rates for peasants and the increase in their prosperity ultimately put additional pressure on the consumer market.
          The culmination of this was the revolt of disgruntled miners, who by the mid-80s were probably the wealthiest part of the Soviet proletariat and, despite even the benefits in the distribution of goods for mining regions, were often unable to receive a ticket for the results of their labor.
          Thus, real socialism, in conditions of liberation of labor and growth of prosperity, loses stability, society becomes criminalized and the number of prisoners grows again.

          "Under capitalism, man exploits man.
          - And under socialism?
          - Under socialism it’s the opposite."
          1. 0
            25 February 2026 19: 07
            Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey
            Russian communism is a banal transfer of the German obsession with planning and rationalism to Russia.

            So, 70% of white Americans are descendants of German immigrants, but for some reason communism never emerged there, even though there were plenty of bearers of German rationalism. Why?
            1. +1
              25 February 2026 21: 25
              Quote: Explainer
              So, 70% of white Americans are descendants of German immigrants, but for some reason communism never emerged there, even though there were plenty of bearers of German rationalism. Why?

              The entire faith in communism in Russia was based on the assertion that the rationalism of classical German philosophy was superior to the laxity of other philosophical schools. Strangely, the Russians set out to prove the correctness of the Germans' ideas, regardless of the sacrifices involved. (The Germans also tried to shine, but they were quickly put in their place. The Germans themselves proved too weak to raise the banner of German ideology as brightly as they did in Russia.)
              1. 0
                25 February 2026 22: 38
                Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey
                The basis of all faith in communism in Russia was the assertion of the superiority of the rationalism of German classical philosophy over the laxity of other philosophical schools.

                What rationalism are you talking about here?
                Marxism is fundamentally based on dialectical materialism—a worldview. Rationalism is a tool for solving specific applied problems.
                Do you understand the difference?
      2. +2
        25 February 2026 09: 34
        Have you even read what's written on page 301, volume 36? Are you deliberately misleading people? /...To clarify the matter further, let us first cite a very concrete example of state capitalism. Everyone knows what this example is: Germany. Here we have the "last word" of modern large-scale capitalist technology and planned organization, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Omit the italicized words, substitute for the military, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state another state, but a state of a different social type, a different class content—the Soviet state, i.e., proletarian—and you will obtain the entire sum of the conditions that socialism provides.

        Socialism is unthinkable without large-scale capitalist technology built on the latest scientific advances, without a planned state organization that subordinates tens of millions of people to the strictest adherence to a single standard of production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken about this, and it's not worth wasting even two seconds talking to people who haven't even understood this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries).
    5. +1
      25 February 2026 16: 36
      Quote: yuriy55
      It will be more interesting to know what steps were taken and by whom to finish off the USSR, the socialist system.

      Russia's Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar once said: "Russia has known many revolutions, but the most peaceful, the quietest, and the most effective is the revolution created by the emissaries of Chabad."
      1. 0
        25 February 2026 22: 21
        Quote: carpenter
        Russia's Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar once said: "Russia has known many revolutions, but the most peaceful, the quietest, and the most effective is the revolution created by the emissaries of Chabad."

        As well as the October Revolution.
        In the photo below, all the workers' fighters were slaughtered by the grateful workers' government. The woman in the photo, Alexandra Sokolovskaya, was executed at the age of 66 and sent into, so to speak, revolutionary retirement. Well, what can you do? Communism can't be built without it.
        1. 0
          25 February 2026 22: 22
          Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey
          As well as the October Revolution.

          I never doubted it.
  6. +2
    25 February 2026 06: 01
    Quote: yuriy55
    Where will the policy of the current leadership of the country lead us, under which state symbols have already been discredited?

    Before the abdication of the commander-in-chief in 1917... to put it roughly.
    This has happened before in Russian history... everything is going in the same circle again.
    It's very clear right now how the judicial branch is rotting... one of the pillars of the state, the police are experiencing a personnel shortage, education, medicine... if the other pillars of the state collapse, then there will be an avalanche-like collapse... I don't even want to think about it. what
    Everything stands and sways so unsteadily.
  7. +8
    25 February 2026 06: 07
    I.V. Stalin's personality was both great and equally controversial. But the state's achievements during and under his rule were truly sublime!
    1. -1
      25 February 2026 07: 52
      The personality of I.V. Stalin is contradictory.

      и
      The achievements of the state - during his reign and under his reign - are the greatest!

      Don't you feel like you're in a contradiction? Perhaps you're unable to fully appreciate it?
    2. -1
      25 February 2026 22: 24
      Quote: Andrey Nikolaevich
      The personality of I.V. Stalin is great and equally contradictory.

      The contradictory thing is that he created the country, and we ruined it.
  8. 10+
    25 February 2026 06: 24
    It is difficult to imagine that Joseph Vissarionovich after June 22
    Once he traded with Hitler and paid him for transit.
    1. 0
      25 February 2026 08: 19
      Quote: Andrey Krutilin
      It is difficult to imagine that Joseph Vissarionovich after June 22
      Once he traded with Hitler and paid him for transit.

      Times were simpler.....
      1. -1
        25 February 2026 22: 27
        Quote: your1970
        Times were simpler...

        Times were tough, but he did everything he could to take Berlin and create a nuclear shield over Russia. For that, bow at his feet.
        1. +1
          26 February 2026 07: 25
          Quote: carpenter
          Quote: your1970
          Times were simpler...

          Times were tough, but he did everything he could to take Berlin and create a nuclear shield over Russia. For that, bow at his feet.

          Those were the times thousandfold It's simpler - for example, the people were happy with the bread (and didn't want to go to Turkey), there were no oligarchs (!!!), the West was selling factories and technologies, there was no media (10 newspapers and radio - that's not media), speak weaned him off, the costs of the army are relatively small (the salary of a Red Army soldier is 32 rubles per combat feel - 1/10 of a factory worker's salary, a bonus for a destroyed tank of 1000 = the cost of 2 buckets of potatoes and 2 bottles of vodka), the workers couldn't quit, no one had nuclear weapons or mass-produced drones, the Wehrmacht simply wasn't enough for the entire designated territory...

          Everything was simpler, much simpler.
  9. +4
    25 February 2026 06: 38
    Stalin had his own path—a bright path to the future, paved by will and sacrifice, albeit thorny in places (repressions, famine). Khrushchev discredited it with his revelations of the cult and the "thaw." The passive Brezhnev simply marked time, driving the country into stagnation. Gorbachev, however, decided to rebuild everything—and the path collapsed into the abyss of perestroika and collapse.
    1. +6
      25 February 2026 07: 55
      Passive Brezhnev simply marked time

      Brezhnev never stood still. His OGAS alone is worth a look.
      Gorbachev

      just a traitor
      1. -1
        25 February 2026 08: 08
        Quote: October
        Brezhnev did not stand still.

        No, it was just stagnation... the term stagnation was there, even if you deny it. And as for OGAS, stagnation doesn't mean that everyone went into suspended animation - something was certainly being done.
        1. +1
          25 February 2026 08: 38
          Bolshevism is the essence of Russian civilization.

          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          stagnation... was evident.

          Khrushchev was too brazen in his push to build NEP 2.0. His executions of workers alone are worth mentioning... The Trotskyists realized that if they continued to force the people into their bright future, they might overthrow them. So they removed Khrushchev and appointed Brezhnev, whose job was to get the people drunk and discourage them from working. He succeeded. By the time of the hunchback, the people were no longer interested in anything but vodka. The hunchback tried to introduce prohibition (cutting down vineyards and other things). Yeltsin, on the contrary, was pouring alcohol like a piano... One compressed the spring, the other released it... And while the people were in a drunken stupor, they divided up everything they could among themselves, and depending on their position, some got a pipe for food, and others a paid toilet...

          ps
          "State policy and management in a crowd-" elite "society is an agreement reached on the capabilities of various clan-corporate groupings in using the state structure and system to achieve their narrowly corporate goals."
        2. +1
          25 February 2026 09: 55
          stagnation is a term that even if you deny it, was

          Some people had this term, and some didn't. It's not the terms that matter, but the facts. Do you need statistics on economic growth under Brezhnev? The influence of the USSR? Achievements in science and technology? But OGAS is what was supposed to be implemented in the economy, and it was very well-prepared, with many subsystems operating at full capacity.
          My complaint about Brezhnev is that he was too soft a person and did not break abruptly with Khrushchev.
          1. 0
            25 February 2026 10: 50
            Quote: October
            Some people used this term, and some didn't. It's not the terms that matter, but the facts. Do you need statistics on economic growth under Brezhnev? The influence of the USSR? Achievements in science and technology?

