Military Review

Lenin and Brezhnev went around all

114
Not long ago, the notorious Levada Center (U. Levada’s Analytical Center) is the one to whom the prosecutor’s office issued a warning about the inadmissibility of violating the law on NGOs that receive funding from abroad (foreign agents), conducted an interesting survey of public opinion and published it results. The survey consisted of only one question: “How do you feel about ...?” Instead of dots, representatives of the Levada Center put the rulers of our state, starting with Nicholas II and ending with Boris Yeltsin, and the names of Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko were not mentioned in the poll relations with short terms of their stay in power.




So that readers do not have any questions why the current leader of the state Vladimir Putin is not mentioned in the poll, it is worth saying that about the attitude of Russians towards Putin, Levada Center recently conducted a separate sociological study, the results of which were analyzed in the Military Review in that including Why the poll didn’t have the name Medvedev - another question ... Perhaps soon, the personality of Dmitry Medvedev is waiting for a special study in the framework of the activities of the Levada Center specialists, unless of course such activity is intended to be consistent. Well, in general - the survey covered only the leaders of the state of the XX century only, which, however, the organizers of the survey did not mention.

So, let us return to the survey results on the attitude of the Russians to the Russian rulers from Nicholas II to Boris Yeltsin. 1601 Russian took part in the survey, but it does not say how many regions and which were exactly within the boundaries of this study.
The largest number of Russians, as it turned out, have a positive attitude towards Vladimir Lenin - 15%. The second place in the poll was “taken” by Nicholas II - 14%, the third place was shared by Joseph Stalin and Leonid Brezhnev - by 13% of votes.

Leonid Brezhnev celebrated the victory in the status of “rather positively”; with 3%, he was ahead of Lenin, and he, in turn, “broke off” from Khrushchev in 1%.

The results for the top three "leaders" of the survey under the option "I rather negatively relate to" the following: Mikhail Gorbachev 35%, Boris Yeltsin 34%, Joseph Stalin 25%.

The triple of “leaders” in an extremely negative attitude is the following: Gorbachev 31%, Yeltsin 30%, Stalin 13%.
If you believe the presented results, it turned out that the largest number of respondents cannot express their opinion on the personality of Nicholas II as the ruler of the country.

In order to arrange the politicians considered by the Levada Center specialists in places of popularity among the respondents, one can use a rather effective sports system “indicator of usefulness”. Undoubtedly, it, as well as the whole question of “Levada” will be subjective, but still ... To estimate this indicator, we add up all the positive and “rather positive” ratings, and then subtract the negative and “rather negative” estimates from this amount. After that, the final version of the survey results could be as follows:

Mikhail Gorbachev - minus 44% (more negative evaluations), Boris Yeltsin - minus 42% (more negative evaluations), Nikita Khrushchev 10% (more positive evaluations), Joseph Stalin 12% (more positive evaluations), Vladimir Lenin 27% (positive ratings more), Leonid Brezhnev 27% (more positive ratings), Nicholas II 27% (more positive ratings). If we also deduct from these percentages those that corresponded to the result “I don’t know this”, then Leonid Brezhnev and Vladimir Lenin share the first place.

The survey results show that the majority of citizens surveyed by the Levada Center see the most negative leaders of the country of the twentieth century, Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. Obviously, this is connected with, let's say, living memories of the activities of these sovereigns. If one could not stop (to put it mildly) the collapse of the USSR, and, calling things by their names, did everything for the collapse of a huge country, the second one also aggravated the crisis, dividing the country into two camps - the camp of oligarchs and their associates (1% of the population) and all other citizens ... Naturally, such negative memories of the periods of government of the country Gorbachev and Yeltsin and put them in the aforementioned ranking on the last place with breathtakingly low results.

It is interesting that Gorbachev, not without whose help the USSR collapsed, received a negative percentage of the rating, but Nicholas II, who could not defend the Empire, gained more positive votes among the respondents. With what it can be connected? Perhaps the main reason is that Nicholas II has already managed for most Russians to become such historical a person whose work is difficult to characterize, since too much has flowed since the end of his reign. In addition, Nicholas II, along with his family, was a victim in the hands of the new government, and Mikhail Gorbachev, during his lifetime, also receives the highest state awards ... Hence the significant difference in the political rating that the respondents gave.

For some reason, Leonid Ilyich is not surprised. After all, most of today's Russians have youth passed precisely during the years in which this person was in power. And youth (youth), multiplied by relative stability both in economic and domestic terms of those years, is a reasonable excuse to vote for Leonid Brezhnev. In this case, the objective and subjective factors add up and give the very result that is indicated above.

Based on the latest, so to speak, trends, it was somewhat unexpected to see such a personality as Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) sharing the first line of the rating. If we consider what amounts of dirt were poured on him and the memory of this man after the collapse of the USSR, and what volumes of dirt continue to pour out now, then the "Leninist" interest is a real precedent. The precedent of growing up of our society, which is now trying to separate flies from cutlets and not to cave in under the cliches that have become the norm.

It is noteworthy that many Russian publications (in particular, Kommersant) managed to connect the relatively high percentages of Lenin and Stalin with the quote: “Russians lacked historical knowledge”. But if to take into account that over the past 20-25 years, such individuals as Lenin and Stalin were exposed by the overwhelming majority of domestic scientific and historical publications as villains who plunged the country into chaos and terror, then the mentioned (or rather, not mentioned) “ The merchant ”experts should be asked: where did the“ lack of historical knowledge ”come from, there are megaliberal historians multiplying their“ truth ”with millions of copies in opposition to other historians, who also often went to extremes. Maybe the matter is different? - In that, for example, many already, I'm sorry, were reading the literature, in which the leitmotif of describing life in Russia from 1918 to 1953 years were often far-fetched facts about millions of people shot and tens of millions of prisoners of Soviet camps, and even hundreds of millions who died in the war. Well, what is worth only the recent statement of Leonid Gozman, who became “super popular”, who on TV, sorry, blurted out that during the Great Patriotic War the USSR had already lost 127 million people ... Then, admittedly, Gozman recovered, declaring 27 millions. Only the number in 127 of millions of "dead" immediately became almost a new revelation, a new "truth" about the war. Mr. Sokolov issued, for example, a new “fact” - not 27 millions, but forty million died. Apparently, he considered himself, forgive my God, by hand ... It was this blatant lie with clearly tracing goals that probably was the main reason that people decided to speak in the majority in a positive way with regard to both Stalin and Lenin.

A precedent that is hard not to notice ... And this is despite the fact that the Levada Center polls often took into account only the opinion of very specific target audiences. Well, if a similar survey were conducted by the Military Review website, some readers would say: it is clear why Gorbachev has a cruel minus, and Lenin or Stalin have a plus; immediately, they say, some Stalinists with “hurray-patriots” sat down ... They say that the audience is not the same - that is why the result is ...

So what happens is that the “Levada Center” now also polls only “Leninists” and “Stalinists”, and dilutes everything with “Brezhnevites”? That is unlikely. It's just time for some gentlemen (well, the same “merchant” experts, for example) to understand that the Russian people are beginning to think little by little, and not just “screaming” information, no matter how conspiratorial and tempting it may seem ... At least I want to believe it .

The results of the survey can be found here: Attitude of Russians to the heads of the Russian state at different times.
Author:
114 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ruslan67
    Ruslan67 28 May 2013 08: 24 New
    32
    Under Brezhnev, everything was good and bad. But my attitude to him now. It was a military general who went through the war from beginning to end and he was not an enemy of his people. And if something didn’t work out, let the current ones do better. soldier
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 28 May 2013 08: 37 New
      18
      Quote: Ruslan67
      Under Brezhnev, everything was good and bad. But my attitude to him now


      but there was stability in the USSR, a measured and quiet life. In the morning it was raining ..... !!!
      Not like in the world. laughing

      1. Ruslan67
        Ruslan67 28 May 2013 08: 46 New
        +5
        + + + + + drinks good hi Classic!
        1. astra
          astra 28 May 2013 12: 05 New
          +5
          The results for the top three "leaders" of the survey under the option "I rather negatively relate to" the following: Mikhail Gorbachev 35%, Boris Yeltsin 34%, Joseph Stalin 25%.

