Military Review

Reform blooper Khrushchev?

94

Our country was going through a lot of various monetary reforms. As a result of these reforms, new ones appeared. coins of Russia, USSR, zeros or portraits were removed from bills. One of the monetary reforms took place in the Soviet Union in 1961. Then the Soviet government decided to introduce new banknotes and coins into circulation in the country, exchanging the old ones for them in a ratio of 10 to 1. That is, 10 old rubles had to be paid for the new ruble. But copper penny, two- and three-kopeck coins of the issue from 1921 to 1957 were not subject to exchange, and their denomination remained the same. This state of the monetary reform served as the basis for the scenario of the famous film of the early 90s "Money Changers", when enterprising people decided to urgently change the available paper money for small coins, in order to thus increase their wealth by 10 times. Credible historical there is no evidence that in 1961 anyone took advantage of such an exchange to their advantage. And there are none for the simple reason that the savings banks of the Soviet Union, immediately after the authorities announced the upcoming reform, received a directive not to exchange paper bills for copper change.
The main positive result of the reform is a reduction in the cost of new banknotes, since their production required less money (they were simply smaller in size). However, experts call the argument that the reform should have led to a reduction in the cost of producing the money supply, initially “fake”.
Many oddities are associated with this reform. One of them - the ratio of the ruble to the dollar before the reform and after it. So in 1960, the 1 US dollar officially cost 4 rubles. After the reform, it began to cost 90 kopecks. However, if the money was changed in the ratio of 10: 1, then the dollar should have been worth just 40 kopecks. It turns out that the ruble was undersupplied with gold more than 2 times, and therefore, when buying foreign goods, the USSR had to spend significantly more (not in pieces of paper, of course, but in gold equivalent). This was the reason for the scandal in the Soviet Ministry of Finance of the time. Arseny Zverev, who was at the helm of this department, who did not approve of the reform of Khrushchev, was forced to resign.
This oddity "in all its glory" has manifested itself in the markets of the country. Commodity prices “fell” not 10 times, but about 4-5 times. That is, for his new salary, an ordinary Soviet worker (if he bought products not in stores, but on the market) could buy about 2 times less goods than he could afford before the reform. It was at that moment that the country began to be overwhelmed by a wave of substandard goods flooding shops (rotten vegetables, fruit, etc.). In the shops they thought that people would still take from them and not from market traders.
It was this reform, or rather its consequences, that became one of the reasons for the subsequent friction between Khrushchev and other representatives of the party elite.
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. os9165
    os9165 19 October 2013 08: 35
    64
    Yes, Khrushchev is still that fruit.
    1. Hudo
      Hudo 19 October 2013 09: 18
      15
      So much for Mao! How he looked into the water!
      1. Hleb
        Hleb 19 October 2013 09: 55
        23
        Links, by the way, are given in such a way that it is impossible to verify them.
        What is "New China", Beijing, 1964, No. 12. Book? Magazine? Or a brand of Chinese port?
        A simple check on the collected works of Mao shows that he did not say anything like this in the fall of 1964.
        Moreover - I will tell you a terrible secret - Mao Zedong neither in the fall nor after the fall of 1964 made such prophecies.
        THE WORD "KREMLIN" DOES NOT MEET IN HIS WORKS EVEN !!!
        BY THE WORD, LIKE THE WORD "PARTITION" -)
        Moreover, it is clear even to blondes that "Covered from the Kremlin" is an obvious lexical remake


        http://igor-cooking.livejournal.com/364488.html?nc=1
      2. donchepano
        donchepano 19 October 2013 12: 03
        10
        Quote: Hudo
        So much for Mao! How he looked into the water!

        Really!
        Khrushchev is still that enemy, perhaps no less than a hunchback ...
        And Mao Jie Dong turned out to be a visionary ...
        And what will opponents of Stalin and friends of the Chubais, Shokhin, Avens, Stankevichs, Deripaskas, Abramovichs, Sopchaks, etc., say now?
        1. Gladiatir-zlo
          Gladiatir-zlo 19 October 2013 20: 15
          +2
          Bratva, it was at this moment that the export of oil, gas and other natural goods became economically profitable, before this reform, the margin of oil export was at the level of 7-10%. But after the reform, everything became more fun. It was after this reform that the projects of "streams of" friendship and other highways began. So think about who benefited from it.
        2. Denis
          Denis 20 October 2013 09: 22
          0
          Quote: donchepano
          Khrushchev is still that enemy, perhaps no less than a hunchback ...
          How to know, how to know ...
          He’s even that unabridged English duck-duck, but not like a head with a patch and behind him a boar. People could always take their money from a savings bank, not like in the 90s
        3. Beech
          Beech 21 October 2013 23: 50
          0
          There is a good movie "Window to Paris" ... there one hero also dreamed of returning to the USSR ... have you forgotten?
      3. Rapier
        Rapier 19 October 2013 15: 57
        +4
        He (Mao) had a lot to watch. At this time, he died of starvation in millions. The figure of 20 million flashed (who counted them? Among the population as manure) of those who died of starvation, mainly in rural areas. They introduced the Sovdepov system of surplus apportionment. For hiding grain / rice a bullet, but what they found was taken away. Thus, the peasants were dying of hunger. Then all sorts of stupid slogans, such as the fight against sparrows. As a result, sparrows were captured / shot, and insect pests destroyed the crops. In general, he was a decent obscurantist, Stalin suits him as a boy.
    2. Starfish
      Starfish 19 October 2013 11: 52
      19
      about careerists and bribe-takers, I agree with Mao, only the Khruschev "nationalist" is still. Crimea gave to Ukraine, gave the Cossack districts of Stavropol to traitors and robbers Nokhchi - Juchkha. finished off the household plots of the Russians, closed thousands of Russian "unpromising" villages, closed thousands of Russian Orthodox churches.
      all his activity gives him a terry Russophobe.
      Trotskyist unfinished
    3. Selevc
      Selevc 19 October 2013 12: 16
      +6
      And how did Mao drive? After him, in the late 70s in China came a real famine !!! And the 3rd World War, which he threatened the West with so much, he never started it, but on the contrary went towards rapprochement with the USA and confrontation with the USSR and, as a result, a split in the social camp !!!
      MAO projects - the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were also completely disastrous ...

