Military Review

Russian tsars: view from the West. Part of 2: Khrushchev

35
Russian tsars: view from the West. Part of 2: KhrushchevThe image of Nikita Khrushchev in the West, of course, depended on how the strategy of the United States and its allies in the Cold War was changing. At first, Western contemporaries praised the “Khrushchev thaw” and pinned great hopes on the new Soviet leader. He was called the "young reformer" who is able to build an "open society" in the USSR. “Unlike the former leaders of the red empire,” wrote the London Times, “who walked in identical costumes, coats and hats and plotted intrigues behind high Kremlin walls, this is a living normal person with whom you can deal.”


"Good Dwarf"

In the West, they emphasized that Khrushchev “debunked the personality cult of Stalin”, released political prisoners from prison and began traveling around the world, earning the nickname “tireless traveler”. Already the first trip of Khrushchev to India was perceived as a reform of international relations. Indeed, in recent years, Stalin did not leave the limits of the Garden Ring.

True, it is worth noting that the old European leaders, who greatly respected "Uncle Joe", were condescending to his successor. De Gaulle called Khrushchev a “cunning muzhik,” and Winston Churchill even reprimanded the Soviet General Secretary for the fact that at the XX Congress he “desecrated the memory of a true hero.”

In Europe, many sneered at the rustic style of the new leader of the USSR. However, the simplicity and immediacy of Khrushchev allowed him to conquer the Americans. In September 1959, at the invitation of President Eisenhower, he arrived in the United States. The state visit has become a real political show. Khrushchev asked him to arrange an acquaintance with America and traveled on a special train through the whole country: from the east coast to the west and from the west to the east. The event was covered by at least five thousand journalists. “On such a scale,” wrote the New York Times, “not a single election campaign was covered in the United States. The Soviet leader conquered the crowd with his "Khrushchev smile." And the Americans dubbed him a "good gnome."

“Khrushchev went out at the stations,” the historian Roy Medvedev said “However,” spoke, argued, cursed with local politicians, with trade union leaders, and easily talked with ordinary people: farmers and workers. ” According to Khrushchev’s personal translator Viktor Sukhodrev, “the Soviet Secretary General appealed to the Americans. He did not hesitate to say what he thinks. He took out the text of his speech, read the first paragraph, then folded it and said: “Well, that I will read you the material I have prepared in advance, I’ll better tell you about my impressions of today.” Sometimes straightforwardly, too straightforwardly, sometimes rudely, but in an American way or something, he expressed his thoughts. ”

Khrushchev's looseness, his simple manners allowed the Americans to completely overcome their cautious attitude toward the Soviet general secretary. It would seem that the leader of world communism, the owner of nuclear weapons, an opponent of the cold war and suddenly such an enthusiastic reception. American journalists said after the trip that if Khrushchev had nominated himself for an official position, be it mayor or senator, he would have defeated any American opponent. And with a huge margin. The Soviet First Lady made a pleasant impression on the Americans. “With all her indifference, lack of glamor, as they would say today,” Sukhodrev notes, “America loved Nina Khrushcheva very much. In the media, it was even dubbed the "universal grandmother."

Aggressive Torture

However, a year later everything changed. An American U-2 reconnaissance aircraft was shot down over Sverdlovsk. And instead of using the fact of espionage as a trump card in negotiations with Eisenhower, Khrushchev decided to slam the door loudly. On the Baltic ship, he crossed the Atlantic and appeared at the UN General Assembly session, where he cursed the imperialists and allegedly knocked on the table with a shoe.

His image in the West immediately changed. “Khrushchev showed his teeth,” the Daily Gerald wrote then. “Since Hitler and Stalin, no one has tried to intimidate us like that.”

“They began to portray him as a completely unpredictable leader,” recalls Mikhail Lyubimov, a veteran of the foreign intelligence service, “to quote the phrase“ We will bury you ”, which indulged in a much more threatening tone than Khrushchev put into it.” Western observers puzzled over the frightening image of the “mother of Kuzma”.

When John Kennedy came to power in the US in 1961, and the USSR built the Berlin Wall, Khrushchev's smile and natural charm in the West were completely forgotten. The young president called his Soviet counterpart "a prudent, cruel, energetic, and self-confident leader." And the CIA officers, who instructed him before the first meeting with Khrushchev, warned that they would have to deal with a characteristic actor who was ready for everything: just to play his intended role. “If he is prevented,” the Central Intelligence Agency’s report noted, “he will start stuttering, his vein will swell up on his left temple, and he will turn from a sincere and touching guy into an implacable enemy.”