          If GDP does not raise a country, it will eventually join this list. They say: according to your ways and according to your deeds they will judge you. For good or bad, it all depends on the GDP itself.
        2. Zen
          Zen 28 May 2013 20: 52 New
          +7
          Stalin Was really cool!
          The rest does not have a place nearby!
          1. AdAAkRuSS
            AdAAkRuSS 28 May 2013 23: 57 New
            +1
            Quote: Zen
            Stalin Was really cool!
            The rest does not have a place nearby!
            It’s a plus for you, but with one amendment, JV Stalin was Great! Well, with the rest, everything is clear, not on the same scale.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. knn54
        knn54 28 May 2013 16: 26 New
        +2
        -Apollon: but there was stability in the USSR, a measured and quiet life.
        Communism passed, but we did not notice.
        -Denis_SF
        Would leave earlier, in the year 75, ...
        Брежнев видел своим приемником Щербицкого,но "вовремя " умер.
        - managed to associate with, quote: "lack of historical knowledge."
        Just the opposite!
      4. Reasonable, 2,3
        Reasonable, 2,3 29 May 2013 07: 19 New
        0
        When stable + strong, we can make plans. And for the wife, and for the children.
    2. carbofo
      carbofo 28 May 2013 11: 07 New
      13
      Quote: Ruslan67
      And if something didn’t work out, let the current ones do better soldier

      What can I say about Brezhnev on the basis of what I know, he was a strong and intelligent person, but even he made mistakes unfortunately.
      Do not forget, with him we were very strong.
      Even shortly before his death, he did not lose the ability to think and make decisions.
      Although this is unrealistic for some historical reasons, he is worthy to be in the memory of people next to Stalin.
      1. carbofo
        carbofo 30 May 2013 20: 00 New
        +2
        Something like that !!
    3. Dimkapvo
      Dimkapvo 28 May 2013 11: 21 New
      +1
      Support.
    4. aviamed90
      aviamed90 28 May 2013 13: 30 New
      -1
      Ruslan67

      Why did Brezhnev suddenly become a military general?

      Do you understand the difference between a political worker and a military general? At that time, we also had directors of military factories with general ranks.

      And about the assessment of his work - rather, I agree with you in many ways (not everything).
      1. s1н7т
        s1н7т 28 May 2013 21: 53 New
        +5
        Quote: aviamed90
        Do you understand the difference between a political worker and a military general? At

        , либерально-дебильный вопрос! Какая разница между комбатом и ЗКПЧ батальона, например? Комбат впереди на лихом коне, а ЗКПЧ - на кухне сзади? Или ЧВС армии,подлец, сидит в штабе, а "боевой" командарм на головном танке фронт прорывает? laughing Stop leveling the story! Fighting were all the officers of the units and formations belonging to the army — political workers and commanders. So Brezhnev, with all my dislike for him, is quite a military officer / general.
      2. Grenz
        Grenz 29 May 2013 00: 08 New
        0
        aviamed90
        Respected.
        What do you think - a bullet in battle selectively selects a target?
        Visit Novorossiysk on Malaya Zemlya (this is really a piece of our land covered with a layer of fragments), where this political worker fought, you won’t be so categorical. Yes, he was a combat officer there, and the fighting spirit of the landing depended on him in many respects. By the way, by order of Hitler, it was precisely the commissioners who were not taken prisoner (and the border guards too).
        In battle, not only the strength of the order ensures victory, but also the power of the words spoken before the battle about the defense of the Motherland.
        And the rest. Such tiredness from the constant MODERNIZATION has already accumulated that I want to live at least a couple of years in the conditions of the Brezhnev stagnation.
        1. Combitor
          Combitor 29 May 2013 01: 12 New
          +3
          aviamed90, my grandmother once said that Brezhnev would die - the Soviet Union would die. As time has shown, the old woman was right.
        2. politruk419
          politruk419 29 May 2013 05: 05 New
          -1
          aviamed90
          Respected.
          What do you think - a bullet in battle selectively selects a target?
          Visit Novorossiysk on Malaya Zemlya (this is really a piece of our land covered with a layer of fragments), where this political worker fought, you won’t be so categorical. Yes, he was a combat officer there, and the fighting spirit of the landing depended on him in many respects. By the way, by order of Hitler, it was precisely the commissioners who were not taken prisoner (and the border guards too).

          +100500. For justice in relation to the political instructor of the 18th Army, L.I. Brezhnev.
        3. matross
          matross 29 May 2013 10: 38 New
          0
          Quote: grenz
          on Malaya Zemlya (this is really a piece of our land covered with a layer of fragments), where this political worker fought

          Да, блеать, о чём мы спорим? Тут собрались почти все патриоты Родины, уважающие её историю! Но давайте не будем превращаться в ура-патриотов, давайте не только уважать, но и хоть немного ИЗУЧАТЬ и стараться ПОНЯТЬ эту самую историю. Конечно, говоря о Л.И. Брежневе, так и хочется кричать "уря" и "одобряю", видимо срабатывает историческая память. Ну прочтите воспоминания ветеранов, воевавших на малоземельском плацдарме! Ссылок давать не стану, чтоб не быть обвинённым в тенденциозности разного толка, найти их нетрудно. Кто после прочтения решится утверждать, что на плацдарм хотя бы ступала нога начальника политотдела 18 Армии полковника, а позднее генерала-майора Брежнева?
          П.С. Я вовсе не очернитель российской, а тем более советской истории и уже писал тут, что к роли т.Брежнева в истории страны отношусь положительно. Но, друзья, давайте и берега не терять! Не надо давать злопыхателям дерьмократическим повода обвинять патриотов в искажении истории и бессмысленном "уряканьи"!
      3. Combitor
        Combitor 29 May 2013 01: 04 New
        0
        aviamed90, let me ask you: what year were you born?
        If you have studied the history of our country even a little, you should know that on the Lesser Earth in front of bullets and shells were all equal - both ordinary soldiers and generals, soldiers and political workers. And L.I. Brezhnev was where he was supposed to be in accordance with his rank, position and honor of the Soviet general, but certainly not behind the backs of the soldiers in a deep trench.
        1. matross
          matross 29 May 2013 11: 02 New
          0
          Quote: Kombitor
          Leonid Brezhnev was where he was supposed to be in accordance with his rank, position and honor of the Soviet general, but certainly not behind the backs of the soldiers in a deep trench.

          You are right, dear Compound feed. Not in the trench. Although, in your opinion, the fighters come out to attack raised fool
          А Вы в США живёте? И какую страну "наша" называете?
    5. Denis_SF
      Denis_SF 28 May 2013 15: 24 New
      +4
      Quote: Ruslan67
      Under Brezhnev, everything was good and bad. But my attitude to him now. It was a military general who went through the war from beginning to end and he was not an enemy of his people. And if something didn’t work out, let the current ones do better.

      He would have left earlier, in the year 75, and the whole story could have been completely different, perhaps the Union still existed, and the young Stavropol combine, with a spot on his forehead, would have collapsed some collective farm and calmed down b. But as they say, history has no subjunctive mood.
    6. Abakanets
      Abakanets 28 May 2013 17: 00 New
      -10
      Brezhnev battle general? For a long time I did not laugh.
      1. AleksUkr
        AleksUkr 28 May 2013 17: 22 New
        +5
        Have we got horses on the forum? You, my dear, it is possible that even in the army did not serve. You are not allowed to speak so rudely about front-line soldiers. Or were you with him at the front? Do you know something about the fact that he is not a military general? Share your thoughts. Maybe we will understand ... In the meantime, I advise ..... no matter how rude - be silent. Do not you judge !!!!!
        1. Combitor
          Combitor 29 May 2013 01: 21 New
          0
          AleksUkr (1), не обижайте благородных животных. Представители этого земного племени тоже немало вынесли на себе в годы войны. Ему, действительно имя "абаканец". Когда я был пацаном, у нас во дворе жил парнишка. Постоянно сопли под носом, весь какой-то перемазанный, да ещё и жмот. Хотя мама и папа были не бедными по тем временам людьми и у него был мопед (роскошь!). Мы постоянно делились друг с другом конфетами, печеньем, свои велики и мопеды давали друг другу покататься. Он же свои сладости съедал в стороне в одиночку. Так ему мы кличку и дали -"абаканец". Кто-то вычитал на карте название этого города. Тогда слово "чухан" ещё не слишком распространено было.
    7. Rink
      Rink 28 May 2013 17: 23 New
      +9
      Quote: Ruslan67
      Under Brezhnev, everything was good and bad. But my attitude to him now. It was a military general who went through the war from beginning to end and he was not an enemy of his people. And if something didn’t work out, let the current ones do better. soldier

      Yes, Brezhnev was a patriot.
      He had a single mistake, not even so - a mistake !, subsequently leading, among other things, to the emergence of Humpbacked with his perestroika.