            Have you heard of the concept of inertia? That's exactly it. The Brezhnev era was largely the legacy of Stalin and Khrushchev. But the 80s were precisely the aftermath of Brezhnev's reign. In the economy, inertia wasn't like that of an airplane, but rather like that of a huge tanker.
            1. -1
              25 February 2026 11: 40
              Have you heard of the concept of inertia?

              Don't make up any nonsense. For some, five years was enough and there was no inertia. Although, people like you can come up with any excuse, including some "chakras" and whatnot.
              Take a look at the Soviet statistical reference book for interest.
              Keep in mind, analogy is not proof if you are familiar with logic.
              1. 0
                25 February 2026 11: 47
                Quote: October
                Don't make up any nonsense.

                You are making up nonsense when you deny a phenomenon generally accepted in the world of economics - the inertia of economic processes... or are you at least a Doctor of Economics with a new economic theory?
                1. 0
                  25 February 2026 12: 11
                  and for this you need to be a Doctor of Economics?
                  I already wrote somewhere that in Soviet times we were taught economics, and I was potentially a plant director, in addition to my basic technical education.
                  Show me the equations where this “inertia” of yours appears and that you have had it (at least approximately) for 30 years.
                  But from my perspective, I can say that the working horizon (we're not talking about long-term plans) for planning in the USSR was five years. That's exactly what Gorbachev needed. He screwed up his five-year plan. He screwed it up deliberately, expertly, while carrying out a counterrevolution. He hoped he wouldn't have to answer for it, but unfortunately, he succeeded.
                  1. 0
                    25 February 2026 12: 17
                    Quote: October
                    Show me the equations where this “inertia” of yours appears and that you have had it (at least approximately) for 30 years.

                    Just for example. It took about two years for the sanctions to catch up with us, the first year was generally a matter of whether they were there or not...
                    Quote: October
                    That's exactly what Gorbachev needed. He screwed up his five-year plan. He screwed it up deliberately, knowingly, while carrying out a counterrevolution.

                    I agree and disagree... he screwed it up - YES, for the collapse - NO... he simply couldn't handle it, since he needed to be tough in places, but he couldn't handle it, it's not his level... did he end up becoming an "enemy"? He did... but I don't think it was his own plan... after all, it wasn't just him, the entire Central Committee of the CPSU was there, and the General Secretary wasn't an absolute monarch in the USSR...
                    1. 0
                      25 February 2026 18: 27
                      Just for example. It took about two years for the sanctions to catch up with us, the first year was generally a matter of whether they were there or not...

                      Exactly two. Where do you expect to find 30 years to explain away post-Stalin inertia?
                      This is a specific question, analogies do not prove anything.
                      I agree and I don't.. He screwed it up - YES, but for the collapse - NO.. He just couldn't handle it.

                      I suspect you're simply unfamiliar with the facts of his activities. Or perhaps you're familiar, but only through biased bourgeois publications.
                      For the sake of brevity, I will refer to my articles:
                      [https://topwar.ru/234205-tehnologija-polzuchej-burzhuaznoj-kontrrevoljucii-19851993-gg-i-kak-ej-protivodejstvovat-chast-1.html]

                      [https://topwar.ru/234344-tehnologija-polzuchej-burzhuaznoj-kontrrevoljucii-19851993-gg-i-kak-ej-protivodejstvovat-chast-2.html]

                      [https://topwar.ru/234755-tehnologija-polzuchej-burzhuaznoj-kontrrevoljucii-19851993-gg-i-kak-ej-protivodejstvovat.html]

                      [https://topwar.ru/237615-o-diktature-proletariata-trudjaschihsja-io-dvizhuschej-sile-burzhuaznoj-kontrrevoljucii-1985-1993-gg.html]
          2. 0
            25 February 2026 23: 12
            Brezhnev had no intention of completely breaking with Khrushchev's legacy. Even "Virgin Land," published several years before his death, contains harsh criticism of the "anti-Party group" of Molotov, Malenkov, and Kaganovich. And the confrontation with China was far greater than during Khrushchev's time. Although, frankly, I wouldn't blame either Khrushchev or Brezhnev for it. Incidentally, a warming of relations with China began gradually in the final months of Brezhnev's life.
    2. 0
      25 February 2026 22: 30
      Quote: Stas157
      Gorbachev decided to rebuild everything - and the road collapsed into the abyss of perestroika and collapse.

      Gorbachev continued Khrushchev's path, and we found ourselves back in capitalism. There's no point in crying; it's all our fault.
  10. +7
    25 February 2026 06: 40
    Khrushchev's anti-Stalin propaganda campaign was met with great approval by all anti-Soviet, Russophobic Western politicians.

    And this policy continues to this day, both in Russia and in the West. For those who have forgotten, the "Yeltsin Center" will remind you.
    1. +2
      25 February 2026 08: 25
      Yes, the Yeltsin Center is an indicator of the current government.
      1. +1
        26 February 2026 07: 35
        Quote: Million
        Yes, the Yeltsin Center is an indicator of the current government.

        Quote: carpenter
        And this policy continues to this day, both in Russia and in the West. For those who have forgotten, the "Yeltsin Center" will remind you.

        If tomorrow the Yeltsin Center is blown up, and the oligarchs are crushed by an asphalt roller on Red Square live on television - what will that mean???!!!
        Dictatorship/communism/monarchism/anarchism/capitalism of other oligarchs - what exactly???!!!

        You're used to labeling everything with symbols/labels, but that hasn't worked for a long time, ever since the Soviet era...
    2. -2
      25 February 2026 08: 28
      Have you ever been to this "Yeltsin Center"? If you had, you wouldn't have seen any "propaganda center," since it's essentially a regular business center, where 99% of the space is occupied by offices, shops, cafes, and restaurants. There's a small Yeltsin museum there—not an "anti-Soviet" one, but one dedicated specifically to Yeltsin—how he grew up, where he studied, where he worked, and so on (of course, in the positive tones of the "pink pony" world), something like the Vysotsky Museum in the skyscraper of the same name here. And they opened this supposed "evil center" for one simple reason: according to law, every Russian president is entitled to have a museum named after themselves, including Medvedev and Putin. The only thing is, it's unclear when the DAM will get its own museum, since it's essentially the only living answer to the question "who if not PVV?" Yes, since 2012 we've been accustomed to pouring filth on it, because "Shere Khan" has returned, but the fact is that heaven without "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin" didn't collapse. And the PVV won't get its own museum anytime soon, either, because right now it's somehow not comme il faut—alive and well, in power, and then... who knows what will happen next...
      PS: Stalinists and anti-Stalinists are funny creatures, ready to tear each other's throats out, ignoring everything that doesn't fit into their modest view of the world...
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. +3
    25 February 2026 07: 44
    They turned the entire history of Russia and the USSR upside down, calling untruth truth, turning white into black. A favorite method, by the way, of Western manipulators.