Khrushchev was portrayed as an “adventurer,” whose actions are impossible to predict. “Why, one wonders, did he quarrel with Tito? - wrote the American magazine The Foreign Affairs. “Why did they withdraw the Soviet allies from China?” Why provoked the Caribbean crisis? ”

For a long time, the excitement characteristic of Khrushchev was served rather as a passion for peaceful competition. In the US, they cited the slogans “Catch Up with America and Overtake America”, “Hang On, Iowa Cow!” Talked about corn crops with a grin and stressed that it was the Soviet leader who initiated the space race (on the cover of Time magazine he appeared in the hands with a satellite) .

However, after the Caribbean crisis, the Western media have already painted the image of a dangerous despot, who from innocuous competitions can easily switch to nuclear confrontation. “The unpredictability of Mr. Khrushchev causes great concern,” wrote the New York Times. “An attempt to install Soviet missiles in Cuba is an incredible adventure, which I must say, was almost a success.”

In general, if in the 50s of the Stalinist successor, it was advantageous to present a pragmatic politician who deeply believed in the success of his ideology, then the installations in Washington changed and Khrushchev turned into an unrestrained and aggressive petty tyrant who bit off too much of a pie of power and could not swallow it.

"Commoner on the throne"

As for Western historians, they have been promoting the image of a “peasant on a throne” for half a century. “In this little bald little man,” writes William Taubman, an American biographer of Khrushchev, “the dreams of the first Bolsheviks, who wanted to put a commoner at the head of the empire, were embodied. Only in practice, these dreams led to the collapse of the empire. An agitated and hysterical ruler was not able to cope with the legacy of the Red Kings. ”

According to the American Sovietologist William Thompson, in his diplomacy Khrushchev was guided by the slogan "Be my friend, or I will break your neck."

And only a few researchers look at the Soviet secretary general more balancedly, knowing full well that only a cunning and resourceful politician, whose impulsiveness was often feigned, could lead the second superpower.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.odnako.org/
Articles from this series:
Russian tsars: view from the West. Part of 1: Stalin
Russian tsars: view from the West. Part of 2: Khrushchev
Russian tsars: view from the West. Part of 3: Alexander I
Russian tsars: view from the West. Part IV: Brezhnev
Russian tsars: view from the West. Part V: Gorbachev and Yeltsin
35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Boris55
    Boris55 17 December 2013 08: 07 New
    11
    Trotskyist who drove the first nail into the lid of the coffin of the USSR.
    1. BBM
      BBM 17 December 2013 08: 31 New
      -19 qualifying.
      Not just a real Ukrainian superhero who buried these 2 hours of Georgian ghouls on which half of the site is read here.
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 17 December 2013 08: 46 New
        +9
        Quote: BBM
        real ukrainian superhero

        You probably don't know that Nikitka, during his stormy youth in Ukraine, was among the leaders in the implementation of plans for executions, dispossession of kulaks and famine - in the genocide of the local population, which is what Ukrainian nationalists like to blame the Muscovites for?
        1. BBM
          BBM 17 December 2013 09: 00 New
          -14 qualifying.
          brazen nonsense. The total number of corpses that can be hanged on Nikita Sergeevich does not exceed six thousand, and then mainly when he was the secretary of the Moscow city committee, and in terms of composition it was mainly racial (that is, indigenous Muscovites) But there he was under direct supervision and it was like death to give slack ... But many, such as Kotsyubinsky, he personally saved. Unfortunately Ostap Vishnyu could not (but there Kaganovich tried). But Kagonovich was just the main Stalinist executioner in Ukraine for which he later received the post of his deputy, as well as another bloody ghoul Zalkind. just in general, if you look at the "team" of Dzhugashvili, then there is a Jew on a Jew ...
          1. Poppy
            Poppy 17 December 2013 12: 15 New
            +9
            Yeah, it’s on Khrushchev’s note, in which he demanded to allow more executions, Stalin wrote “calm down,”
      2. sdv68
        sdv68 17 December 2013 14: 46 New
        +4
        real ukrainian superhero
        Of course he is a superhero for you, because gave Ukraine never belongs to Crimea. In Ukraine, they should pray for it.
    2. Deniska999
      Deniska999 17 December 2013 14: 36 New
      +3
      In many ways, Khrushchev during his reign was led by hatred of Stalin.
      1. Uhe
        Uhe 17 December 2013 18: 23 New
        0
        The reason for this was the animal fear of answering for their affairs. Not for nothing that he and Zhukov went through the same case of betrayal at the beginning of the war. The investigation was conducted by personal intelligence of Stalin.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. user
      user 17 December 2013 22: 35 New
      +1
      On this issue, I fully support you. By the way, one of the main leaders of the pre-war cleansing of Ukraine. On one of the execution lists submitted to Stalin for signature there is a resolution "Calm down ...."
  2. BBM
    BBM 17 December 2013 08: 29 New
    0
    And only a few researchers look at the Soviet secretary general more balancedly, knowing full well that only a cunning and resourceful politician, whose impulsiveness was often feigned, could lead the second superpower.