      Политработник Брежнев всегда думал в первую очередь о людях, их настроениях. Обязан был по долгу службы, а может и по своему характеру. Фронтовик, он после прихода к власти попытался реализовать идею стабильности. "Настрадался народ за последние полвека! нужно дать нации отдохнуть."
      Вообще, идея правильная, но этот период Брежнев затянул. То ли уже состарился и не было энергии, то ли не почувствовал момент. Ветераны-фронтовики наслсждались мирной и спокойной жизнью, "дети войны" тоже ценили стабильное, сытое и спокойное существование.
      But when the next generation grew up, Brezhnev stability began to remind them of a swamp. Youth is so arranged, it always has a slightly rebellious spirit. She needs Cases, Accomplishments! She needs some tension of forces, some unifying super task. Their great-grandfathers, grandfathers and fathers - had such a common super-task. This is a revolution with previous and subsequent upheavals, and the great Stalinist construction of the Soviet Union ... Industrialization, when mountains were torn down and rivers turned. And, of course, the difficulties of the Second World War, and the post-war difficult period ... All this can be called the continuous salvation of the Motherland.
      And then came the young generation brought up on films about the exploits of their ancestors. With the same indomitable Russian spirit in genes, with the same ability for labor and combat heroism. And what did life offer them? routine, swamp?
      Отсюда, мне кажется, и выросло Цоевское "Перемен требуют наши сердца!.." и готовность молодёжи к Перестройке. Видит Бог, что в этих настроениях не было ничего антисоветского. Перемены ожидались не связанные с разрушением СССР, - этого никто не ждал, и не жаждал. Я сам из этого поколения, я знаю.

      Brezhnev’s mistake is that he couldn’t do it himself and didn’t give way to young politicians who would bring dynamics to life. It was necessary to set a new super task for the new generation, where its impulse, its energy and thirst for activity would go.

      What could it be? I don’t know ... Not a new war, of course.
      But it was supposed to be an idea that would capture almost everyone. The Martian program, or the program for building a new economy (as in China), when it came to everyone who was able to take the initiative.
      1. folds
        folds 28 May 2013 18: 00 New
        +2
        Sorry, I’ll fix it a bit - not in sense, in design. The Great Patriotic War - WWII, not WWII. From the age of 8, from the grandfather of the war veteran, I got a slap in the face for writing a war with a capital letter.
        And on the topic - I absolutely agree.
        1. Rink
          Rink 28 May 2013 18: 11 New
          +1
          Quote: plis
          ... The Great Patriotic War - WWII, not WWII. ...

          Сорре, конечно же "очепятка"! Пальцы работают быстрее, чем голова, - Shift не в тот момент нажался, а глаз не заметил.
    8. matross
      matross 28 May 2013 17: 25 New
      -4
      Quote: Ruslan67
      -It was a military general who went through the war from beginning to end

      Brezhnev? Leonid Ilyich ?? Battle General ??? And with whom did you confuse the nachpo of the 18 Army?
      Нет, я тоже отношусь к его деятельности на посту генсека, в целом положительно, за исключением ряда комичных моментов из последнего периода. Но чтоб так, в боевые генералы? Вам прямо в безвестные авторы "Малой земли" надо, там про "боевого" вся правда-мать в каждой строчке. laughing
      It will be necessary to re-read, by the way, written by something untalented people. Sorry crap only
      1. folds
        folds 28 May 2013 18: 04 New
        0
        Comical moments from the last period: after a stroke he asked to resign from the post of General Secretary of the CPSU - they did not let go. They feared a new redistribution of power with unknown results. And so they kept them at the post until the end.
        1. matross
          matross 28 May 2013 19: 07 New
          0
          The comical moments were connected, of course, not with the state of health, but with endless rewards to all indiscriminately.
      2. Ruslan67
        Ruslan67 28 May 2013 18: 20 New
        +5
        Quote: matRoss
        Battle General ??? And who did you confuse with the 18th Army?

        Have you intentionally or thoughtlessly? For an hour didn’t you confuse the political leaders of the late 80s with front-line political workers in the army?
        1. matross
          matross 28 May 2013 19: 29 New
          -2
          Quote: Ruslan67
          Are you on purpose or thoughtlessly?

          On purpose.
          Quote: Ruslan67
          for an hour did not confuse the political leaders of the late 80x with front-line political workers in the army?

          Замполиты даже в конце 80-х разные были. А Вы часом не знаете, чем отличаются задачи и мера ответственности строевых командиров, в частности и "боевых генералов", как Вы предпочитаете выражаться, от, к примеру, того же начпо общевойсковой армии? Хрущёва Вы тоже в боевые генералы запишите? Может и Мехлиса? Интересно, что бы на это ответили Жуков, Горбатов, Рокоссовский и многие другие БОЕВЫЕ генералы и маршалы? Или даже не очень боевые, Д.М. Карбышев, например?stop
          So ask yourself a better question.
          1. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 28 May 2013 19: 33 New
            +2
            That is, in your opinion, front-line soldiers are divided into two categories — those who go on the attack and political workers of all levels? By the way, he did not start the war as a general. He ended it on Red Square.
            1. matross
              matross 28 May 2013 19: 46 New
              +1
              Quote: Ruslan67
              That is, in your opinion, front-line soldiers are divided into two categories — those who go on the attack and political workers of all levels

              I am sure you understand me. Do not distort.
              And I am familiar with the biography of Leonid Ilyich.
          2. Grenz
            Grenz 29 May 2013 00: 38 New
            +2
            Matross
            But what about the statistics and facts of the past war.
            К примеру, по числу сдавшихся в плен "боевых" генералов и строевых командиров к числу расстрелянных по приказу Гитлера комиссаров (их почему-то в плен не брали).
            К примеру,командиров и солдат Брестской крепости в плен взяли, а КОМИССАРА Фомина расстреляли у стены.Бравых строевых командиров пачками брали в плен и не боялись, а комиссаров расстреливали.Вот ведь как бывает. Поэтому у некоторых на генетическом уровне сформирована не любовь к политработникам, так как они горький упрек "бравым" воякам.
            1. matross
              matross 29 May 2013 11: 44 New
              +1
              Quote: grenz
              some at the genetic level do not have a love for political workers

              I never tried to arrange emotional striptease on the Internet. But then something was offended. My grandfather began to fight in the Finnish political artillery battery. Defended Leningrad and was evacuated to 1942 with dystrophy. From Kursk, where he was wounded, and until the end of the war, he was the political officer of ZenAp. His blessed memory.
              Quote: grenz
              .Grave combat commanders in batches were taken prisoner and were not afraid

              And another grandfather started the war in 1941 in a cadet battalion near Leningrad, and ended up in a hospital in Berlin as a mortar company commander. And he has a bright memory.
              So with genetics, I'm fine.
              With a knowledge of history and respect for it, believe me, too.
          3. brelok
            brelok 29 May 2013 06: 01 New
            -1
            Quote: matRoss
            Or even not very fighting, D.M. Karbyshev, for example?

            Do not touch Karbyshev! You are not worth it!
            1. matross
              matross 29 May 2013 11: 19 New
              0
              Kolya, can’t you remind me when I was lying on the ditches together with you and switched to YOU? And turn on spelling check even in the browser, it’s heartily
    9. starshina78
      starshina78 28 May 2013 20: 00 New
      +7
      Yes, Brezhnev fought, mastered the virgin lands, restored the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Station, worked in a metallurgical plant in his youth. He was a native of the people. The most truthful rating of people's love for a historical character is a joke! The more jokes about the historical personality, then the more this person is respected. In the jokes, Brezhnev was a weak, sick man, with a shuffling speech, but until the mid-seventies he was a tireless worker. He should be given credit for the fact that with his participation and assistance the USSR stood on a par with the United States (and for some types of armaments and above the United States), parity was achieved, disarmament began (START-1, an agreement on the reduction of tactical nuclear missiles). Yes, and the people did not live in poverty, after corn and pea bread, flour coupons, pasta and cereals of Khrushchev’s rule. So Brezhnev is a worthy historical leader who deservedly stood in the forefront.
      1. Genady1976
        Genady1976 28 May 2013 20: 38 New
        0
        YES YES YES and a hundred times YES
      2. Combitor
        Combitor 29 May 2013 01: 29 New
        +1
        starshina78, for those who mock Brezhnev’s health, it’s worth recalling that this man fought, was under shelling and bombing. And this does not bring positive results for health (shell shock and injury). Brezhnev did not spend the war in the gym, strengthening his health. And after the war he did not sit out in a luxurious office. Naturally, in old age, all this was reflected.
        1. aviamed90
          aviamed90 29 May 2013 17: 35 New
          0
          Combinator
          На войне многие полковники и генералы были под обстрелами и бомбёжками, но это не даёт им права называться "боевыми генералами".