    And not just Western ones. We're doing just as well ourselves.
  13. VLR
    +4
    25 February 2026 07: 49
    Khrushchev was "preemptive": he was one of the most "rabid" and had spilled a sea of ​​blood in Moscow and Ukraine. He was quick to blame his sins on the "demonic" Stalin, who held the "ring of omnipotence" and therefore single-handedly "hypnotized" and subjugated everyone. Since other Politburo members also had a finger in the game, everyone silently agreed to hold Stalin and Stalin alone to blame, while they, like the Duremars, were "absolutely innocent." The problem was that Khrushchev was an outstanding schemer but a completely incompetent politician, understanding nothing about economics, and on top of that, he had amnestied the Vlasovites, Banderites, and the "green brothers." Crimea goes without saying. Khrushchev's "Thaw" cost us dearly.
    1. +2
      25 February 2026 08: 23
      Quote: VlR
      and also granted amnesty to Vlasovites, Bandera supporters and the "green brothers".

      Where would he have gone if the fighting with the Banderites was raging and the population was supporting them? They had to be lured out of the forests somehow, so he used the simplest method to clear the forests.
      1. VLR
        +2
        25 February 2026 08: 55
        Khrushchev amnestied already convicted Banderovites, Vlasovites, policemen, and so on - and very cynically - using the tenth anniversary of Victory in 1955 as a pretext for the amnesty (what connection did they have with this event?). More than 20,000 OUN members alone returned to Western Ukraine at that time.
        1. -3
          25 February 2026 09: 34
          Quote: VlR
          Khrushchev amnestied already convicted Banderovites, Vlasovites, policemen, and so on - and very cynically - using the tenth anniversary of Victory in 1955 as a pretext for the amnesty (what connection did they have with this event?). More than 20,000 OUN members alone returned to Western Ukraine at that time.

          The amnesty was primarily for those imprisoned in the woods—so they would come out. Convicts were released so that the woodsmen would see that there really was an amnesty, as the confirmation "There goes Kum Gnat, walking around the village - and they caught him and gave him 10 years."
          In this situation, they took the first significant occasion that came to hand - and they could, for example, have chosen it in honor of "St. Valentine's Day" belay lol belay
      2. +5
        25 February 2026 09: 15
        Quote: your1970
        Where would he have gone if the fighting with the Banderites was raging and the population was supporting them? They had to be lured out of the forests somehow, so he used the simplest method to clear the forests.

        Don't repeat the lies spread by today's surviving nationalists. By 53, most of the Banderites and so-called "forest brothers" were killed, and the rest hid in their holes and remained silent until the Gorbachev era. Criminal law has a term for "accomplice":
        An accomplice was defined as a person who contributed to the commission of a crime through advice, instructions, provision of funds, or the removal of obstacles, as well as a person who had promised in advance to hide the criminal, the instruments and means of committing the crime, traces of the crime, or items obtained by criminal means.
        And during I.V. Stalin's time, no one allowed themselves to joke around with the Criminal Code. So, anyone who supported them could, at best, immediately end up in a labor camp at their place of residence; at worst, in the same camps, only to explore the vast expanses of Siberia and the Far East. So, the population wasn't made up of clinical idiots; providing support was more expensive for themselves, but they preferred to distance themselves and keep quiet... for the time being. And the population of the Ukrainian SSR was also not homogeneous; the Banderites were mainly from the western regions, and there was a mix of Hungarians, Slovaks, Rusyns, and, of course, Poles, and the Poles have always been hostile to the Banderites, even more so after the Volyn massacre. Of course, not everyone needs amnesty, but what can you say, the Soviet regime was humane. The bodies of the Lithuanian "Forest Brothers", liquidated by the MGB. What's surprising is that in the center is former Wehrmacht soldier Hugo Schlietter. That bastard served time in prison until the 50s. That's where they belong.
        1. -1
          25 February 2026 09: 28
          Quote: Unknown
          By 53, most of the Banderites and so-called "forest brothers" had been killed, and the rest hid in holes.

          Yeah, but for some reason the MGB reports don't say a word about "killed" people—it's mostly just "attacked a village, killed a local police officer and the chairman, attacked a food truck, fired on the police station," and so on. Some of the MGB reports were declassified long ago—check them out.

          Quote: Unknown
          So, the population did not consist of clinical idiots; it would be more expensive for them to provide support, but they preferred to distance themselves and keep quiet.
          even if it was until 1953, as you think, let it be.
          Their population fed them, watered them, washed their clothes - and this during the famine of 1947!!! I can just picture the front-line soldiers snatching food from hungry children to feed the "hated" Banderites, yeah. They'd rather throw a grenade in a cache or an axe to the head - if only not supported!!!
          That was the problem - the lack of mass support from the population.
          Where the population supports the bandits, they hold out; where there is no support, they are destroyed fairly quickly. The "Werewolf" fanatics were exterminated within three years.
          1. -2
            25 February 2026 10: 15
            Quote: your1970
            Yeah, but for some reason the MGB reports don't say a word about "killed" people—it's mostly just "attacked a village, killed a local police officer and the chairman, attacked a food truck, fired on the police station," and so on. Some of the MGB reports were declassified long ago—check them out.

            Here the - declassified, but you need to read everything, not just selectively. If it had, there wouldn't have been attacks on food trucks and the like. Read the "I Remember" project; there's a lot of interesting information about those times. For example, the memoirs of Nikolai Nikolaevich Dushansky, an MGB officer.
            Quote: your1970
            even if it was until 1953, as you think, let it be.

            I don't think so, I know. My maternal grandfather rounded up the remaining prisoners in Šiauliai, and he himself lived and worked in the Estonian SSR until 91. At work, he encountered ex-prisoners—Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians—who kept their mouths shut, and the Soviet government even paid their pensions?! Some of those who had already been released were still being rounded up by the Cheka in the early 80s, due to new cases they had opened. It was their own people who turned them in and tried them in show trials. No one supported them there; in 49, they cleaned things out again, realizing there would be no white ship from the West, and no one wanted to go to jail. The last Estonian forest brother, holed up on his farm until 1978, was turned in by his own people when the local police officer came, and he jumped into the river while escaping, drowning. Then Gorbachev came and they crawled out without hiding, they felt which way the wind was blowing.
            1. -1
              25 February 2026 10: 25
              Quote: Unknown
              Nobody supported them there, in 49 they cleaned it out.

              Has the date shifted from 1953 to 1949? The MGB losses were apparently just made up for show, and the military awards were given in 1957 not for catching Banderovites, but just for show—since they "cleaned everything up" in either 53 or 49?

              Quote: Unknown
              Last Estonian forest brother, sat in a hole on his farm until 1978 -of the year

              Quote: Unknown
              Then Gorbachev came and crawled out

              Just make up your mind - were they in there until 1978 or until Gorbachev?
              Otherwise it turns out strange - "they exterminated everyone by 1978, but under Gorbachev they all crawled out" - don't you think?
              1. -2
                25 February 2026 10: 48
                Quote: your1970
                Has the date shifted from 1953 to 1949? The MGB losses were apparently just made up for show, and the military awards were given in 1957 not for catching Banderovites, but just for show—since they "cleaned everything up" in either 53 or 49?

                Which date shifted? If they cleared out the people in '49, then who was left by '53? The MGB wasn't just catching the last of the bunch; they were also sending in saboteurs, spies, anyone they could, and there were plenty of bandits, too.
                Quote: your1970
                Just make up your mind - were they in there until 1978 or until Gorbachev?
                Otherwise it turns out strange - "they exterminated everyone by 1978, but under Gorbachev they all crawled out" - don't you think?

                What are they going to decide? Look, in the Pskov region, a former policeman spent over 40 years in his sister's basement?! Like a rat. Nothing strange, the government changed, and that's why they're crawling out. And to certain other figures, too—they erected monuments to Shkuro, for example.
                1. +1
                  25 February 2026 12: 08
                  Quote: Unknown
                  So the MGB not only caught the last of the line, but also saboteurs and spies, everyone who could sent them

                  Do you remember geography?
                  What if someone send to Ukraine - it was necessary for him to pass our border, Poland with Soviet troops, the GDR with Soviet troops and the strict border regime of the FRG and the GDR.
                  Ukraine was surrounded on all sides by countries of the socialist camp with Soviet troops.
                  That's why the Banderites received single liaisons from the West.