      It seems to me that both MAO and Khrushchev, like many representatives of the ruling elite of the socialist countries, are largely similar to each other - this is their style of solving problems in one fell swoop and, so to speak, cutting off their shoulders ... But life has shown the complete fallacy of such a policy ...
    4. Lindon
      Lindon 19 October 2013 15: 01
      +2
      Mao after the Khrushchev report on Stalin realized that the traitors were nearby and began the cultural revolution. Now we see after Mao the successors of his work remained - Deng Xiao Ping continued his rapprochement with the United States and now China is catching up with and overtaking America, remaining faithful to Mao's ideas.
      1. Beech
        Beech 22 October 2013 00: 00
        0
        Do you propose to arrange the same? Are you sure that it’s NOT YOU ... but you will be banged for the sake of an idea?
    5. nazgul-ishe
      nazgul-ishe 20 October 2013 07: 37
      +1
      This means that the Communists, with good helmsman, can achieve great success. So it's not a bobbin ...
    6. luka095
      luka095 20 October 2013 23: 53
      0
      It is hard to call Khrushchev a nationalist. It cannot be because these are, in fact, Trotskyist actions. Fighting personal farming, sweeping virgin lands (crops lost), building communism by 1980, thoughtless reform of the army and navy ... The list goes on. And it is interesting that the descendants of Khrushchev live in Ukraine (to which he killed the compatriots), and in the USA.
  2. vladstro
    vladstro 19 October 2013 08: 38
    +4
    yes Khrushchev was a master of all sorts of ideas such as "corn in the far north", etc.
    1. Beech
      Beech 21 October 2013 23: 58
      0
      There were always enough dreamers laughing
  3. TAIM
    TAIM 19 October 2013 08: 58
    +1
    Crimea included in the Ukrainian SSR. .
    1. Alew
      Alew 19 October 2013 09: 54
      +2
      Quote: TAIM
      Crimea included in the Ukrainian SSR. .

      And mind you, without a referendum, and now NATO has views of military bases in Crimea
    2. UVB
      UVB 19 October 2013 10: 02
      +7
      What about Novocherkassk? Since the time of the Civil War there hasn’t been such a thing as to shoot your civilians in the main square of the city (!). For this alone, he must be anathematized for centuries!
      1. UVB
        UVB 19 October 2013 11: 35
        0
        Well, and who has minus me? Could it be Sergei Nikitovich Kh.?
        1. T-73
          T-73 19 October 2013 11: 45
          -2
          I am also a minusan, an article about what? What does Novocherkassk have to do with it?
        2. UVB
          UVB 19 October 2013 12: 07
          +2
          Quote: T-73
          I am also a minusan, an article about what? What does Novocherkassk have to do with it?