    100%
  3. sigdoc
    sigdoc 17 December 2013 08: 37 New
    +7
    This is Gorbachev’s grandfather
    1. Uhe
      Uhe 17 December 2013 18: 25 New
      +2
      Khrushchev, of course, scum, but not to such an extent. Another thing is that Brokeback is to some extent the spiritual granddaughter of Khrushchev. But only in a certain. Hunchback wanted to destroy socialism, but not the Union, but Khrushchev wanted to change Stalinist socialism to Trotskyist, as a result of which he brought up a galaxy of future grave diggers of the USSR - voluntarily or involuntarily, but it seems to me that it is involuntary.
  4. CALL.
    CALL. 17 December 2013 08: 48 New
    +3
    February 24, 1956 The CPSU gathered for the next XX Congress, at the end of which a report was made by the then First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Khrushchev, whose meaning was that Stalin was a scoundrel, who, together with L.P. Beria, kept the whole Soviet people in fear and killed him. It was so absurd that the congress delegates were not allowed to discuss this report - immediately after the report, the congress was closed. After that, the entire press of the USSR, which was in the hands of the CPSU nomenclature, began to impose on the people and the world the myth of the tyrant Stalin and his “personality cult”. But after all, during the life of Stalin they said one thing, and after death another. Such people at all times and among all peoples are considered scoundrels. How can one judge a person, what human scum says about him - scoundrels? If something was happening in the country, criminal or bad, it was not done by Stalin, but by the hands of this elite, and she, seeing what she was doing, could not do it. But did it! And at the end of spring 1937, not Stalin, and not the Politburo - we emphasize this, and the local party functionaries demanded warning repressions from the Central Committee, that is, they demanded that they send to the camps and shootings to clear their regions of those who could interfere in the next year’s elections and prevent local party bosses from holding the deputies they wanted on the Soviets.
    “The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (b) to comrade Stalin IV on July 10, 1937. I inform you that there are criminal and kulak elements in total who have served their sentences and settled in the mountains. Moscow and the Moscow region, 41 people were registered. Of these, 305 people were registered as criminal elements. Available materials give reason to attribute to the 33st category of criminals 436 people. and to the 1nd category - 6500 people. Kulakov, who served their sentences and settled in Moscow and the districts of the region, accounted for 2 people. The available material gives reason to attribute 5272 people from this group to the 7869st category. and to the 1nd category - 2000 people. Please approve the commission as part of TT. Redens - Nach. Office of the NKVD by M.O., Maslov - Deputy. Prosecutor of the Moscow Region, Khrushchev N. S. - Secretary of MK and MGK with the right, if necessary, to replace Comrade A. Volkov - Second Secretary of the Moscow City Committee. Secretary of MK VKP (b) N. Khrushchev "
    Grover Fehr, in his study "Anti-Stalin Vile," found that of the sixty-one accusatory statements of the report, which were verifiable, none were true. No one!
    - “I managed to single out 61“ accusatory ”statements. Each of them was studied in the light of historical evidence, and, as it became clear in the end, in the“ closed ”report Khrushchev did not say anything about Stalin and Beria that would turn out to be true. "It has nothing to do with it: the burden of proof lies with the accusing party. And all the" revelatory "statements of the" closed "report as evidence are untenable.
  5. makarov
    makarov 17 December 2013 09: 23 New
    0
    Nikita, of course, was still the one, t.s. an original "fruit", but categorically did not tolerate pederasty for sound and scent, fought against its manifestation in all spheres.
    By the way, his so-called worship of corn carried elements of necessity and usefulness, but ... as always, everyone overtook
    1. Black
      Black 17 December 2013 17: 07 New
      -1
      Quote: makarov
      Nikita, of course, was still the one, t.s. an original "fruit", but categorically did not tolerate pederasty for sound and scent, fought against its manifestation in all spheres.
      By the way, his so-called worship of corn carried elements of necessity and usefulness, but ... as always, everyone overtook


      Somehow I didn't like your "post" ...
      "Nikita", "fruit" .... Did you know each other?