                  Oh, pardon me, what kind of liaison officers are there? - all of them.
                  Quote: Unknown
                  in 49 - they cleaned it up,
                  ...
                  1. -1
                    25 February 2026 19: 05
                    Quote: your1970
                    Do you remember geography?
                    In order to send someone to Ukraine, they would have to cross our border, Poland with Soviet troops, the GDR with Soviet troops and the strict border regime of the FRG and the GDR.
                    Ukraine was surrounded on all sides by countries of the socialist camp with Soviet troops.
                    Therefore, Banderovites received isolated contacts from the West.

                    Oh, pardon me, what kind of liaison officers are there? - all of them.

                    What does geography have to do with it? Do you even understand what I'm talking about? For a tax official, where formality is the cornerstone, it's strange to hear such talk. Spies and saboteurs probably preferred to hike to the USSR's borders, taking the criminal element with them, ignoring air transport. lol
                    Quote: your1970
                    Oh, pardon me, what kind of liaison officers are there? - all of them.

                    Pardon me, but the liaison officers also walked on foot... all the way from the borders of Germany? laughing
                    1. +1
                      25 February 2026 19: 52
                      Quote: Unknown
                      ignoring air method delivery.

                      Hmm, and who could have done that? fly in/fly out In the USSR - until 1949, when they supposedly "cleaned it out" - is it really intriguing????
                      They even started launching balloons towards us later.

                      Quote: Unknown
                      Pardon me, but the liaison officers also walked on foot... all the way from the borders of Germany?
                      Let me remind you that during this period, there was only one air force from Vladivostok to the GDR-WRG border. There were no other aircraft in the air over this territory. The GDR and Polish air forces appeared later.
                      1. -1
                        25 February 2026 22: 16
                        Quote: your1970
                        Hmm, and who could have flown/flown to the USSR before 1949, when they supposedly "cleaned it out" - it's downright intriguing????
                        They even started launching balloons towards us later.

                        "When you speak, Ivan Vasilyevich, it seems like you are delirious!" lol In your spare time, take an interest in the espionage activities against the USSR from the 40s to the 70s, so as not to... get carried away.
                        Quote: your1970
                        Let me remind you that during this period, there was only one air force from Vladivostok to the GDR-WRG border. There were no other aircraft in the air over this territory. The GDR and Polish air forces appeared later.

                        Yeah...go ahead and read "In August 1944" by Vladimir Bogomolov. It's fiction, but there's some truth to it. And what a "Scab" is—slang for a parachutist-saboteur. When they're trying to prove something, you at least have to be in the know. The internet is right there.
                        On the night of May 14-15, 1951, a US intelligence military transport plane (without identification) took off from Athens Airport and violated Soviet airspace, dropping two US intelligence agents by parachute. Upon landing, the parachutist agents, Sarantsev and Osmanov, were detained near the city of Bender in the Moldavian SSR. ... May 1952 - A US intelligence plane violated Soviet airspace and dropped three parachutist agents. Agents Kurochkin, Voloshanovsky, and Koshelev (carrying forged documents, machine guns, pistols, hand grenades, and firing devices disguised as pens) were detained near Tsuman Station in the Volyn Region ... August 27, 1952 - A US intelligence plane violated Soviet airspace and dropped four parachutist agents over the territory of the Byelorussian SSR. Shortly after landing, the paratroopers were discovered; one was killed in a firefight, and three were detained. On October 15, 1952, a B-47B Stratojet reconnaissance aircraft piloted by Colonel Donald Hillman, departed Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, crossed the Arctic Ocean, turned back, and flew through Siberia and Providence. This flight is considered by American military historians to be the first US reconnaissance mission to penetrate deep into the Soviet Union.
                        The list is long, as they say—it's all about what the Chekists were awarded for. As for "cleaned out," it's because you can spot a scoundrel; he won't say or do anything openly, everything is underhanded, and he'll even sneak into the party. How do you figure him out? For example, Kravchuk, born in 1934 in Poland. After the annexation of Western Ukraine, he became a citizen of the USSR. He said that as a child, he carried bread to the Banderites' hiding places. But as he grew older, he made a remarkable communist career. Or, as Vasyl Zastavny, one of the leaders of the Lviv regional "lead" of the OUN, said
                        "The era of fighting pistols and machine guns is over. Another era has arrived – a period of fighting for the youth, a period of integrating into Soviet power with the goal of regenerating it under Bolshevik slogans... Our goal is to infiltrate all possible positions, to be as involved as possible in the management of industry, transportation, education, youth leadership, and to instill in the youth all things national..."
                        Why go far? Shpakovsky was a party member, but he didn't share the ideals; you could say he passively rejected Soviet power, despite the fact that his grandfather, grandmother, and mother were active communists and towed the party line, and they themselves were born in the prosperous USSR, yet you breathe poison on it. That's how it is.
                        Better a clear enemy than a sneaky flatterer and hypocrite; so disfigure humanity.
                        ~ Peter I ~
                      2. +2
                        26 February 2026 06: 25
                        Quote: Unknown
                        "When you speak, Ivan Vasilyevich, it seems like you're delirious!" In your spare time, look into the espionage activities against the USSR from the 40s to the 70s, so as not to...spoil yourself.

                        Once again - slowly - ALL espionage activities massively started after 1950 - if you don't notice it even in your quotes.
                        One comrade beat his chest here: "By 1949, everything was cleared out."
                        See the discrepancy in the dates? Who were the liaisons and saboteurs sent to in 1951, if everyone was cleared out in 1949??!!!

                        Z. Y.
                        All the "scabies" related to the Third Reich, which ended in 1945.
                      3. -2
                        26 February 2026 07: 08
                        Quote: your1970
                        Once again - slowly - ALL spy activities began en masse after 1950 - in case you didn't notice that even in your quotes.
                        One comrade beat his chest here: "By 1949, everything was cleared out."
                        See the discrepancy in the dates? Who were the liaisons and saboteurs sent to in 1951, if everyone was cleared out in 1949??!!!

                        Z. Y.
                        All the "scabies" related to the Third Reich, which ended in 1945.
                        Reply
                        Quote

                        Do you understand Russian or what? Who said everyone was purged?
                        By 53, most of the Banderites and so-called "forest brothers" were killed, and the rest hid in their holes and didn't chirp...in 49 they cleaned things up there again.
                        What does the word "majority" mean? Do you understand? Working in a government agency gives you a certain behavioral pattern.stubbornnessGo to Wikipedia, there It's written in black and white in Russian
                        According to Soviet data, during the first half of 1949, as a result of 334 Cheka-military operations and a number of intelligence operations, 120 combat groups and underground organizations of the OUN were liquidated, and 913 OUN and UPA members and their supporters were killed, captured, or arrested. The Bolsheviks' greatest success was the assassination of OPA Chief of the General Military Staff Oleksandr Gasin in Lviv, as well as the OUN liaison point with its leader, Osip. The success of these operations was due to skillful work with intelligence agents and a well-executed intelligence-operational combination. In the fall of 1949, the question arose about the fate of the remnants of the UPA, which had exhausted its capabilities as an armed group. Consequently, the UHVR officially "temporarily" terminated the activities of UPA structures on September 3, 1949, by order of Roman Shukhevych.
                        Further in the same place
                        In 1950, UPA leader Roman Shukhevych was assassinated. In August 1951, Soviet state security agencies launched their final large-scale offensive against the remnants of the nationalist underground. Between August 1, 1951, and April 17, 1952, 172 OUN leaders and members, 113 combat commanders, and a total of 949 people were liquidated in the western regions. Of these, 635 were killed and 252 captured alive. The MGB also managed to eliminate 50 underground members in the Zhytomyr and Kamianets-Podilskyi regions. In response to the repressive actions, the rebels launched 79 armed attacks.