          It was actually an addition to the commentary. The article is an occasion to express their attitude to the individual.
          1. T-73
            T-73 20 October 2013 15: 46
            +1
            Events in Novocherkassk were in 1962, what are the comments. Do not know what it is about - do not meddle
            1. UVB
              UVB 20 October 2013 15: 58
              0
              I'm not on your koment. answered, you got into where you do not need it. If it becomes easier, please, the events in Novocherkassk are not related to the article. Are you satisfied? And I know you no worse than what year it was, I found it and I myself came from the Rostov Region.
    3. apostol88
      apostol88 19 October 2013 11: 36
      +3
      Give the hero of Ukraine posthumously! laughing
    4. panych
      panych 19 October 2013 12: 08
      +4
      Is it only Crimea? Isn't Kiev a Russian city? Russia, not fighting Ukraine, lost significant territories and human resources thanks to the CPSU led by Khrushchev.
  4. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 19 October 2013 09: 19
    +6
    Khrushchev laid the foundations for the collapse of the USSR with his tyranny. China, Albania turned away from the USSR after his report on the cult of personality
    1. T-73
      T-73 19 October 2013 11: 55
      +2
      Well, if Albania turned away, the collapse of the USSR was inevitable
      1. ivshubarin
        ivshubarin 20 October 2013 15: 42
        0
        Albania has a good location in Europe with access to the Mediterranean Sea.
    2. Starfish
      Starfish 19 October 2013 11: 55
      +1
      the foundations of the collapse of the USSR were laid in the Constitution of the USSR. and it was only a matter of time - when the humpbacked Judas came, Khrusch only accelerated his arrival
      1. Starfish
        Starfish 19 October 2013 12: 54
        +2
        and that the Constitution of the USSR did not spell out the possibility of secession from the Union? it had to be removed from the constitution under Stalin, and then there was no one to do it. he wouldn’t become Khrusch, and under Brezhnev the nationalist elements in the union republics had already become strong.
        this, I think, was a legal mine laid under the foundation of the Union.
        1. ivshubarin
          ivshubarin 19 October 2013 13: 08
          +7
          Lenin introduced the possibility of republics leaving the USSR in the Constitution; Stalin was against
          1. Rapier
            Rapier 19 October 2013 16: 09
            -2
            One article in the Constitution (and the threat of its practical application) would make the USSR more stable, namely, that the punishment measure (for the guilty republic) could be an exception from the USSR.
            I'm not sure the system was successful, everything was going to collapse. The communes were not able to lead the people to a "bright future", and they did not tolerate competition, they staked out their role / rights in the constitution, but did not specify their responsibilities.
    3. Beech
      Beech 21 October 2013 23: 54
      0
      Pray, I don’t know anyone who didn’t live under Stalin ... they wouldn’t have so much pain ... and there was no Internet ... they would have lived like in the DPRK ...
  5. Avenger711
    Avenger711 19 October 2013 09: 21
    +9
    This is not a blunder, but a veiled price increase. Under Stalin, prices were dropping, the first increase was precisely under Khrushchev.
  6. omsbon
    omsbon 19 October 2013 09: 56
    13
    Figler could never continue Great Man - I.V. Stalin!
    1. Hudo
      Hudo 19 October 2013 10: 00
      +6
      Quote: omsbon
      Figler could never continue Great Man - I.V. Stalin!


      The bald Trotskyist Khrushchev had different plans and attitudes. He cannot continue the great deeds of the Great Man.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 19 October 2013 13: 02
      +1
      Quote: omsbon
      Figler could never continue the work of the Great Man - I.V. Stalin!

      And who raised this "buffoon"? Did he himself appoint himself to positions?
  7. PValery53
    PValery53 19 October 2013 10: 03
    +1
    Nikita Krutikov (Khrushchev) was still that artificer, and -tit it!
    1. donchepano
      donchepano 19 October 2013 12: 06
      -4
      Quote: PValery53
      Nikita Krutikov (Khrushchev) was still that art critic

      It seems his real last name was Perllmutter?
  8. Alew
    Alew 19 October 2013 10: 07
    10
    Here my 82-year-old mother says - nobody loved Khrushchev. poorly educated person. yap corn. a disgrace to the union. who allowed him to power. . .
    1. bwo
      bwo 19 October 2013 13: 26
      +1
      The CPSU allowed him to power.
  9. Migari
    Migari 19 October 2013 10: 07
    +2
    The most unforgivable for Khrushchev is, of course, Krym. And he was a chatterbox, he had speeches on the radio for 3-4 hours, we did not have television at that time, or only a few had it, and then he got it with his "queen of the fields", corn.
    1. donchepano
      donchepano 19 October 2013 12: 08
      +7
      Quote: Migari
      The most unforgivable for Khrushchev, of course, is Crimea. And there was a talker, he had 3-4 radio talks, we didn’t have television then, or there were units