          Далее. Вы интересуетесь в каком году я родился? Отвечу кратко. Поверьте - не вчера. И о Л.И.Брежневе дотаточно подробно информирован. Даже изучал и конспектировал его труды (в том числе и "Малую Землю").


          s1n7t-u
          Попрошу вас внимательнее "на поворотах" (насчёт "либерально-дебильных вопросов"). Хотите привести свои аргументы и поспорить в отношении Брежнева? Так приводите их и спорьте, а не занимайтесь флудом и явным хамством! Пытаетесь меня оскорбить?

          Ваша фраза: "Хватит рихтовать историю! Боевыми были все офицеры частей и соединений, относящихся к Действующей армии - и политработники, и командиры." непонятна. Уточните.

          Вы, уважаемый, в терминологии разберитесь! Что вы подразумеваете под словом - "боевой"? И кто, по вашему, является боевым генералом? Тот, кто планирует боевые операции войск или тот, кто занимается агитацией и пропагандой в войсках? Воинское звание в данном случае не имеет значения.
          By the way, I agree with matRoss-m - Zhukov (and other well-known military leaders) would be very surprised at this circumstance (comparing and equating it with political workers) and the assessment of their military activities in the future.
          Значение политработников в годы войны никто не отрицает, но сравнение их с "боевыми генералами" некорректно.

          С таким же успехом можно назвать "боевым" и полковника (генерала) с какого-нибудь окружного или дивизионного склада. Он тоже боевой? Ведь он в действующей армии и, бесспорно, испытывает на себе и бомбёжки и обстрелы в полной мере.

          grenz
          Combinator

          А вы считаете, что если полковник (генерал) побывал на передовой в ходе боевых действий, то его можно с полным основанием назвать "боевым"?

          I agree with matRoss absolutely. He fully expressed his and, at the same time, my position on this issue.
          1. matross
            matross 29 May 2013 20: 49 New
            0
            Thanks for the support. And special thanks and respect for the motivated position. hi
            Так раздражают бессмысленные, некомпетентные урякалки, что порой начинаешь думать, что лучше любой либерал, чем иной "патриот".
            God save us from such friends, but we ourselves will deal with enemies!
            I have the honor!
          2. s1н7т
            s1н7т 30 May 2013 18: 36 New
            -1
            Quote: aviamed90
            Anyone planning military operations
            по-Вашему, "боевой генерал"?! laughing Tell me where to see this definition then. For the one who plans the operation is no different from the one who provides it, for example. I think so laughing
            To you, as a connoisseur, does the question of backfill intelligence relate to combat units? laughing laughing laughing
            I didn’t have an idea to believe, believe me, but you need to be in the know about the issue before littering words here.
    10. Interface
      Interface 28 May 2013 22: 33 New
      +5
      All is correct. Here, history has put everything in its place, as Leonid Ilyich wasn’t persecuted. I shuffled around the parquet, carried the confusion from the rostrum, but oil was extracted, salaries grew, and our army still holds on the development of the military-industrial complex of the 70's.
    11. kvodrato
      kvodrato 30 May 2013 08: 59 New
      0
      [media = Enslavement of% 20 Slavs% 20in% 20action]
  2. waisson
    waisson 28 May 2013 08: 46 New
    16
    I understand Brezhnev’s merits grew during this period, but I think Stalin’s merits were higher with him, we won the war and raised the country from ruins and what merits did Ulyanov allow RUSSIA
    1. bezumnyiPIT
      bezumnyiPIT 28 May 2013 09: 54 New
      -11
      What merit? For example, you can write comrade, you have the right to vote
      1. carbofo
        carbofo 28 May 2013 11: 17 New
        +2
        Quote: bezumnyiPIT
        What merit? For example, you can write comrade, you have the right to vote

        Get out of here the lieutenant. Think when you write, if there is anything.

        Quote: waisson
        I understand Brezhnev’s merits grew during this period, but I think Stalin’s merits were higher with him, we won the war and raised the country from ruins and what merits did Ulyanov allow RUSSIA


        In historical terms, the question is not worth it.
        Lenin made a revolution, a fact. What he ruined there doesn’t matter, not only did he try, he just did better.
        Stalin did even more, industrialized the country and won the war - fact
        The merits of Brezhnev are more modest in terms of praise and are more likely to relate to events in the country as a whole, medicine, education, defense, industry. It's hard to become a hero when you do everything at once.
        Gorbachev does not matter the reasons but the traitor to the Motherland.
        Yeltsin is a traitor to the homeland.
        Khrushchev-hmm, it’s hard for me to say something, but the attitude is rather negative, there is reason to believe that his rise to power was watered by the blood of Beria and Stalin, if so he should have been killed then.
        1. bezumnyiPIT
          bezumnyiPIT 28 May 2013 12: 18 New
          -5
          Quote: carbofo
          ]
          Get out of here the lieutenant.


          Oh Herr Oberst, thank you for condescending to talking to me
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. matross
              matross 29 May 2013 12: 09 New
              0
              What hurt? Or did he feel himself a colonel, and not a tram boor? So this is not real, do not flatter yourself. And for grandfathers, I would gladly talk closely and silently in person. And here I will not rinse their memory.
              1. carbofo
                carbofo 29 May 2013 14: 32 New
                -1
                I’m reading your art, and it seems that you write everything correctly but incorrectly.
                Jokes are jokes, but there are things that should not be touched.
                What kind of grandfathers? otherwise, based on your phrase, a direct image of the Gestapo arises.
                So what are your grandfathers, everyone is already interested.
                Communicate closely silently, you have some kind of French habits, a new law of the oland directly brings.
                Yeah, you can’t rinse the memory of the foot.
                1. matross
                  matross 29 May 2013 14: 44 New
                  -1
                  Quote: carbofo
                  Jokes are jokes, but there are things that should not be touched. What grandfathers? otherwise, based on your phrase, I get a direct image of the Gestapo men. So what grandfathers you have, everyone is already interested.

                  Do not touch - and do not touch.
                  And about the grandfathers, I wrote above.
                  Quote: carbofo
                  you have some French manners, the new law directly brings the oland.

                  And the truth, probably, one should not beat for such statements - but in French - to tear!
                  1. carbofo
                    carbofo 29 May 2013 18: 13 New
                    0
                    Quote: matRoss

                    And the truth, probably, one should not beat for such statements - but in French - to tear!

                    Well, the new Frenchman has already turned out of you.
                    1. matross
                      matross 29 May 2013 20: 02 New
                      0
                      Well, you write something like that - either stupid vulgarity or vulgar stupidity! It’s even awkward for you.
                      1. carbofo
                        carbofo 29 May 2013 23: 46 New
                        0
                        Fate did not deprive me of your intellect, alas, you have to think with what it is!
                        But neither liberal nor tolerast.
                        So do not worry, if you are a white bone, this does not mean that it can not be gnawed.
                      2. matross
                        matross 30 May 2013 01: 20 New
                        0
                        Quote: carbofo
                        if you are a white bone, this does not mean that it cannot be gnawed.

                        Это что, из серии: "Лучшие статусы ВКонтакте"? А там Вы тоже
                        Quote: carbofo
                        neither liberal nor tolerast
                        ?
                        I really feel sorry for you somehow. Do not be offended. God is your judge.
                      3. carbofo
                        carbofo 30 May 2013 01: 43 New
                        0
                        It is gratifying that the catch phrase, but the point here is not VK.