                        At the end of 1951, due to general losses in the OUN(b) underground, the Security Service structures were dissolved; their personnel took up leadership positions in the OUN underground...
                        It's all there in the anti-Soviet Wikipedia; as an anti-Soviet, you can glean information from there. I don't think there's any point in arguing with this stubborn person any further, citing the obvious, as Zheglov said... Listen, Sharapov, what I don't like, what I simply can't stand in people, is stubbornness. Stubbornness is the first sign of stupidity! lol
                      4. 0
                        26 February 2026 07: 57
                        Quote: Unknown
                        Do you understand Russian or what? Who said that everyone was cleared out?

                        Well, that's how it is you they said
                        Quote: Unknown
                        If they cleaned up in 49, then who was left by 53?


                        And regarding Vika and her truthfulness lol -
                        "The popular myth of Russian propaganda about the creation of the SS Galicia division by Bandera is indicative, although it was formed from local volunteers, and the OUN(b) declared a boycott of mobilization into the division[11], conducted corresponding agitation and willingly accepted deserters from the Galicia division into the ranks of the UPA."
    2. -10
      25 February 2026 09: 17
      It's funny to read Stalinists dreaming of a strong hand. Have they already forgotten about the "troikas"? And "into the camp dust"? Even children? Of course, this wouldn't affect you. Yeah, right, you're supposedly "righteous"... What's interesting is that everyone here is smearing everything with Khrushchev's turds, but it was the 60s, the so-called "Khrushchev Thaw," that marked the heyday and best years of Soviet civilization.
      1. +8
        25 February 2026 09: 27
        Have you already forgotten about "troikas" and "into the camp dust"?

        The only problem is that all the stories about the "troikas" belong to the most brutal executioners, like Khrushchev, and "camp dust" is generally from fiction, as is "no man - no problem" and so on.
      2. +1
        25 February 2026 09: 55
        But you, enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people, praise Nicholas II with his 8 years of famine in Russia during the 20 peaceful years of his reign, with his large-scale political repressions and executions for the Russian Empire, with his "fives" handing down death sentences with their execution within 48 hours, and when you are caught in hypocrisy, in double standards, you cowardly wriggle out of it in a cliched way - but if Nicholas II had less of all this, then he doesn't count
        Nicholas II wrote on June 2, 1906: “…The death penalty is unfortunately an inevitable phenomenon at the present time. But it is necessary that persons who have committed a crime punishable by death not languish for a long time in anticipation of it, and that sentences in these cases be passed and executed no later than 48 hours after the crime has been committed. Such a quick punishment will also have a more deterrent effect.” (TsGIA USSR, f. 1276, op. 1, d. 92, l. 11)
  14. 0
    25 February 2026 07: 59
    who, on February 25, at a meeting of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, presented his sensational report “On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences” to the participants.

    This is how Gorbachev lived as a Ukrainian.
    His wife is a total Bandera supporter.

    So it was a CRAP.
    1. 0
      25 February 2026 08: 12
      Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
      This is how Gorbachev lived as a Ukrainian.

      Where did you get the firewood from? He wasn't Ukrainian, but Brezhnev was. And Gorbachev's wife was born in Siberia. You're making an owl out of it.
      1. +1
        25 February 2026 08: 13
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        Where did you get the firewood from? He wasn't Ukrainian, but Brezhnev was. And Gorbachev's wife was born in Siberia. You're making an owl out of it.


        I, a sleep-deprived idiot, confused him with Khrushchev.
        I wanted to talk about Khrushchev, but ended up shitting myself. wassat
        1. +2
          25 February 2026 08: 16
          Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
          I, a sleep-deprived idiot, confused him with Khrushchev.
          I wanted to talk about Khrushchev, but ended up shitting myself.

          Well, Khrushchev, yes, but it's even worse. He's Russian, but he turned into a rabid Ukrainian.
          1. +1
            25 February 2026 08: 18
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            Well, Khrushchev, yes, but it's even worse. He's Russian, but he turned into a rabid Ukrainian.


            Leontyev (the presenter) once said in 15:
            Today's Ukrainian, a nationally conscious person, is a Russian person who has so wanted to stop being Russian that he has ceased to be a human being."


            It seems to have always been relevant.
  15. +3
    25 February 2026 08: 03
    Removing Stalin from the USSR is like removing Mao from Chinese history.
    The consequences will be dire.
    Actually, 1991 is it.
  16. 0
    25 February 2026 08: 20
    He walked from house to house,

    Knocking at other people's doors

    With an old oak panduri

    With a simple song of his own.



    And in his song, and in the song -

    How the sun shine is clear

    Great truth sounded

    Sublime dream.



    Hearts turned to stone

    Managed to beat

    Many woke up his mind,

    Dozing in deep darkness.



    But instead of the greatness of fame

    People of his land

    Outcast Poison

    Presented in a bowl.



    They said to him: “Damned,

    Drink, drain to the bottom ...

    And your song is alien to us

    And your truth is not needed! ”



    Iveria. 1895. No. 218 (in Georgian. Language).

    Joseph Stalin. Poems. S. 6.
  17. 0
    25 February 2026 08: 23
    The Stalin period was a time of power, greatness and prosperity of the socialist Great Russia (USSR).

    It will be interesting to see how the current period will be assessed...
    1. -1
      26 February 2026 08: 11
      Quote: Million
      The Stalin period was a time of power, greatness and prosperity of the socialist Great Russia (USSR).

      It will be interesting to see how the current period will be assessed...

      And depending on the circumstances, if they live better, they will say, "Oh, so-so...", if they live worse, they will say, "But we lived well under Putin!"
      Everything is relative.....
      In 2016-17, a joke was going around Ukraine: "We thought Yanukovych was stealing from the budget, but he was adding his own money!!" (c)
  18. -1
    25 February 2026 08: 23
    The change in social order led to the loss of property by the ruling class and a civil war, which the Red Army had little chance of winning, since the entire world, from European friends to Japan, was on the side of the capitalists, and there was no unity in the party ranks and leadership, while the Russian Orthodox Church still vilifies the leaders of the proletariat and canonizes the gentlemen led by the deposed tsar, contemptuously nicknamed "Nikolashka" by the people.
    1. 0
      25 February 2026 09: 52
      The state is the political organization of the ruling class and protects its interests. The Great October Socialist Revolution was so great because it was not a handful of rich men who had grown rich by exploiting the people who headed the state, but rather the previously oppressed people, united around the party of the proletariat. Mr. Medinsky, the inventor of modern history, remains silent about this, praising the personal and human qualities of the representatives of the oppressors—and it's understandable why—and thereby distorts the essence of history, the Soviet state, V.I. Lenin, and I.V. Stalin.
  19. +1
    25 February 2026 08: 28
    Khrushchev had the same quality as the enemies of the USSR who captured the USSR - in order to present themselves as better than others, they need to slander others.
    And all the total slander of the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people against Stalin only led to the fact that his popularity only grows, and in almost every vote on the Internet about the best leader of our country in the pre-revolutionary, Soviet, anti-Soviet period, Stalin wins.
  20. 0
    25 February 2026 08: 50
    And what will the "wise and guiding CPSU" say? How is it possible for such bastards and traitors to become leaders within its ranks? And it's not just that Khrushchev-era asshole with a mark—there are many, many others...
    1. 0
      27 February 2026 19: 43
      Why only the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? Do you know other parties that didn't have this? There should probably be a balance, more good and less bad. If there is, the authorities will be treated with respect. Under Stalin, there was collective leadership and personal responsibility, then personal leadership and complete irresponsibility for the task entrusted to them.
  21. -1
    25 February 2026 09: 10
    Alexander Samsonov frankly baffles me. I read his materials and can't figure out his position. One minute he'll unleash a scurrilous anti-Soviet article, the next he'll write an objective analysis of the history of the Russian state. What is this? A search for truth like Zinoviev (who went from communist to anti-Soviet and then back again to become a staunch Marxist) or something else?
  22. -5
    25 February 2026 09: 12
    A biased and even harmful article for understanding Stalin's personality.
    Although, personally, I would prefer monuments to Stalin in the squares than Lenin’s idols.
    Speaking on May 19, 1919, at the First All-Russian Congress on Extracurricular Education, Lenin delivered his "Speech on the Deception of the People with Slogans of Freedom and Equality," stating:
    "It's rather foolish to criticize Kolchak simply for raping workers and even flogging teachers for sympathizing with the Bolsheviks. This is a vulgar defense of democracy, these are stupid accusations against Kolchak. Kolchak acts in the ways he finds."
    The same could be said of Stalin. He quickly grasped all of Lenin's nonsense about "world revolution" and the fact that the country was on the brink of collapse. In the conditions of civil war and the devastation brought upon Russia by "revolutionaries," or, to put it simply, educated bandits, if things couldn't be fixed, then it was better to lead and use the same methods to save the country. To run in 10 years and recreate a state capable of existing under Western terror, you'd have to be not Jesus, but the Devil. And the former seminarian became just that. Because he understood that the Empire had to be rebuilt. It's foolish to claim any kind of state of social justice. It didn't exist under Tsarism, it didn't exist in the USSR, and it doesn't exist now.
    The damage Khrushchev inflicted borders on deliberate betrayal, on the one hand, and the petty vindictiveness of a cowardly man for his eternal fear of the Leader—of a Person whom, try as you might, you can't touch. So, he's got to shit. When Dad read the report, he slammed his fist on the table and said, "That's it! We've screwed up the country!" He knew what he was talking about. He'd been through the war from start to finish.
    In my opinion, the main mistake of Stalin, and indeed of all the other great rulers of Russia, was their inability to leave their legacy to worthy heirs. They wanted the best, but it turned out as usual!
  23. +5
    25 February 2026 09: 13
    Compared to Stalin, all these "de-Stalinizers" are just pathetic pygmies who lived and continue to live thanks to his legacy.
  24. -1
    25 February 2026 09: 14
    The article is interesting, but I'd like to know more about how Khrushchev managed to win over Marshal of Victory G.K. Zhukov and the others? Without whom he couldn't have accomplished anything and whom, incidentally, he later removed from power. What did they dislike about Joseph Vissarionovich?
  25. -3
    25 February 2026 09: 26
    In his quest for unlimited power, the latent Trotskyist Khrushchev relied on a “fifth column” of wreckers and enemies of the people, opportunists and imitators who did not want to build communism.