      Does it not by chance remind one more lover to talk for hours, sick with the narcissism of the great perestroika?
    2. Glory333
      Glory333 19 October 2013 14: 34
      0
      Who Crimea in a single country does not matter is a pointless question. Imagine the USSR will be restored, someone in Ukraine will be outraged if Crimea is returned to the RSFSR? In the same way, no one was indignant in the RSFSR over the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR.
      1. SkiF_RnD
        SkiF_RnD 20 October 2013 20: 11
        0
        I can not agree. If our Mines try to transfer Kalmykia somewhere, I’ll personally go fly to direct am
        1. Glory333
          Glory333 20 October 2013 22: 03
          0
          Now you do not live in the USSR)
  10. Yon_Silent
    Yon_Silent 19 October 2013 10: 12
    13
    I will add my own 5 cents.
    For some reason, the author of the article did not indicate the reason for the reform itself. It seems that the basis of this decision was only Khrushchev's nonsense and whim. But this is not entirely true, the reason was.
    In the post-war period, the USSR experienced a huge increase in oil production - from 19,436 million tons in 1945 to 148 million tons in 1960. And in the same 1960, a decision was made on large-scale oil exports as assistance to the "fraternal countries."
    In the first post-war years, the export of oil products from the USSR was insignificant, and crude oil was not exported at all until 1948. In 1950, the share of oil products in foreign exchange earnings amounted to 3,9%. But in 1955 this share rose to 9,6% and further continued to grow. However, oil in those days was quite cheap - $ 2,88 per barrel. At the rate of 1: 4, established in 1950, this amounted to 11 rubles 52 kopecks. The cost of production of one barrel and its transportation to the destination was an average of 9 rubles 61 kopecks. In this situation, export was almost unprofitable. It could be profitable if more rubles are paid for the dollar. After the reform was carried out per barrel, oilmen received almost the same amount in dollars - $ 2.89, but in rubles this amount already amounted to 2 rubles 60 kopecks with the same 96-kopeck cost of a barrel.
    It’s cunning ... the 1961 denomination brought two troubles to the country - dependence on oil exports and chronic food shortages, leading to corruption in trade. But Zverev was against this, and he was the smartest man, who perfectly understood what was happening. And honestly refused to take responsibility for this crime.
  11. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 19 October 2013 10: 48
    11
    Stalin treated the USSR as his brainchild and did everything for the state (in fact, the USSR became a superpower after the Second World War thanks to Stalin), Khrushchev and the following were treated as consumers in the USSR
  12. Ddhal
    Ddhal 19 October 2013 10: 58
    +2
    Yes, Sergeyitch, and even more so - Anatolyevich (I even had to remember my middle name) look like 7th water on jelly compared to such blocks like Stalin and Mao.
  13. pahom54
    pahom54 19 October 2013 11: 13
    13
    Khrushchev had more than enough of Lyapov, and he did a lot of harm (in the subject of military observation - as soon as the missiles appeared, he began to cut new planes and ships, to cut down and fire pilots and sailors). And the people did not love him (I myself was born in the year of Stalin's death, but I remember how grandmothers and grandfathers cursed Khrushch, especially when this reform took place.).
    With this reform, both laughter and sin: I remember that father and mother came home on pay day and put their salaries on the table. And I ask: dad, and what kind of candy wrappers?
    Instead of dad, my grandmother answered me: they threw us, granddaughters, threw us ...
    I ask: How was they thrown ???
    Grandma replied: how much a bunch of radishes cost in the bazaar was 15 kopecks, it’s worth it, and this means that it has risen in price 10 times ...
    Then I still didn’t understand anything, I understood only in the late 80s and beyond, as soon as the Pavlovian reforms and further ...
    So what am I doing? This is exactly the topic.
    On the topic of blunders and reforms (I mean the monetary reform) Khrushchev hit the people’s pocket much less than the reforms carried out after him ...
    And now we have enough scam reforms, which is worth only one pension ...
    By the way, a little off topic. I don’t know why, but for the second dozen I have been observing organizations such as the FSUE Russian Post and the Pension Fund. So the bottom line is: every one and a half to two years (!!!) regularly the top of these organizations commit billions of thefts, AND THEY DISAPPEAR !!! And they are being declared internationally wanted through Interpol !!! AND NEVER ARE FOUND !!! And in a year and a half or two years the situation repeats one to one !!!
    So Nikita with his bloopers - so, passed by comparison with modern blancers ...
  14. Algor73
    Algor73 19 October 2013 11: 14
    -5
    Listen, so Khrushchev is to blame. Everyone who was in power was doing something bad and something good (Gorbachev is worth it). But according to Khrushchev:
    Pros
    1. Exposing the personality cult of Stalin. Rehabilitation of hundreds of thousands of illegally repressed. Relative democratization of society.
    2. The adoption of the "Peace Program", the main thesis of which is the prevention of war between states with different social systems.
    3. The conclusion of the Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear testing in three areas: atmosphere, space and under water.
    4. The reduction of the Armed Forces of the USSR by one third (1,2 million people) and the reduction of exorbitant military spending.
    5. Pension reform affecting tens of millions of citizens. Under Khrushchev, for the first time, retirement became possible.
    6. The reform of agriculture: the collective farmers, who were practically in the position of serfs, began to receive a guaranteed cash payment for labor. They were given passports, allowed to go to other collective farms and leave for the city.
    7. Mass housing. For example, in 1956, the pace of construction in Moscow overtook the pace of population growth.
    8. The USSR achieved the greatest achievements in the field of science and technology. The world's first nuclear power plant (1954), the first satellite (1957), the first cosmonaut (1961).
    9. Mastered 30 million hectares of virgin lands.
    10. The "Iron Curtain" opened, cultural exchange with foreign countries revived. Soviet people slowly began to travel abroad.
    Cons
    1. The shooting of a working demonstration in Novocherkassk (1962). 26 people are believed to have died, 58 injured, 7 sentenced to death.
    2. Khrushchev did not resist the exaltation of his own personality. If in 1963 his portrait in central newspapers was printed 120 times, then for the incomplete 1964th - more than 140!
    3. He promised that "the current generation of Soviet people will live under communism." And did not comply ...
    4. As a result of ill-conceived military reform, a huge number of officers were left without work, housing, and civilian specialties.
    5. He promised for several years to “catch up and overtake America” in the production of meat, milk and butter per capita. And did not comply ...
    6. With 1963, regular grain purchases began abroad.
    7. Khrushchev pursued a policy of preventing the keeping of livestock in the personal property of citizens, which killed millions of livestock.
    8. When it was built the Berlin Wall (1961), which became a symbol of the confrontation between socialism and capitalism.
    9. Ubiquitous, regardless of nature, the cultivation of corn. “In all areas and territories of the Union,” the rhyme popular with Khrushchev argued, “corn can produce crops.”
    10. The fight against "unhealthy phenomena in art" using administrative-state methods (from party committees to bulldozers).
    And if you analyze all this, then not all the pluses are pluses, and minuses are minuses. Watching from which belfry to watch.
    1. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 19 October 2013 11: 19
      12
      The personality cult of Stalin was created by such licking parties as Khrushchev, but he and Brezhnev outdid Stalin in this. Stalin did not welcome the fawning and did not weigh himself with orders with medals, although he earned it
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 19 October 2013 13: 12
        -10 qualifying.
        Quote: ivshubarin
        Stalin did not welcome the fawn