                        God is the judge of all, and you will not go around.
                      4. matross
                        matross 30 May 2013 07: 14 New
                        0
                        Вижу, что Вы твёрдо встаёте на путь исправления - уже перестали хамить и оппонента не минусуете. Задачи на ближнюю перспективу: подтянуть пунктуацию, привыкнуть к "Вы" с заглавной буквы. А там уж и до осмысленных комментариев недалеко! Удачи Вам! smile
                      5. carbofo
                        carbofo 30 May 2013 09: 02 New
                        0
                        Capitalize on the rare person I’m writing to, get used to it.
                        Unlike you, I will never be corrected.
                        Firstly, age does not allow already established views on things.
                        Secondly, I oppose mostly mentally gifted, they are not worthy of respect.
                      6. matross
                        matross 30 May 2013 09: 57 New
                        0
                        Quote: carbofo
                        i will never correct

                        Well, why this pessimism? One must believe in oneself. smile
                        Quote: carbofo
                        age does not allow

                        I hope you are still far from senility
                        Quote: carbofo
                        they are not worthy of respect

                        Start at least with self-esteem
  • s1н7т
    s1н7т 30 May 2013 18: 47 New
    0
    This is hardly a comrade, this is from the liberals, and there it is not so simple laughing
    And he just doesn’t know how to write - he won’t understand you laughing
  • ammunition
    ammunition 28 May 2013 14: 08 New
    +2
    waisson Today, 08: 46
    I understand Brezhnev’s merits grew during this period but I think Stalin’s merits are higher



    You're right! The merits of Stalin are higher. And not just higher, but immeasurably higher!

    Because the severity, complexity and multiplicity of tasks that Stalin solved were immeasurably higher.
  • Scoun
    Scoun 28 May 2013 14: 42 New
    +3
    Quote: waisson
    and what merits from Ulyanov allowed RUSSIA

    In the government 10 places were held by bourgeois parties, 6 by the socialists.

    Party Socialist Revolutionaries и Mensheviksturning into government parties,

    That is, already in those days there were only bourgeois parties of at least 6!
    These are the times of the Kerensky Provisional Government
    activity
    Immediately after the February Revolution, the Provisional Government abolished the post of governor-general in the Caucasus and Turkestan and transferred power to committees created from Duma deputies who were local natives.

    Leaflet of the Executive Committee of the Council of Soldiers and Workers' Deputies of the city of Kazan "Freedom, Victory and Full Democracy!" 1917
    The three main political parties in the Caucasus are the Azerbaijani Muslim Democratic Party (Musavat), the Armenian Dashnaktsutyun, and the Georgian Social Democratic Party immediately after the February Revolution. in response to the recognition of the Provisional Government, they received guarantees of autonomy within the framework of the future federal Russia.

    Here it’s not all right to blame Ulyanov alone ... who just didn’t bred then .... but Lenin won.
    1. carbofo
      carbofo 28 May 2013 15: 24 New
      0
      Quote: Scoun
      Here it’s not all right to blame Ulyanov alone ... who just didn’t bred then .... but Lenin won.

      That's what I said.
  • Kostya pedestrian
    Kostya pedestrian 28 May 2013 17: 43 New
    +7
    Another example - every time, including a computer from the network, do not forget about 220V, and that there are no accidents in our world. Lenin - took a country steeped in corruption and military defeats, where the tsar, under the threat of Western-born religious leaders and nobles, abdicated the throne, a civil war was already underway, which the West and Japan were fomenting to seize our lands. And these people - the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, managed not only to stop the collapse of the Empire, but also to increase it.
  • brelok
    brelok 29 May 2013 06: 05 New
    0
    Quote: waisson
    and what merits from Ulyanov allowed RUSSIA

    Lenin and? the empire killed Nikolashka. Lenin did not allow to ruin the remains of the past
  • Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 28 May 2013 08: 48 New
    18
    I will not believe that Lenin would overtake Stalin in polls. Whom did they interview there, perhaps each other. If we now conduct polls on the site, then the hunchback positivity will be 0!
    1. Sibiryak
      Sibiryak 28 May 2013 09: 27 New
      +6
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      I will not believe that Lenin would overtake Stalin in polls. Whom did they interview there, perhaps each other.

      Here is the answer to your question, Alexander -
      the notorious Levada Center (the analytical center of Y. Levada) - the very one to which the prosecutor's office issued a warning about the inadmissibility of violating the law on NGOs receiving funding from abroad (foreign agents), conducted an interesting study of public opinion and published its results

      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      If we now conduct polls on the site, then the hunchback positivity will be 0!

      I think the rating will be off scale!
    2. DEfindER
      DEfindER 28 May 2013 17: 31 New
      -2
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      If we now conduct polls on the site, then the hunchback positivity will be 0!

      I believe that Gorbachev brought the country to collapse, not because he was a traitor, but because he was a limp and near-minded politician, too many mistakes during his perestroika, the main of which gave freedom to liberals like Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn, who began to pour dirt on their country and people. But who is the traitor is Borka, he signed the death sentence for the country ..
      1. folds
        folds 28 May 2013 18: 13 New
        +4
        Горбачёв откровенно заявлял, что ненавидит коммунизм всей душой, и чтобы избавить мир от коммунизма ему пришлось возглавить СССР, развалить восточную европу и подготовить Союз к развалу. Это были заранее продуманные, целенаправленные действия, попадающие под определение "измена Родине". Его ошибкой было что он на свет родился. А ошибкой запада он видит то, что они позволили Китаю сохранить коммунизм.
        1. matross
          matross 28 May 2013 20: 39 New
          0
          I just said so - I hate communism with all my heart and the collapse of the Union? And do not throw a link in confirmation? Well, so as not to unfounded
          1. Hudo
            Hudo 28 May 2013 23: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: matRoss
            I just said so - I hate communism with all my heart and the collapse of the Union? And do not throw a link in confirmation? Well, so as not to unfounded



            Please read.
            "Горбачёв: целью моей жизни было уничтожение коммунизма", из речи на семинаре в Американском университете в Турции.
            http://newsland.com/news/detail/id/548824/
            1. matross
              matross 29 May 2013 15: 11 New
              0
              Quote: Hudo
              http://newsland.com/news/detail/id/548824/

              Yes, there is nothing like this on this link. Maybe you made a mistake?
        2. DEfindER
          DEfindER 29 May 2013 00: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: plis
          Gorbachev openly declared that he hated communism with all his heart, and in order to rid the world of communism he had to head the USSR

          Первый раз слышу, вообще то после таких заявлений его бы сразу не то что сняли с должности генсека, а посадили бы за измену.. А судя по событиям 91-го, он пытался сохранить союз, и подготовил новый союзный договор, но ельцин его переиграл и первым подписал беловежские соглашения.. Ну по крайней мере если судить по документалке "СССР - крушение"
  • igor-75
    igor-75 28 May 2013 08: 58 New
    14
    Not surprising. People vote for what inspires them. Lenin - revolution, Stalin - industrialization and victory, Brezhnev - developed socialism in a single country.
  • Parabelum
    Parabelum 28 May 2013 09: 00 New
    11
    Левада центр это шаражкина контора, которая не воспринимается серьёзно ни одним добросовестным аналитиком. Центр стряпает свои исследования на заказ, поэтому они являются поверхностными и не глубокими. Как можно проводить опросы: "По факту отношения россиян к отечественным правителям от Николая II до Бориса Ельцина" опросив всего лишь 1601 россиян? Это все равно что проводив опрос о "Вреде курения" среди топ менеджеров мировых товарных брендов. Очередная софистика "оналитегоф".
    1. Grishka100watt
      Grishka100watt 28 May 2013 11: 39 New
      +4
      However, if earlier only negative was written about Joseph Vissarionovich, now they are trying to mix his authority with the authority of Lenin and Brezhnev. In this regard, we can probably say that they are losing ground.
      What is good yes
    2. aviamed90
      aviamed90 28 May 2013 13: 42 New
      +3
      Parabelum

      I agree with you. The sample is very small. Accordingly, the error in the survey results is very large.
      К тому же возникает вопрос - где, когда, в какой социальной группе он проводился? Можно ли верить в неподкупность "Левада-центра"?