    It's all the same. I'm the boss - you're a fool, You're the boss - I'm a fool.
    Khrushchev was certainly an uneducated leader. Stalin was far superior in terms of education, especially since he actively pursued self-education. However, under Stalin, if not tens of millions, then hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, were repressed and subsequently acquitted, and some of them were executed or died in the Gulag. And that cannot be denied. Yes, and the famine of 1932-33 added millions to the death toll. I personally spoke with people who survived the famine. For Stalin, the people were expendable, although he certainly said otherwise in public. I have no respect for Stalinists. None at all.
    1. -4
      25 February 2026 10: 02
      And who acquitted them, and with what evidence? The enemies of the USSR, to justify their takeover of the USSR, simply removed several clauses from Article 58, including those for anti-Soviet agitation, and declared all those repressed under them "innocent victims," ​​and on this basis declared the communists criminals.
      And so the enemies of the USSR, following their anti-Soviet, Russophobic puppeteers, have been unanimously portraying the Gulag as a communist crime for 40 years, and not a single one of them is capable of honestly and adequately explaining what the Gulag is in their understanding.
      And in their anti-Soviet period, the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people proved that they never admit guilt for their crimes, but they love to accuse others of crimes without evidence and slanderously.
  26. +4
    25 February 2026 09: 42
    Khrushchev couldn't have done anything alone. He was supported by his entourage, Stalin's former entourage at that. And the first person to urge him to fight the Stalin cult was Mikoyan.
    1. -5
      25 February 2026 10: 06
      Well, yes, in the last year the whole world has seen how "one man" is, as those who defend Gorbachev love to crucify themselves, but this time Trump has simply established his totalitarianism and his autocracy - both in his "beacon of democracy" and in the world
    2. +1
      25 February 2026 16: 27
      Malenkov and Beria were the first to declare the fight against personality cults.
  27. -4
    25 February 2026 10: 24
    The enemies of the USSR are primitive, and their justification for seizing the USSR for their own enrichment at the expense of the country and its people is also primitive. If the Bolsheviks had been the same, they too could have used the same cliché to accuse the Romanovs of constantly staging "famines," repressing, executing, and imprisoning only the innocent—the "best, hardest-working, gene pool, and cream of the nation"—and to declare Nicholas II a criminal for the mass deportations of hundreds of thousands of people of "unreliable" nationalities in 1914-1916.
  28. +2
    25 February 2026 11: 27
    Quote: Couch General
    A chicken with its head cut off can also run around the yard for a couple of days.

    belay If it's a couple of days, then that means he spends the night with his head cut off? laughing
  29. +3
    25 February 2026 11: 29
    It's a shame no one is writing about the true authors of the text about the "cult" that Khrushchev read out. Three years after Comrade Stalin's assassination, this libel was prepared with the help of internal "communists."
  30. +1
    25 February 2026 11: 31
    Stalin responded to Churchill's Fulton speech, which marked the beginning of the Cold War. He expressed an idea that remains very relevant today.