        Yeah, sure. I didn’t like it so much so that when I sailed on the boat past a monument to myself at the Volga-Don Canal, 54 meters high, I closed my eyes and cried quietly ...
        1. ivshubarin
          ivshubarin 19 October 2013 13: 16
          +2
          Have you seen this?
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 19 October 2013 13: 42
            +1
            Quote: ivshubarin
            Have you seen this?

            No, presented according to your comment, at the expense of his dislike of "toadying".
            How, by the way, such a popolis as Khrushchev (you won’t hope to deny this) could climb the career ladder?
            1. ivshubarin
              ivshubarin 19 October 2013 14: 30
              +1
              Khrushchev was very executive, Stalin judged by his working capacity, and not because he was more succesful, he loved when they argued with him and defended his point of view. Khrushchev performer, but the head of it is a complete zero
        2. alicante11
          alicante11 20 October 2013 04: 59
          +2
          Yeah, sure. I didn’t like it so much so that when I sailed on the boat past a monument to myself at the Volga-Don Canal, 54 meters high, I closed my eyes and cried quietly ...


          ... thinking, this is how much dough they swelled in vain. And it was possible to repair the school ...
    2. Glory333
      Glory333 19 October 2013 14: 29
      +6
      Many of your pros are obvious cons and vice versa.
      1. Minus - traitors were rehabilitated, the surviving Trotskyists were given the opportunity to conduct their subversive in order to establish a hateful Western system in the USSR (democracy). Democracy all ate after 1991 and to blame for this, including Khrushchev.
      2. Minus, Western countries have set and are setting specific goals to destroy all European peoples from the Russians to the Portuguese, peaceful coexistence with such countries is impossible, only war (cold or hot).
      4. Minus - see p. 2
      10. Minus - the contacts of the free socialist world with the totalitarian man-hating regimes of the West have expanded.

      8. Plus - I repeat, peaceful coexistence with those who wanted to destroy us is impossible, another question is that it was possible to do without a wall by occupying West Berlin with our troops.
      10. Plus - even Khrushchev understood that a different daub, black squares or green rhombuses - not an art but a swindle.
      1. BBM
        BBM 20 October 2013 15: 24
        -1
        You, too, by the way did not hinder the camp
    3. MAKCs
      MAKCs 19 October 2013 17: 48
      +5
      I do not agree with some points
      Quote: Algor73
      Rehabilitation of hundreds of thousands of illegally repressed

      Beria began rehabilitation, Khrushchev only continued it.

      Quote: Algor73
      The USSR has achieved major achievements in the field of science and technology. The world's first nuclear power plant (1954), the first satellite (1957), the first astronaut (1961).


      All this was laid under Stalin; Khrushchev’s special merit is not here. 4 years separating his coming to power could not significantly change the situation with the satellite, and let alone a nuclear power plant.
  15. vostok1982
    vostok1982 19 October 2013 11: 46
    +8
    I think history will put everyone in their places. Personally, I am sure that the cunning, but not very smart Khrushchev did not destroy the USSR just because the generation of war veterans was still full of strength. People would simply rip it apart. And if he lived 30 years later, he would calmly introduce glasnost and perestroika. It was a traitor who was simply not allowed to turn around.
    1. T-73
      T-73 19 October 2013 12: 09
      +1
      Quote: vostok1982
      It was a traitor who was simply not allowed to turn around.

      complete nonsense, and what generation of front-line soldiers are you talking about? The whole country went through the war, 15 years have passed since its end only. Restructuring? Any forward movement can be called that. Eight years have passed since Stalin, and where was it - publicity? And do you seriously think that Khrushchev would be torn apart if he told everyone (for our country he would have just voiced) about the Gulag, for example?
    2. alicante11
      alicante11 20 October 2013 05: 23
      +2
      Personally, I’m sure that the cunning, but not very smart Khrushchev did not ruin the USSR just because the generation of front-line soldiers was still full of strength


      Khrushchev did not try to destroy the USSR. He, of course, is a good b ..., but there is no need to hang "superfluous" on him. It's just that Khrushchev was a fool and fell for fairy tales from the West about the peaceful coexistence of two systems. In exchange for these fairy tales, he slowed down the development of the USSR and returned the economy, as he believed, to the correct socialist track, from which Stalin left by introducing private initiative into the economy. By and large, Khrushchev's expectations were justified, the socialist economy still grew much faster than the capitalist one, and it is not a fact that by 2000 we would not have come to communism if it had not been for the notorious humpbacked perestroika. But the drawdown that Khrushchev gave with his two decisions voiced above (plus the dollar system of foreign trade) allowed the West to retain its advantage in the economy and in providing for the population longer. Which gave time for the collapse of the Union and the entire socialist system.
  16. T-73
    T-73 19 October 2013 11: 54
    0
    Monetary reform was necessary, the economy cannot be divorced from changes in industry, and by 1961 the country rose from its knees and post-war devastation. And do not forget: no matter what this reform may be, only Boryusik-Judah broke this monetary system, and only then did he really drive the people into poverty, and not Khrushchev’s reform. A minus article is about nothing.
    1. washi
      washi 20 October 2013 09: 35
      +2
      Quote: T-73
      Monetary reform was necessary, the economy cannot be divorced from changes in industry, and by 1961 the country rose from its knees and post-war devastation. And do not forget: no matter what this reform may be, only Boryusik-Judah broke this monetary system, and only then did he really drive the people into poverty, and not Khrushchev’s reform. A minus article is about nothing.