      After all, it’s possible that I ... pull the cat’s ears over your ears to get the result of Gorbachev 90%.
  • apro
    apro 28 May 2013 09: 02 New
    +8
    Surveys ratings are insidious thing - depending on how you count and how to raise the question. It’s natural that LIBrezhnev became one of the leaders because most of the living Russians lived with him during the heyday of the power of the USSR. Of course, LIBrezhev should not be credited with this because the foundation of the USSR IVStalin laid the foundation, but thanks to Khrushchev it was extinct from the country's history with great zeal, and when LIBrezhnev came to power, he didn’t go to the full rehabilitation of IVStalin and received most of his merits undeservedly, although I consider LIBrezhnev a good ruler, although not without flaws.
  • omsbon
    omsbon 28 May 2013 09: 03 New
    +9
    Я не верю в подобные результаты опроса проведенного "Левада-ценром". Скорее это заказ направленный на принижение роли И.В. Сталина в истории нашей страны. Наших гей-либералов пугает устойчивый рост его популярности, связанной с великими достижениями страны под его руководством.
    1. apro
      apro 28 May 2013 09: 56 New
      +2
      Yes, I completely forgot the song, I downloaded Dobrynin, a drunk coachman, reflecting the essence of the EBN board very much, although I heard the song for 20 years just not long ago [media = C: UsersOlegDesktop]
  • Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 28 May 2013 09: 08 New
    12
    Николая 2 положительно оценивать может только тот,кто не знаком с историей и судит о ней по современным российским фильмам,где нам покажут как было хорошо при царе и как стало плохо при коварных коммунистах,я знаю ибо сам таким когда-то был.Ленина оценивать я даже не знаю как ибо наследство ему оставили и врагу не пожелаешь.Как по мне так основными фигурами Российской истории являются Сталин и Брежнев ибо эти два человека создали то за счет чего мы живем по сей день,ибо "демократы" ничего не создали я думаю с этим никто не поспорит.Лысый ок хрущев только заложил мину под СССР которая и рванула позднее.Про горбачева даже говорить не хочу,если придумать Нобилевскую премию "главный неудачник в истории существования галактики" то он будет первым и единственным кандидатом.Ельцину наследство тоже будь здоров досталось,но он даже не попытался ничего сделать просто пришел наворовал и ушел,он даже до Николая 2 не дотягивает.
  • vezunchik
    vezunchik 28 May 2013 09: 42 New
    +7
    The evil organization openly collecting political information is studying the results of information aggression against Russia. Despite the massive Goebel propaganda, the Soviet people have their own opinion! This makes me happy!
    Conclusion - Russia was, is and will be an independent state with its own opinion!
  • Max otto
    Max otto 28 May 2013 09: 46 New
    +9
    Nicholas II they have a positive ruler? Who is he? Is infantile rule a country? Yes, do not make my grandmother laugh, he did anything, but he didn’t rule, if he had at least a few rules, the Empire would not collapse. I still don’t understand why he was counted among the saints, his family, yes, received a martyrly undeserved death, but he was then shot for the cause.
    1. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN 28 May 2013 09: 57 New
      +5
      Nicholas II is OUR story .. it’s bad or good .. there’s nothing to praise him but I don’t think you should trample it in the dirt .. What it was. Main Russia is alive and developing ..
    2. Svobodny
      Svobodny 28 May 2013 10: 32 New
      -4
      Quote: Max Otto
      I still don’t understand why he is considered a saint.

      There was no need to write anything else. You do not understand, unfortunately ...
    3. carbofo
      carbofo 28 May 2013 14: 22 New
      +1
      Quote: Max Otto
      but he was shot for the case.

      What business ?? He was killed, the family was killed, the children were killed, it turned out badly.
      So things are not done, but it is not so important, it is already in history.
      And he is ranked among the saints because he suffered a martyr unjust death.
      So there is nothing unusual in this.
      1. Mikado
        Mikado 28 May 2013 20: 46 New
        +2
        and why the rest, who received an unjust martyrdom, were not ranked among the saints? Well, for example, those who were shot by order of Nikolashka on bloody Sunday of 1905, after which he was popularly called Nikolai the Bloody
      2. Max otto
        Max otto 29 May 2013 10: 06 New
        0
        Further below, you are all responsible for what and why.
  • AKOL
    AKOL 28 May 2013 09: 51 New
    +4
    I suppose that the result at least somewhat puzzled the respondents. Well, the Levada Center simply continues to carry out orders for grants, which continue to study public opinion in the camp of a potential adversary.
  • bomg.77
    bomg.77 28 May 2013 09: 52 New
    +7
    Nicholas is not a statesman, but a man who, by the will of fate, finds himself at the head of the empire and does not remember anything, an analogue of DAM. The fate of Russia was not important to Lenin; it was a bridgehead for the world revolution for him and his tribe. Yeltsin and Gorbachev are leaders on a regional scale. Khrushchev, a collective farmer with him, the country began to rush to the brink of famine, put it with his corn or threatened a nuclear war. Brezhnev simply led not to bring the country to open confrontation with the West. They let off steam from Afghanistan to Angola. Only Stalin was a world-class politician and the same level of his business to match the country which he successfully led!
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 28 May 2013 13: 51 New
      +1
      bomg.77

      Of course, Nicholas II is not a statesman. In addition, his wife Alice and Rasputin wanted to spin them.
      But, in fact, according to the will of Emperor Alexander III (his father), his second son, Mikhail, was to rule.

      Так что не надо про "волею судеб"! Против правления Николашки была даже его родная мать - Мария Фёдоровна.
      1. bomg.77
        bomg.77 28 May 2013 14: 15 New
        0
        По воле судьбы он был царских кровей и правил Россией ,а должен он был наследовать престол или нет это уже из области "если бы да кабы"
        1. aviamed90
          aviamed90 28 May 2013 15: 20 New
          +1
          bomg.77

          In Russia, there has never been a shortage of persons of royal blood - applicants to the throne.

          Here are the words of his mother, Maria Fedorovna, when taking the oath to Nicholas II (Crimea, the church of the Livadia Palace) after the death of the emperor:

          "Мой сын неспособен править Россией! Он слаб. И умом и духом. Ещё вчера, когда умирал отец, он залез на крышу и кидался шишками в прохожих на улице... И это - царь? Нет, это не царь! Мы все погибнем с таким императором. Послушайтесь меня: я же ведь мать Ники, и кому, как не матери, лучше всех знать своего сына? Вы хотите видеть на престоле тряпичную куклу?" ("Нечистая сила", В. Пикуль).

          Maria Fedorovna, by the way, refused to swear allegiance to him.

          So we got it in full!
          1. bomg.77
            bomg.77 28 May 2013 16: 51 New
            -1
            This was the opinion of his mother, but he became Emperor, and all of Russia swore allegiance to him!
    2. Kostya pedestrian
      Kostya pedestrian 29 May 2013 17: 20 New
      0
      With such logic, at the time to send for the Swedes, let them rule our lands, or what?

      And Lenin; we need to learn military science from this great Genius as well - to win such a bridgehead in the history of over 6000 years of such personalities.

      ПиэС: всякое было в России, есле где и не правы, памятник поставили, а раздувать новую гражданскую войну на потеху "заграницы" не по русски.
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 28 May 2013 09: 53 New
    +5
    Этот "Левада-центр " везде лезет со своими опросами..пытаясь направить общественное мнение в нужное русло..
  • Genur
    Genur 28 May 2013 09: 58 New
    +6
    Небезынтересно набрать в поисковике фамилии ....Юрий Николаевич Жуков, Елена Анатольевна Прудникова и Владимир Михайлович Чунихин ... и прочесть их мнения о Сталине. Ямя СТАЛИНА навечно останется в памяти совеского народа. Никто из "правителей" России и СССР не сделал так много ХОРОШЕГО для страны, как Сталин!
  • urchik
    urchik 28 May 2013 10: 12 New
    +6
    In our courtyard, a stray dog ​​was a bitch who was called her levada, such a nasty, dirty one. Now I know in honor of whom.
  • tchack
    tchack 28 May 2013 11: 14 New
    0
    None of my big enough circles have ever met Levada Center interviewers. Well, who are they interviewing ??? Have they interviewed any of those present here ???

    Такое ощущение, что они как дети - сделают пакость ("проведут опрос"), а потом смотрят что вокруг происходит, что скажут...

    PS: For me, the positive figures of the XNUMXth century are Peter Stolypin and Joseph Stalin.
  • Oleg1986
    Oleg1986 28 May 2013 11: 40 New
    -8
    The Pioneer October Revolutionaries continue to praise the bald killer. Unless they can handle it, and go to the pyramid to worship it. The blood of the Russian people is not only on him, but also on his admirers.
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 28 May 2013 13: 55 New
      0
      Oleg1986

      Name at least one ruler of Russia on whom, one way or another, there was no blood?

      The only question is its quantity.
  • pinecone
    pinecone 28 May 2013 12: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: AKOL
    I suppose that the result at least somewhat puzzled the respondents.