    "Hitler began the business of unleashing war by proclaiming a racial theory, declaring that only people who speak German constitute a full-fledged nation. Mr. Churchill also begins the business of unleashing war with a racial theory, asserting that only nations speaking English are full-fledged nations."
  31. +2
    25 February 2026 12: 17
    Good day. Any imperial formation, in one way or another, carries within itself the "seed" of its own self-destruction. Right now, for example, I, one might say, am a "relic of timelessness, an archaic creature" who grew up in the late Soviet era. Just so you know, I'm Uzbek, and unlike the clichés and stereotypes, I grew up in a purely military family—my late father, a combat officer, a colonel. In an "elite" environment—my parents and all my so-called multinational "aunts and uncles" were, in one way or another, connected to space, the rocket industry, the defense and security of that, dare I say it, Great Country. I observe the "newest trends" in our countries with curiosity, sometimes with horror. After all, that same "everyday nationalism" didn't arise out of nowhere. It's just that what was the subject of ridicule, sometimes innocent, slightly harsh jokes during the Soviet era—about the stinginess and thriftiness of Ukrainians, the "businesslike" and "hucksterism" of Uzbeks, the love of luxury and the pursuit of wealth of Armenians and Georgians, the "recklessness" and love of drinking and fighting of Kazakhs, about Russians—you write yourselves what qualities other nations consider you to have… *))) and so on and so forth—has now transformed from a joke into a more than serious accusation against each other and an option to segregate what was once a single, "Soviet people." You know, the "ruling elite" is its own thing. The most important thing is the worldview and worldview of individuals, which combine to form the worldview and worldview of social groups, nations, and peoples.
    I'm currently having an interesting conversation with a British woman. When the conversation turned to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, she initially rattled off a full list of standard "accusations" against "aggressive Russia." When we went through each point, starting with the division of the USSR into separate "fiefdoms," she concluded, "Yes, I didn't know Ukraine had been so persistently tugging at the whiskers (their spelling was "kicked in the balls") of a sleeping bear for so many years, and now it's whining and crying when it's woken up and tearing everything around it to pieces."
    Then she began to reason in a different direction – that yes, she understands that we, all the republics of the USSR, lived "as one family," but now Russia, for some reason, has single-handedly appropriated all the "laurels of the USSR's victories and achievements," claiming, for example, that Russia won World War II, "forgetting" the other countries of the former USSR. And here too – in fact, a little disingenuously, to be honest! – I had to explain to her that, "No, what are you saying? This is actually a cliché of Western journalists, who have long been accustomed to referring to even the USSR as Russia. But no – May 9th is our shared holiday. And all the presidents and veterans of those countries that adhere to an unbiased historiography in their domestic politics – are usually in Moscow on this day, celebrating this common and memorable date. And always, on this date, caring people from all over the former USSR come to visit those veterans who are unable to leave their homes. This is absolutely true. People from Russia, Belarus, and elsewhere come every year to visit Uzbek, one of the last "Stalingrad" warriors, the defenders of "Pavlov's House" in Andijan, simply to support him morally and financially. At the government level, Russia strictly adheres to the principles of respect for the countries of the former USSR and in no way belittles their past and present victories and achievements, or their shared contribution to development.
    So, I repeat – governments past, present, and future have absolutely nothing to do with this. Empires are created and destroyed by people themselves. You and I. You and I destroyed the USSR, and what happens next, time will tell. But for now, I see far more efforts toward segregation along national, religious, and mental lines. Sometimes, even completely irresponsible statements slip out of the mouths of some politicians. Hmm… So – we'll see what happens… *)))
    1. 0
      25 February 2026 13: 12
      The worldview and perception of individuals is shaped by the ruling elite, through many means. And to prove to the ruling elite that they alone in this part of the former empire are worthy of milking the local population, they need to emphasize the uniqueness of their herd and its differences from all the others. The best way to achieve this is through rabid nationalism, which is diligently cultivated in absolutely every fragment of the empire, from Belarus to Estonia. So there's nothing to see.
    2. -1
      25 February 2026 18: 25
      Nationalism has always been there. How can we avoid nationalism if, for example, Uzbeks want to preserve their language and culture? But nationalism must be gentle, respectful of other nations, and, of course, without oppression. There are fine lines here, and there must be coexistence, discussion, and mutual concessions. As soon as true radical nationalists or even radical believers appear, expect trouble.
      1. +2
        25 February 2026 18: 37
        radical nationalists or even radical believers
        Yes... religious radicalism is something from the realm of schizophrenia... and radical nationalism is pure paranoia... Both require strict "sanitary" countermeasures... *)) At one time, Uzbekistan was "lucky" with its first president, a "dictator" - although he was a tough man, with gross excesses in both domestic and foreign policy - but on his plus side, he practically "cut out" radical nationalism at the root, but most importantly, he "weeded the religious garden" of Uzbekistan so thoroughly that the irony is that our religious radicals fled and still flee to Russia, considering it more tolerant towards them... *))) Here, in Uzbekistan, you can't mess around with religions, "thank God" for the slightest "wrong actions that can be interpreted as religious extremism" he will "get it in the neck" - that you won't know what hit you... *)))
    3. +1
      25 February 2026 20: 54
      You remind her how it all began in 1654, and even with the Russian principalities, that the so-called Ukrainians did not have Princes, as well as Herzegovina, Counts, Marquises, Sultans, Emirs, Shahs, Khans, .... But there were hetmans, lords, atamans ... About what happened after the First World War, Thalerhof 1914, the purge of those who considered themselves Russian, the collapse of the Russian Empire, the abdication of the Tsar, the Civil War, the occupation of the territory of Ukraine by Germany, the Entente countries, the British American (Northern Expedition), the Japanese territory of Russia, concentration camps, the formation of the UPR with Western support for nationalists, the execution of 400 workers of the Arsenal plant in Kyiv, about the fate of the Russian territories that ended up in the UPR, about the formation of republics after the collapse of the Russian Empire, about those that became part of The Ukrainian SSR, why did they remain there, in one state, during the formation of the USSR, the transfer of the Donetsk-Krtvorozh Republic by Lenin in 1918, about the transfer of Crimea in 1954 by Khrushchev for supporting the communists of the Ukrainian SSR for the post of General Secretary, the history of the founding of Sevastopol, Nikolaev, Mariupol, Nikopol, Kherson, Odessa, Zaporozhye (Aleksandrovsk), Dnepropetrovsk (Ekaterinoslav), Donetsk Yuzovka, Lugansk, Kirovograd (Yelisavetgrad), ancient Russian, Chernigov, Sumy, Kharkov...

      There will be something to talk about...Operation Aerodynamics.... Tatyana Borsch's documentary "Donbass Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow" about crimes against civilians and the genocide of civilians in Stanytsia Luhanska...
    4. -2
      27 February 2026 19: 30
      "I repeat - governments past, present, and future have absolutely nothing to do with it. Empires are created and destroyed by the people themselves."
      Governments are led by people who are destroying empires. Gorbachev, Yeltsin, the mass murder of Russian families in Central Asia, Tajikistan in particular, and now mass migration. Friendship between peoples is only possible with a strong leader who is capable of creating equal conditions for all. Until that happens, there will be no friendship or mutual respect.
      1. +1
        28 February 2026 13: 46
        Uh-huh... so, by your logic, a person or group of people who have no respect for other nations, customs, traditions, or even for the life and freedom of PEOPLE—under the watchful "guidance of supreme leaders"—will suddenly, out of the blue, become so "white and fluffy," right? *)))) "Mass murders" of people, of any nationality, throughout the CIS were a trend in the 90s throughout the former USSR. For example, in the mid-4s, Russian and Kazakh "businesses" practiced slave labor, especially of Central Asians, followed by the physical extermination of the "workers" to reduce "costs" and maximize profits. According to official data alone, in 2007, 400.000 people from Uzbekistan were practically enslaved in Kazakhstan (note, these weren't just Uzbeks; Uzbekistan, thank God, is multinational, with over 100 nationalities living there). At the same time, about the same number were enslaved in Russia. THESE ARE ONLY OFFICIALLY REPORTED CASES. Even in 2015, when I was passing through Moscow from Sweden (I was there for a scientific conference), the Uzbek Ministry of Labor asked me to secretly inspect the state of affairs with workers. What I saw there (in Kolomna, power line expansions) HORRIFIED me. When I started to express outrage about all this, I was "rewarded" with a fractured leg and a pretty bad concussion. You know, I remember the 90s. After university, I had to don epaulettes and defend the southern borders, the only education left of my great Motherland, for almost four years. So, it turns out, =this makes me want to swear, but oh well, I've already got a ton of sanctions from the site moderators=, I defended all sorts of faggots... oh, "creatures" who live by their own "parochial" principles, no matter whether they're Uzbek, Russian, Kazakh, etc., etc., and with a stupid, stubborn expression on their face, they push their tales of the superiority of their NATION, right?.. *)))) Ny, ny... =spit=...
        1. 0
          28 February 2026 19: 17
          Where in Russia were people from Central Asia exterminated en masse? There are emotions, and there are facts, and Russian refugees from the Central Asian region lived in Russia on a shoestring. No one fled Russia for Central Asia, abandoning their apartments and belongings.
          1. 0
            28 February 2026 19: 50
            That's right, there are emotions and there are facts... I wrote to you clearly about the incident in 2015... it doesn't matter who they were - just people from Central Asia, some of them, coming for the "long ruble" (life is like that, you had money back then, people went to earn it). Fly-by-night firms take on contracts, for example, to expand power lines - the people toil away, and when it's time to pay, it's a 50/50 split - the section of the power line where they're working "accidentally" turns out to be on. The result: several corpses, sanctions, showdowns - people without money. They make a fuss - they're "accepted" and then thrown out. Or the company's management simply disappears, the people make a fuss, they're "accepted" by the security forces and thrown out of the country. Construction in Kazakhstan, in Russia - this is already the reality of the mid-2000s - people are lured to work in various ways, and when it's finished, they disappear. There are testimonies from those who miraculously survived – about the physical destruction of people when it came to paying them. Both Kazakhstan and Russia are big, you'll never find where they ended up. I personally rescued 36 people from slavery in 2007 – and yes, I emphasize, this was in Kazakhstan, not Russia. But your countries are very similar, in fact. In the 2000s and early 2010s, your business was going wild with fat. In those years, all the Tashkent metro cars were plastered with public service announcements – hands in chains and the words, "If you're going to work in Kazakhstan or Russia, think carefully, weigh everything carefully." Now, read CAREFULLY what I wrote ABOVE. The late 1980s and 1990s were very difficult. A lot of nationalist rot reared its head EVERYWHERE. But the leadership of Uzbekistan, to their credit, curbed this wave by the late 1990s. A shitload of those nationalist, religiously obsessed assholes from back then perished in prison or are still in jail. And again, if everything had been as critical as you want to paint, Uzbekistan would now be mono-ethnic, with no more than 100 nationalities living there (around 130, I think). They would all have been wiped out, just as you want to imagine. As for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, I can't say anything, except that a contingent of Uzbek troops was deployed in Tajikistan—to prevent their civil war and religious extremists from spreading to us, and to prevent their current president from ascending to the throne on our and your (Russian) bayonets. For which the Tajiks don't particularly like us Uzbeks. And we are, to them, the "yard terriers" of Central Asia—some of them consider themselves "Aryans," while we are just a mixture of all the bloodlines of Eurasia... *))) Again, I repeat, I don't want to start a row with you. I was simply stating my point of view—my thinking is old, Soviet, international. I'm simply pointing out that critical thinking, without attempts to embellish one's "place," is the foundation of rationality and mental health... *))))
            1. 0
              28 February 2026 21: 05
              There was a time in Russia when people were cheated out of money, but they cheated everyone, regardless of religion or nationality. However, this still happens today, and it also happens that workers, having received their money, run away without completing the work. As I understand from what you wrote, migrants are simply taking revenge for past grievances, and they have every right to do so.
              1. The comment was deleted.
  32. +1
    25 February 2026 12: 33
    If the people want a new Stalin, then they'll get a new Stalin. But then they shouldn't complain that Stalin was forced upon them by the reptilians and the State Department. They'll do it themselves, all by themselves.
  33. +1
    25 February 2026 13: 05
    The only thing I don't understand is why Khrushch is a closet Trotskyist? That's the first time I've heard that. It would be fine if they called him a latent Banderite; that would at least be closer to the truth.
    1. +2
      25 February 2026 14: 05
      Quote: alovrov
      The only thing I don't understand is why Khrushch is a closet Trotskyist? That's the first time I've heard that. It would be fine if they called him a latent Banderite; that would at least be closer to the truth.