      Monetary reform carried out after the war Zverev. At the same time, many lost stolen goods.
  17. Selevc
    Selevc 19 October 2013 11: 54
    0
    Quote: Algor73
    The Berlin Wall (1961) was built under him, which became a symbol of the confrontation between socialism and capitalism.

    The Berlin Wall is Stalin’s 100% mistake - since it was with him that the device of post-war Germany was so short-sightedly solved - allies were admitted to Berlin ... Khrushchev was already confronted with the fact - either isolate West Berlin or let this spy den openly exist and a hotbed of Western influence right in the center of Socialist Germany - so to speak right under the side of the KKE and the Stasi !!!
  18. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 19 October 2013 12: 06
    +8
    My childhood was in 1961. But even I, a schoolboy, understood that the reform of 61 of the year deceived us. If I (by some miracle) had three rubles (old), it was wealth !. Reform passed and thirty cents did not look so impressive. The deception of the people was obvious. And people talked about it openly.
  19. Silkway0026
    Silkway0026 19 October 2013 12: 12
    10
    exposing the "cult of Stalin's personality" - in fact, Khrushchev was hiding his bloody deeds. hid in this din.
  20. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 19 October 2013 12: 53
    +5
    The USSR, where Khrushchev led, was the leader in terms of death lists and repressions. Stalin repeatedly besieged him in the fight against enemies of the people
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 19 October 2013 13: 20
      -1
      Quote: ivshubarin
      The USSR, where Khrushchev led, was the leader in terms of death lists and repressions. Stalin repeatedly besieged him in the fight against enemies of the people

      Reading your posts you are surprised, Stalin directly struggled with Khrushchev's promotion to the very top, but despite this he made his way to the secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee. Somehow weakly, in your opinion, Stalin resisted the pressure of the Trotskyist-voluntarist in his desire for power. Or maybe on the contrary, Khrushchev’s cruelty, resourcefulness and sloppy behavior impressed Stalin so much?
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 20 October 2013 05: 46
        +2
        while you are surprised at your posts, Stalin directly struggled with Khrushchev's promotion to the very top, but despite this he made his way to the secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee. Somehow weakly, in your opinion, Stalin resisted the pressure of the Trotskyist-voluntarist in his desire for power. Or maybe on the contrary, Khrushchev’s cruelty, resourcefulness and sloppy behavior impressed Stalin so much?