    Полагаю, что не озадачил, поскольку скорее всего никакого "результата" и не было,как не было и самого опроса. Просто этой поганой леваде дали команду приподнять в общественном сознании фигуру Ленина, как носителя космополитической анти-русской идеологии.
  • ovgorskiy
    ovgorskiy 28 May 2013 12: 04 New
    +3
    The Blevada Center, as always, conducted polls at a rally of white-darned ghana ... c. In my opinion, if I had conducted real surveys of the population, then Gorbachev and 1% would not have gained support with a 99% negative rating. I think somewhere like this?
  • Dzerzhinets
    Dzerzhinets 28 May 2013 12: 08 New
    +4
    Glad for Brezhnev, a great figure of a great era - he never took seriously the condemnation of his award and the last painful years of his life, in the last, and in the first, his partial guilt ...
  • aviamed90
    aviamed90 28 May 2013 12: 18 New
    +1
    And why not compare Presidents Medvedev and Putin with the mentioned rulers in the social survey?
    "Левада-центр" перестраховывается?
    Afraid of the unexpected?
  • urganov
    urganov 28 May 2013 13: 07 New
    -5
    Quote: Ruslan67
    Under Brezhnev, everything was good and bad. But my attitude to him now. It was a military general who went through the war from beginning to end and he was not an enemy of his people. And if something didn’t work out, let the current ones do better. soldier


    I liked the military general. wassat "Малую Землю" со слезами восторга и придыханием восторженным читать пытались?
    1. Hudo
      Hudo 28 May 2013 23: 52 New
      +3
      Quote: urganov
      Про боевого генерала понравились. "Малую Землю" со слезами восторга и придыханием восторженным читать пытались?


      Do you deign on a leaky pleasure boat, following the example of Brezhnev L.I., to sail through the Tsemess bay? To simulate the German shelling, we’ll pick up the heels of the Novorossiysk boys more disgracefully and a couple of bags with boules, so that you would be weightyly thrown at you from a boat moving nearby ...
      At the end of your regatta, you will share your impressions of how funny you were.
  • DeerIvanovich
    DeerIvanovich 28 May 2013 14: 11 New
    +1
    вот снова поворот... "неожиданный": от Левады аналитика статистики уводит народ от истины, пытаются произвести подмену понятий. Человек, который развалил страну,(Николай 2) - и ни одного отрицательного отношения. Как семьянин он может и хороший человек, но как государственный деятель - душегубцем народа назвать его только можно!
    And again, Levada raises questions in such a way as to minimize the role of Stalin in history, but instead to raise the more inconspicuous Brezhnev.
    1. Grishka100watt
      Grishka100watt 28 May 2013 14: 40 New
      -4
      I think the main mistake of Nicholas 2 was that he started offensive operations on enemy territory.
      The French and English rushed him, and he, as an honest man, fulfilled his obligations under the Entente.
      Although it was probably necessary only partially to do this: just wait for the German army at the border, creating a fortified line of the future front, while the Germans distribute stars to our partners in the military alliance.
      He just kept the authority of his surname.
      А что сделали "союзники" когда у русской армии заканчивались боеприпасы? Они предложили - покупайте у нас))))
      This is not to mention that EVERYONE knew that a world war was being prepared and Russia was DRAWN into the military alliance (since the tsar took loans from France), and had a cold count on it.
      This is me to the fact that it was not necessary to behave honestly with these people. Although I cannot blame him, the situation was really difficult.
      1. aviamed90
        aviamed90 28 May 2013 15: 55 New
        +5
        Grishka100watt

        Nicholas II did not start any offensive actions. He was a complete layman in command of the army and navy. This is recognized by all his contemporaries and historians.

        А если вы имеете ввиду Брусиловский прорыв (июнь-август 1916 г.), то Николашка вместо руководства операцией просто спал. Какой там "авторитет своей фамилии"! Он у Вильгельма и перед войной чуть ли не за клоуна был.
        The operation was prepared by the Chief of Staff of the Headquarters (Mogilev), General M.V. Alekseev, and the commander of the South-Western Front, General A.A. Brusilov.

        А вот выдержки из письма императрицы к царю: "Ах, отдай приказание Брусилову остановить эту бесполезную бойню. Наш друг (Распутин) волнуется!"
        But the king obeyed Rasputin unquestioningly!
        Brusilov took a chance at his own peril and risk! AND WITHOUT PERMISSION of the emperor began the operation.
        So, Nikolashka (with Alice) was more than loyal to the Germans and Austrians. But they could not act explicitly - no one would understand them. Then there was still civil society.

        Brusilov lost about 600 thousand people. killed. Losses of Austria-Hungary - 1,5 million people. killed + 500 thousand people. captured.

        With ammunition, the story is completely different. Before the war, the General Staff conducted staff exercises. The theme is the war with Germany. And Russia lost in these exercises. Just because artillery shells have ended. The factories could not cope with their release, and there were not enough of them in the warehouses. Everyone knew about this: the tsar, the Minister of War, the chief of the General Staff. No measures were taken ...


        "Хотя осуждать его я не могу, ситуация действительно была сложная."
        Only the emperor did not understand this damn thing! As a result, I got a revolution.
        1. Grishka100watt
          Grishka100watt 28 May 2013 20: 02 New
          0
          Nicholas II did not start any offensive actions. And if you mean Brusilovsky breakthrough

          I mean the offensive actions of the Russian army against the German and Austrian armies at the very beginning of the war, in 1914.
          A Brusilov breakthrough was in 1916.
          With ammunition, the story is completely different. Before the war, the General Staff conducted staff exercises. The theme is the war with Germany. And Russia lost in these exercises. Just because artillery shells have ended.

          And what is it different?
      2. Grishka100watt
        Grishka100watt 29 May 2013 08: 52 New
        0
        It would be nice before setting a minus for me, refuting my thought, showing off my knowledge, so to speak, presenting my point of view, so to speak.
        Honestly, I think that 3 out of 4 minusers have heard little about PMV.
        1. aviamed90
          aviamed90 29 May 2013 20: 10 New
          0
          Grishka100watt

          Of course, I am not a historian and will express my personal opinion.

          Of course, Samsonov’s operation in 1914 saved France from German occupation. But I believe that the actions of Samsonov, and then Brusilov in 1916 were absolutely correct.

          Let me explain why.

          Объявлена война. В России проведена полная мобилизация (около 5 млн.чел. к началу войны). Держать такое количество солдат в окопах достаточно затратно дя экономики. Необходимы были активные военные действия, чтобы охладить военный пыл и прыть Германии и показать, что у неё нет шансов в этой войне. Конечно - наступать всегда труднее, чем обороняться. Но, в данном случае, "игра стоила свеч".
          Of course, the defeat of Samsonov is a tragedy. But she, of course, on the conscience of General Rannenkampf and Headquarters. If Rannenkampf helped him out, everything would have turned out differently. Moreover, the losses of the parties are comparable: 80 thousand people. Russia has about 50 thousand people. in Germany.

          Brusilov's breakthrough had a different result - tangible casualties for Avto-Hungary and Germany and the enemy’s loss of Volyn, Bukovina and parts of Galicia.
          This is the result! You can talk with him about negotiations with the Germans (and there were such attempts from her side) and her withdrawal from the war.

          И при всём этом, вы считаете, что надо было "просто ждать германскую армию на границе, создавая укрепленную линию будущего фронта".
          What then would be the results of 2 years of war? Sitting in the trenches, frantic financial waste, non-compliance with Russia's allied obligations? And how to justify our losses with zero result?

          About the ammunition.
          Вы пишете "А что сделали "союзники" когда у русской армии заканчивались боеприпасы?"
          А я задам вопрос иначе: "Почему у русской армии возник дифицит боеприпасов?" (ответ в посте выше).
          The Allies may have offered us to sell them, but they are not to blame for their lack. And absolutely certain officials and crowned persons are guilty.
          Причём, как вы совершенно справедливо заметили, "ВСЕ знали о том, что готовится мировая война".

          Next.
          Вы считаете, что "Россию ВТЯНУЛИ в военный альянс(поскольку царь брал кредиты у Франции)". Я считаю, что это полуправда.
          Russia was forced to join the alliance in order not to lose part of its territories.
          Germany and Austria-Hungary had plans to seize the eastern regions of Russia. Which was one of the reasons for the war. I’ll mention, at least, the plans of Austria-Hungary to seize Albania, Serbia and part of Greece, the German plans for Poland.