      I also don't understand by what criteria he was registered as a Trotskyist... what do Trotskyists have to do with it, I don't know...
  34. +1
    25 February 2026 14: 26
    It was with this false report by Kukuruznik that the collapse of the USSR began.
  35. +1
    25 February 2026 15: 54
    Be that as it may, there are ALWAYS fresh flowers at the bust of I.V. Stalin on the grave. I respect that.
  36. +2
    25 February 2026 16: 26
    For comparison, George Washington was a slave owner, owning around 200 slaves who worked for him. As an owner, he had the opportunity to free them during his lifetime, but he didn't. This is a well-known fact, and no one blames him for it. It's not worth noting—the father of the nation, a slave owner, who considers it perfectly normal to own a person whose life he controls from birth to death. This is so outrageous that all attempts to denigrate Stalin against this backdrop look amateurish.
  37. The comment was deleted.
  38. +1
    25 February 2026 19: 13
    Quote: Olgovich
    Quote from Uncle Lee
    nationwide love and respect for the leader

    Our Soviet people sings a lot of songs
    Above the fields, dense forests.
    Sounds in every song, lives in every song
    The popular name of Stalin.

    This name we carry everywhere with us
    With him, all breadth is open, all have given.
    We will all follow you for the feat
    Our banner of victory, our Stalin!

    We will part the forests, conquer the skies.
    Inaccessible do not know the barriers.
    The leader inspires us to do miracles,
    Inspired by a great example.

    We, by the courage of grief, sail the seas, -
    Enemies cannot whiten us.
    Over Soviet soil, the light will not be replaced by darkness,
    The Sun-Stalin shines above her.


    This name we carry everywhere with us
    With him, all breadth is open, all have given.
    We will all follow you to any feat,
    Our banner of victory, our Stalin!

    Stalin is a nation that goes to victories
    On tops of cloudless slopes.
    Stalin is our business
    Stalin - the wings of an eagle,
    Stalin is the will and mind of millions!

    And then UNANIMOUSLY the cream of the party, the delegates of the 20th Congress, condemned the cult of personality, including Molotov, Kaganovich, Voroshilov, Malenkov, and other associates of the leader

    V.M. Molotov:

    "Both our significant successes in the affairs of the country's internal life and our important successes in the field of foreign policy are connected with the fact that after the 19th Congress the Central Committee implemented the Leninist principle of collective leadership.

    Supported by the entire party, the Central Committee firmly opposed the cult of personality, alien to Marxism-Leninism, which played such a negative role in a certain period. We can express confidence that this congress will fully approve this fundamental installation" (p. 467).

    L. M. Kaganovich:

    "After the 19th Party Congress, the Central Committee boldly (I mean principled, ideological, and theoretical boldness) raised the question of fighting the personality cult. This is not an easy question.The cult of personality is a harmful cult; it demeans the masses, the party, and its leadership..

    "The exposure of the personality cult and a correct Marxist-Leninist understanding of the role of the masses, the role of the party and its leadership, and the role of leaders is of exceptional importance for strengthening the unity of the party. The fight against the personality cult has proven to be a crucial factor in the formation and consolidation of the collective leadership of our party" (p. 532).

    A. I. Mikoyan:

    "The principle of collective leadership is elementary for a proletarian party, for a party of the Leninist type, but it is necessary to emphasize this old truth because that for about 20 years it had virtually no collective leadership, and a personality cult flourished, condemned by Marx and then by Lenin, and this, of course, could not help but have an extremely negative impact on the situation in the party and on its activities” (p. 302).

    G. M. Malenkov:

    "...There is no doubt that the entire Party has received with great satisfaction the important measures adopted by the Central Committee during the reporting period, which were aimed at decisively eliminating serious abnormalities in Party life and methods of Party leadership, and at ensuring the precise implementation of the principles of Party leadership developed by Lenin. Everyone understands the fundamental and vital significance of the firm course pursued by the Central Committee against the cult of personality, which is alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. The report rightly emphasizes that The cult of personality is a perversion of Marxist-Leninist teachings. .

    And then they destroyed tens of thousands of monuments, busts, and paintings of the leader, burned millions of his books, threw him out of the mausoleum, and what happened? .A -nothing... ...

    You can't find such leaders these days. And Pushkins and Tchaikovskys are no longer being born.
  39. +2
    25 February 2026 19: 15
    Quote: hermit
    If the people want a new Stalin, then they'll get a new Stalin. But then they shouldn't complain that Stalin was forced upon them by the reptilians and the State Department. They'll do it themselves, all by themselves.

    Well, where can we find such a colossus in terms of leading the country??? Putin?? Medvedev?? Chubais?? He's dust on the boots of the Great Stalin.
  40. +1
    25 February 2026 20: 44
    I.V. Stalin is the most outstanding leader of Russia and the USSR
  41. 0
    25 February 2026 21: 05
    History has shown that Stalin was a true cult of personality.
  42. The comment was deleted.
  43. 0
    26 February 2026 15: 09
    Realizing his insignificance, the corn-grower tried to dance the hopak on the grave of the dead titan.
  44. 0
    28 February 2026 11: 24
    "My name will be slandered."
    Why lie? There's more than enough truth...
  45. +1
    28 February 2026 19: 19
    Yezhov, Eikhe, and Khrushchev—these were the trinity of the most ardent leaders of the 1937 repressions. Khrushchev, a Trotskyist, had the friendliest relations with the conspirators Tukhachevsky, Gamarnik, and others. But he was cunning: he never held conversations at home, only in places where eavesdropping was impossible, and he always reported meetings to higher-ups.
  46. 0
    1 March 2026 03: 04
    Now when you compare them, it's both bitter and shameful. The sovereign and the manager.
  47. 0
    3 March 2026 02: 41
    In fact, in my opinion, Khrushchev created a cult of personality, his own personality...
  48. 0
    5 March 2026 19: 00
    Stalin = Hitler
    The difference is in the nuances