        Why are you surprised? Under Stalin, Khrushchev did not become the head of the country. And he became the first secretary of the Central Committee in 1953 after Stalin and the murder of Beria. Knowing that Khrushch was not smart, but efficient, Stalin kept him, sometimes slapping in the face. By and large, Khrushchev accidentally ended up in power. It's just that, like Sobchak's GDP, everyone seemed neutral and harmless. But now the demon of ambition leaped up and our comrades helped and our maize grower swam to the crest of the wave. Unfortunately.
    2. allim
      allim 19 October 2013 19: 02
      +3
      In 37, Stalin sent a telegram to Khrushchev
      D URAK when he sent lists for execution
  21. sigdoc
    sigdoc 19 October 2013 13: 07
    +9
    Algor73 was somehow shy with minuses, and in some places he altered them into pluses, I did not remember about Crimea, I did not remember the Kuriles, I did not remember Port Arthur, Porkkala-Udd did not remember how the program of the ocean fleet was closed, I did not remember. in almost all spheres of activity, but the main feat I consider his report "On the cult of the individual and its consequences" which eventually led to the destruction of the USSR
    1. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 19 October 2013 13: 09
      +1
      Totally agree with you
    2. T-73
      T-73 19 October 2013 13: 31
      -1
      You forget that the report was at a closed plenum and most likely the enemies were those who transmitted it to the West. Who was made think too reminiscent of?
  22. sigdoc
    sigdoc 19 October 2013 13: 39
    +3
    The Khrushchevites passed it on, and the version of how a journalist calmly takes out a document labeled "Secret" in order to make a copy of it is, to put it mildly, absurd.
  23. Glory333
    Glory333 19 October 2013 14: 06
    +3
    Khrushchev was initially close to the Trotskyists (double-dealing agents of the West-State Department), but he was not a real "genetic" Trotskyist, Stalin decided not to shoot him but to re-educate him, partly he succeeded, but only partly. After Stalin's death, Khrushchev and his accomplices behaved like a Trotskyist - he stopped persecuting agents of the West (closed the case of doctors, etc.), rushed to expose Stalinism, reduced the army and offered the West peace. But the West (USA) showed Khrushchev his place "near the bucket" demonstratively neglecting Khrushchev's peace initiatives, angry Khrushchev began to behave like a Stalinist to actively oppose the United States wherever he could, while simultaneously developing the USSR's nuclear missile forces and the space program - you must agree that this is a strange policy for a Trotskyist.
    In the field of domestic politics, Khrushchev also behaved both as a Trotskyist and as a Stalinist, as a Trotskyist, destroying agriculture - he took away plots of land from peasants, forbade artels and cooperatives; as a Stalinist, he tried to raise the standard of living of the people — he launched mass housing construction, increased the output of goods, raised education and culture, and fought against the nationalists fostered by the Trotskyists.
    1. bwo
      bwo 20 October 2013 18: 45
      0
      What is Trotskyism here?
      Chr. and did not stand next to Lev Borisovich and his teachings.
      If interested, check out Wikipedia.
      1. Glory333
        Glory333 20 October 2013 20: 25
        0
        In the broad sense, the Trotskyist is an agent of the United States (West), a supporter of the anti-human Western system, for example A. Gaidar or his grandson, and the current European commissioners are also Trotskyists who also hate people and try to destroy them by any means.
        1. bwo
          bwo 20 October 2013 21: 47
          0
          An interesting interpretation. I never thought that studying in the distant years of the "Course in the history of the CPSU" would make it possible to laugh at the "broad meaning." Learn the materiel and do not use the "Political Dictionary" 195 .. year of publication, otherwise you will begin to assert that "cybernetics is pseudoscience" and genetics is "the corrupt girl of imperialism."
          1. Glory333
            Glory333 20 October 2013 21: 58
            +1
            I don’t use a dictionary, I look at things - since a supporter of Western democracy is connected with the world oligarchy, once he spends the Genocide, destroys the population and economy like Trotsky, it means a Trotskyist. And what does it say and in which party is it completely unimportant, for example, Oland and Sarkozy - what is the difference between them? Both Trotskyists.
            1. bwo
              bwo 20 October 2013 22: 05
              +1
              Then all our presidents are Trotskyists.
              Bravo!
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. uzer 13
    uzer 13 19 October 2013 18: 04
    +5
    I still remember those times and, as an eyewitness to the events, I can say that Khrushchev’s people did not like and his eccentric antics were the subject of ridicule. Stalin continued to be an authoritative politician even after the well-known Congress of the CPSU. (This period was about 1959-1965) the hero of the poems of Twardowski, Vasily Terkin, was popular. There were still live soldiers who told the truth about the war to schoolchildren of the 2nd and 3rd grades. The issue of benefits and privileges was not on the agenda for them. After the monetary reform, everything went up, and so did vodka. for the same There were 40-60 rubles for men, 90-120 rubles for men. Lamp radiol, which began to appear in stores, cost an average of 120-140 rubles, a FED camera about 60 rubles. There were no washing machines, refrigerators, transistor radios. There was faith in the future that everyone knows there and will not leave the people to their fate.
    1. bwo
      bwo 20 October 2013 22: 25
      0
      And what future did the communists bring us to?
  26. Vadim2013
    Vadim2013 19 October 2013 20: 02
    0
    In the 1961 year, I did not pay attention to the monetary reform in the Soviet Union, since I was a first year student at the MEIS full-time faculty.
  27. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 19 October 2013 20: 31
    +7
    Having failed his reforms, having robbed the population, having dispersed the army, staged the so-called thaw, shot the workers' demonstrations, removed the nomenclature from the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies, we ended up with Gorbachov, Shevardnadze, Yakovlev and other trash.
    1. Vadim2013
      Vadim2013 19 October 2013 21: 17
      +3
      How could one person, N.S. Khrushchev, fail his reforms, rob the population, etc. Where did the ruling party of the CPSU and its collective leadership look at this? Apparently, everything was not normal in the USSR. The result of the collapse of the USSR.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 20 October 2013 06: 13
        +2
        So he was never alone, there were many who were noted, look at the gop campaign that ruined Beria, but then they also ate each other well.
        1. Vadim2013
          Vadim2013 20 October 2013 07: 02
          +2
          This whole "gop-campaign" was picked up by JV Stalin. During his reign, such a system of control of the USSR was created when one person decided everything.
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 20 October 2013 07: 18
            0
            This gop company is the legacy of his victory over the Trotskyists. Without the party nomenclature, Stalin would not have blamed Trotsky, unfortunately. And, as a decent man, he could not afford black ingratitude. Although, of course, for a politician, decency is a big minus and a big problem. Beria did not manage to keep the nomenclature in their hands, or did not manage to prepare everything for the transfer of power, and as a result, the Stalinists lost the struggle for power.
            1. Vadim2013
              Vadim2013 20 October 2013 12: 28
              +1
              I.V. Stalin did not reckon with what post in the state an official held. He put forward the people he needed, removed the unnecessary, and even took his life. When they entered his office, they did not know
              will they come home.
  28. catapractic
    catapractic 20 October 2013 11: 04
    +1
    Nikita Sergeevich, although he was a talker, did not differ in intelligence or ingenuity
  29. Victor Alekseev
    Victor Alekseev 20 October 2013 12: 51
    0
    Lying. coins also changed 10 to 1
    1. bwo
      bwo 20 October 2013 22: 01
      +2
      1,2 and 3 kopeks did not change. I remember very well.
  30. BBM
    BBM 20 October 2013 12: 55
    +1
    after reading komenty, I realized that for the most part Kashchenko is crying (such a hospital).
    And the article is rotten.
    There are many oddities associated with this reform. One of them is the ratio of the ruble and the dollar before and after the reform. So in 1960, 1 US dollar officially cost 4 rubles. After the reform, it began to cost 90 kopecks. However, if the money was changed in the ratio of 10: 1, then the dollar should have cost only 40 kopecks. It turns out that the ruble was underserved by gold more than 2 times
    this passage to any more or less competent economist (produced by the USSR) and just a person who is interested in political economy and has mastered the first volume of Capital (the bible of any Marxist and the generally recognized classic economist. theory). It will become clear that the article is shit. Yes, and the main merit of Khrushchev if someone is not in the know was the refusal to peg the ruble to gold. This is precisely what ensured that truly gigantic industrial boom that began back under Khrushchev and especially under Brezhnev. What is it worth the fact that in the last five years of the existence of the USSR (although Gorbachev is not his merit), 1 times more generating capacities were commissioned than in the last pre-war Stalin five-year period (under Lionka, atas Dzhugashvili there looks like a complete deshov against his background). I’ll modestly keep silent about the commissioning of the housing stock. All this is not possible - without a financial model, conditionally speaking nat. Fed - how much is needed and print. - in which emission is determined primarily by the needs of nat. economics. And not tied candy wrapper to useless scrap metal, or even more so to someone else's printing press that there is just a complete savagery and obvious betrayal (as it is now)
    1. zub46
      zub46 20 October 2013 14: 09
      +2
      I personally remember the 1961 monetary reform. There was order in the country and fixed prices for all goods set by the state. Prices until about 1963 remained practically the same. The only thing is, if earlier the goods cost 5 rubles 50 kopecks, then its new price became 56 kopecks. If 5 rubles 45 kopecks. - then 54 kopecks. Plus, every year, in March, according to the tradition established by Stalin, prices for manufactured goods dropped. True, at the end of Khrushchev's reign, this decline mainly concerned things like refills for ballpoint pens or women's stockings. Then the poor harvest of 1962-63 and the well-known problems with food began for a long time, primarily with butter and meat. The prices were raised on the basis of "repeated requests of the workers," as the newspapers wrote.
    2. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 20 October 2013 15: 47
      0
      Dzhugashvili restored the country after two wars, and Khrushchev and Brezhnev got a superpower with nuclear weapons. As long as the money was tied to gold there were no jumps in inflation
      1. BBM
        BBM 20 October 2013 17: 15
        +2
        Quote: ivshubarin
        As long as the money was tied to gold there were no jumps in inflation