          By the way, Russia also had plans to seize (or, if you like, liberate) territories (the seizure of Constantinople, the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits), and France - Alsace and Lorraine.
  • Just Vasilich
    Just Vasilich 28 May 2013 15: 03 New
    +6
    Dear forum users!

    Хотелось бы напомнить, что год назад, в мае 2012 года, на сайте "Военное обозрение" был организован и проведен собственный опрос "Оценка государственно-политических деятелей" http://topwar.ru/14595-ocenka-gosudarstvenno-politicheskih-deyateley-rezultaty-o
    prosa.html


    Unlike Levada Center, our survey covered many more statesmen, including both past and present. On the methodological side, it was also more informative, since it involved evaluating each person involved in three specially identified criteria:
    1) Morality
    2) Strength / Activity
    3) Competency

    Then 127 site visitors took part in our survey. After the publication of the survey results, many regretted that they could not take part in it. At the same time, good wishes were expressed to make this survey regular. A year has passed ... is it time to repeat?
    1. folds
      folds 28 May 2013 18: 31 New
      +2
      Why not repeat it?
      "Людям надо регулярно напоминать, кому они всем обязаны!" - не помню из какого фильма..
    2. DeerIvanovich
      DeerIvanovich 28 May 2013 20: 28 New
      +1
      it's time, very rarely polls are conducted on the site
  • Bekzat
    Bekzat 28 May 2013 15: 05 New
    0
    Приветствую всех, знаете а я статью читать не стал, как только увидел что "Левада центр опросила...", да ее на х... эту левада, чем занимается? Сбором информации у потенциального противника, причем опрос проводит у людей, поддерживающих либералов, и прочих пед.....в, существует на средства выделяемые потенциальным противником, и вообще ее надо закрыть, сотрудников разогнать, спокойней будет.
  • RussianRu
    RussianRu 28 May 2013 16: 30 New
    +1
    Lenin, Gorbachev. Everything is clear about them (we will destroy the old world to the ground, and then ........). Brezhnev, there was stability with him, ordinary people lived quietly, but there was nothing progressive, they lived on what industrialization of Stalin created. + everything was created mutual responsibility (now it is called corruption). Yeltsin, neither this nor that. Stalin is industrialization, it is a victory over fascism. There were certainly black spots, but is it worth blaming Stalin alone for this? Question; here such as Gozman and others like him, it is necessary to repress? My answer is yes.
  • MilaPhone
    MilaPhone 28 May 2013 16: 45 New
    +1
    Lenin and Brezhnev went around all

    But both Ilyich!
  • regsSSSR
    regsSSSR 28 May 2013 16: 53 New
    +1
    15% / 13% no comments! smile
    1. Hleb
      Hleb 28 May 2013 17: 18 New
      +1
      Hey doctor, hurry up a doctor! Resurrect Ilyich. Let him hang the bourgeoisie, laughing infernally!
      1. regsSSSR
        regsSSSR 28 May 2013 17: 58 New
        +3
        yes you can’t act like that)) just a photo from the archive came just on topic! the realities of that time and some kind of nefotashop !! I really don’t know the author of this shot, but you don’t find a very good expressive setting? here by the way esho one photo from this series. Well, all the same, somehow Soviet time was kinder than chtoli it was calmer, well, where is it right now? smile yes by the way minus you nor me so please hi
        1. Hleb
          Hleb 28 May 2013 18: 13 New
          +2
          wink I'm not worried. It's irony.
  • Abakanets
    Abakanets 28 May 2013 17: 09 New
    -3
    Nicholas II is one of the most striking figures in the history of Russia. Thanks to him, Russia was one of the richest countries in the world, it was under him that Siberia began to be settled and the Transib was built, etc. He remained faithful to Russia to the end, and he accepted death with dignity as befits an officer. In the USSR, Nicholas was diligently watered with mud, making him almost the embodiment of evil. People with him were free, and not driven into collective farms without passports.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 28 May 2013 18: 05 New
    +3
    Without any words
    1. Hleb
      Hleb 28 May 2013 18: 43 New
      +2
      yes. please be silent



  • Best novel
    Best novel 28 May 2013 18: 52 New
    0
    "пора понять, что народ российский понемногу начинает задумываться, а не просто «хавать» информацию, какой бы конспирологической и заманчивой она ни казалась… По крайней мере, в это хочется верить"-от автора.И этот-же автор постоянно из статьи в статью преподносит нам "похавать"информацию даже не в вышеобозванном-а в уже пережеванном и переваренном виде.Лично у меня это вызывает рвотный рефлекс и желание проверить каждую написанную им букву.Изначально показывая,что данному центру(о его существовании я узнал только из этой статьи и любопытства ради просмотрел их опросы-только цифры без явного приоритета какой-либо власти)доверять нельзя-и тут-же начинает объяснять-почему именно такие результаты.А ведь при желании можно повернуть любые результаты в любую пользу:победили Ленин и Брежнев-люди ностальгируют по коммунистическому прошлому,т.е.-недовольны нынешним режимом.В группе лидеров Сталин-ностальгируют по твердой руке,давая нынешнему лидеру зеленый свет-благо даже политический псевдоним не надо изобретать:ЛЕНИН-СТАЛИН-ПУТИН-звучит?Настоящий журналист,по-моему,тот-кто предоставляет достоверную информацию и заставляет(подталкивает)читателей задуматься и сделать выводы-для каждого свои,спорить.А не вываливает на блюде свои рвотные массы-хавайте.Кстати-ответа на свой комментарий к статье о Чеченской войне и свободной прессе от автора я не увидел-слишком мелко или слишком некогда?
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 28 May 2013 19: 26 New
    +1
    -----------------------------
  • The centurion
    The centurion 28 May 2013 20: 12 New
    +4
    Curious was a poll, I remember him. As soon as you put Stalin in the first place in any of the sub-questions, the site is immediately blocked. Three times I tried to resume, then spat. So all this is fiction.
  • sprut
    sprut 28 May 2013 20: 39 New
    +3
    For me, Stalin comes first!
  • Zen
    Zen 28 May 2013 21: 03 New
    +3
    How can you compare Stalin and the rest?
  • Zen
    Zen 28 May 2013 21: 04 New
    +1
    How can you compare Stalin and the rest?
  • politruk419
    politruk419 29 May 2013 05: 08 New
    0
    Quote: Kombitor
    And L.I. Brezhnev was where he was supposed to be in accordance with his rank, position and honor of the Soviet General,
    Leonid Ilyich was a colonel in Malaya Zemlya.
  • Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 29 May 2013 05: 09 New
    +7
    Nicholas 2: War of 1905, 1914, the collapse of the empire
    Lenin: Creation of the USSR +
    Stalin: The Power of the State and Victory +++
    Khrushchev: corn and the pulling economy
    Brezhnev: Stability and construction ++
    Gorbachev: perestroika and the collapse of the USSR
    Yeltsin: the collapse of the economy and the fall of the state below the plinth
    " А нынешние как-то проскочили" - В. Высоцкий
    1. Abakanets
      Abakanets 29 May 2013 15: 24 New
      -1
      Nicholas II:
      Industry growth
      Mastering Siberia
      High quality of life
      Freedom of movement
      Lack of censorship
      Lenin:
      Civil War (in the region of 25 million corpses)
      Shameful Brest Peace
      The destruction of entire estates
      Rollback of the country for 20-30 years in development
      Hunger at
      National policy has become a time bomb
      Stalin:
      Repression
      Destruction of officers
      Huge miscalculations during the Second World War
      Famine in different parts of the country.
      Khrushchev
      Rehabilitation of millions of people
      Space program
      Also mastered Siberia
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Kostya pedestrian
    Kostya pedestrian 29 May 2013 17: 43 New
    0
    Add:
    1. Tsar Nicholas 2 was the victim of his "companions" and the Austro-German "relatives" - robbed as sticky, and even the Bolsheviks were framed for the deed of killing the imperial family.

    2. The government, headed by Vladimir Lenin:
    a. Mass education
    b. Reform of Academic Institutes and Universities
    c. Electrification and Industrial Development
    d. World's Best Security Agencies and a Strong Army and Navy
    e. Fighting homelessness and creating communes for children
    f. Freedom to peasants and a decent life as laborers.

    3. A good Russian tradition, “about the departed either nothing, or just good,” and a donkey can kick a dead lion.