        frank lunatics or venal liberalists can flog such garbage. It’s better to take a look at how everything was exciting in Spain when a golden stream from the American colonies poured there. In short, your reasoning at the 1-grade level (or simply PPC) is not surprising that in such a country the Holobukov’s Leni chopped up so much dough from suckers.
        As Bill who Clinton used to say (in fact the most successful prez. After Roosevelt) - Economics is primary everything else is secondary.
        PS by the way for a troy ounce of gold at the beginning of the century, you could buy a car (new) and now? figs here you have a quiet haven. The real purchasing power of gold over the past century has fallen by 2.5 3 times ...
    3. bwo
      bwo 20 October 2013 22: 17
      +1
      > after reading the comments, I realized that for the most part here Kashchenko is crying (such a hospital).
      And the article is rotten.
      It is sad, but you are right.
  31. The comment was deleted.
  32. Klim
    Klim 20 October 2013 20: 44
    0
    Russians will honor you betrayed us
  33. nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe 21 October 2013 00: 37
    0
    Quote: ivshubarin
    As long as the money was tied to gold there were no jumps in inflation


    America has long abandoned its attachment to gold but has a developed industry and inflation spikes are minimized.
    And at the expense of the Maize in vain. Each official wanted the Hero on his chest and go a tier higher, which is why they moved corn to the Arctic and dairy cattle for meat. It was bad then with the information.
    1. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 21 October 2013 13: 19
      +1
      About the industry in more detail, it has long been in China. They just realized that printing candy wrappers without reference to precious metals can be infinite, and a lot of money caused inflation
      1. Beech
        Beech 22 October 2013 00: 04
        0
        The Chinese are smart!
  34. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 21 October 2013 05: 25
    +6
    "Okay, okay,
    Cuba eats pancakes!
    We clap our hands
    We burst the corn! "

    Then there was such a ditty!
  35. general.bnw
    general.bnw 21 October 2013 06: 41
    0
    Lord! This odious * life-giver *, who asserted a lot of things and, in particular, did not like the Army, although he himself visited the front and, among other things, wanted to deprive her ... of epaulettes revived in 1943! Details on the * Portal about Russia *, in the same place - drawings * of the project *.
  36. I think so
    I think so 21 October 2013 21: 08
    -1
    And what did the person want to say with this article? Unclear MINUS of empty information ...