      "did not tolerate pederasty for the sound and scent" ... This is already a merit ?? Or is this particular person a merit?
      and how is it - "to sound and smell" ???

      "the worship of corn carried in itself elements of necessity and usefulness"
      "Worship" is always fraught !!!

      Now, as for the article itself ...
      "October" is bad in that it inevitably brought people from the bottom to the top of political life. Of course, there were incredibly talented among them, but much more absolutely unprincipled, illiterate people. The revolution required reckless dedication, but not culture and competence.
      Khrushchev is a vivid representative of a dodgy, cunning, peasant. In life, he would have to cut the coals, or graze the cows, swear the mother with a neighbor over the fence. But no. It so happened that it decided the fate of people.
      Then someone suggests that he did not like Stalin. Stalin is not Merlin Monroe to love him. Stalin- System, State. That's what Khrushchev betrayed.
      1. SmirnoFF
        SmirnoFF 11 January 2014 15: 02 New
        +1
        Quote: Chen
        Then someone suggests that he did not like Stalin. Stalin is not Merlin Monroe to love him. Stalin- System, State. That's what Khrushchev betrayed.

        Everyone understands that Comrade Stalin is not Monroe. But Khrushchev not only disliked him, but was also terrified of him. For as it was correctly noted, “Khrushchev is a bright representative of a cunning, cunning man” (which, in my opinion, characterizes any politician). He was not just afraid, but wanted to disown the bloody deeds carried out under Comrade Stalin and write them off to his account. (on Khrushchev's note, in which he demanded to allow more executions, Stalin wrote "calm down,")
  6. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 17 December 2013 10: 17 New
    +3
    The first mine under the USSR, I hope in hell he has enough boiling oil in the boiler, Gorbachev will soon join him. The first "nomenklatura" leader.
  7. velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 17 December 2013 10: 49 New
    +3
    whose impulsiveness was often simulated.

    To some extent, Khrushchev is associated with Zhirinovsky. Very similar types, except for the education and erudition of the LDPR leader, which is opposed to Khrushchev’s complete illiteracy.
  8. washi
    washi 17 December 2013 11: 02 New
    +2
    “In this little bald man,” writes the American biographer Khrushchev, William Taubman, “the dreams of the first Bolsheviks who wanted to put the common man at the head of the empire came true. Only in practice, these dreams led to the collapse of the empire. The eccentric and hysterical ruler was not able to cope with the legacy of the red kings. "
    .
  9. sdv68
    sdv68 17 December 2013 11: 29 New
    +6
    The first de-stabilizer, about which Churchill very aptly expressed himself.

    "Khrushchev is the only politician in the history of mankind who has declared war on the dead. But more than that, he managed to lose it."
  10. Vadim2013
    Vadim2013 17 December 2013 12: 36 New
    -1
    Quote: Z.O.V.
    24 February 1956 The CPSU gathered for the next XX Congress, at the end of which a report was made by the then First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Khrushchev, whose meaning was that Stalin was a scoundrel, who, together with L.P. Beria, kept the whole Soviet people in fear and killed him. It was so absurd that the congress delegates were not allowed to discuss this report - immediately after the report, the congress was closed.

    So the congresses of the CPSU began under I.V. Stalin.
    1. Valkyrie
      Valkyrie 17 December 2013 14: 00 New
      0
      The 1 Party Congress (then the RSDLP) was still under Nicholas II in the 1898 year. But what have the other, earlier congresses to do with it?
  11. Orik
    Orik 17 December 2013 13: 52 New
    +1
    Western delirium, what is Nikita the king? Jester on the throne emperor ...
    1. Ilja 22
      Ilja 22 18 December 2013 08: 36 New
      +1
      I completely agree with you, the Great Tsar Joseph Vissarionovich and Khrushchev turned out to be in one topic.
  12. sdv68
    sdv68 17 December 2013 14: 05 New
    +2
    On the theme of the "personality cult". So was the Personality and the Cult. Although the person himself in every possible way opposed his cult:

  13. Valkyrie
    Valkyrie 17 December 2013 14: 07 New
    +3
    Quote A.A. Zinoviev. about Stalin's betrayal by Khrushchev: "Even a donkey can kick a dead lion." Nonentity, Khrushchev, was silent and currying favor during the lifetime of a "villain and bloodsucker." And after his death he became brave. ...
  14. Hort
    Hort 17 December 2013 14: 09 New
    +2
    the dreams of the first Bolsheviks, who wanted to put the commoner at the head of the empire, came true. Only in practice, these dreams led to the collapse of the empire. The eccentric and hysterical ruler was not able to cope with the legacy of the red kings. "
    here he is right. The fleet was ditched, the ditch of the heavy tank building program was ditched, and aviation was also brought under the knife. About Crimea - no comment.
    The program for providing the population with housing was implemented, but it was carried out with huge shortcomings and mistakes. Namely: the so-called. "Khrushchevs" are typical constructions of houses of the FRENCH model, if I may say so. And they were thoughtlessly riveted, practically without taking into account our climatic conditions. And if in the Federal District such houses were considered as temporary housing, then we still have most of them without major repairs.
    In agriculture - it is unclear what for it was necessary to consolidate the collective farms due to the union of towns and villages. Which ultimately led to the desolation of many already inhabited places.
    Absolutely idiotic moments in the fight against the cult of personality - under Stalin, many collective farms had "Stalinist" mini-hydroelectric power plants (even in the handbooks of a rural builder there are diagrams of how to build it - nothing complicated, on the basis of a water mill), but during the period of "consolidation" from them refused, although this would allow a relatively simple solution to the issue of electrifying many small settlements that were on the banks of the rivers. And much more ...
  15. dmb
    dmb 17 December 2013 16: 03 New
    +1
    What unspeakably surprised was the fact that not one of the commentators called Nikita a Trotskyist. This is very fashionable right now. True, ask them what Trotskyism is in general, and in what it was manifested in Khrushchev, they will not answer, because studied this question solely by commentary. analysts like them. Here, one of the wise reproached Nikita for the construction of the Khrushchevs, which are still without major repairs. And the fact that at the time of this program 2 / 3 of the country lived in barracks and communal apartments. this is normal?. And you ask those who entered these khrushchahs, they were very unhappy. We love fairy tales. Stalin was directly his own father. Yes, he was not like that, and along with the undoubted achievements of his period, there are a number of things that there is nothing to justify. And Nikita was odd of course. But there were positive moments during his reign. And the Caribbean crisis can only blame him for inadequate personalities. Missiles were removed from our borders, they began to reckon with us, which they didn’t do before. Leader’s activities cannot be evaluated with one stroke. Of course, there are exceptions, like the worthless Bear-bald.
    1. Hort
      Hort 17 December 2013 16: 19 New
      0
      the very first comment take a look;))
    2. sdv68
      sdv68 17 December 2013 16: 20 New
      +1
      And you ask those who entered these khrushchahs, they were very unhappy.
      Under Stalin, projects of mass development have already been developed and houses are much better than the "Khrushchevs". Remember the expression "Khrushchev connected a bathtub with a toilet." But when the parents drove into the Khrushchevs it was a fairy tale for them. Own apartment after the "piece of wood". But the maize man has something to do with these Khrushchevs, that he castrated them for nothing. Wasserman told about this in more detail: http://www.odnako.org/blogs/show_25078/ Here, for example:
      Khrushchev very seriously put a hoof to new areas. In particular, it was he who, shortly after the decree on industrial housing construction, pushed through another decree of the Council of Ministers and the central committee - “On eliminating excesses in design and construction” dated 1955.11.05. The decision formally seemed to make sense: why, they say, spend money on jewelry, when you need to spend it, first of all, on the construction itself. It seems to be logical. But the chief designer of the Queen Elizabeth II cruise ship, when asked by journalists why there was so much luxury on board, replied: “All this luxury is less than 5% of the cost of building a ship; “Do you want me to save these 5% and then no one would ever want to go on this ship at all?” The situation with buildings is about the same. Moreover, the usual forms of decoration of buildings - such as columns and stucco moldings - are not even 5% of the cost, but about a percent (and the relief finish of the blocks and panels directly during their casting - by the shape design - does not make the work more expensive). If we take into account that the cost of construction also includes bringing all kinds of communications to the buildings, then it becomes clear: saving on decoration is absolutely obvious nonsense.
      1. dmb
        dmb 17 December 2013 19: 21 New
        0
        You see, Wasserman, of course, had his head and Valiadis wouldn’t put a finger in his mouth, but I prefer to listen to the opinions of experts, to whom Wasserman clearly does not apply. This can be judged even by the depth of his thought about the analogies in the construction of one, even a very large ship, and the massive construction of housing in conditions of a lack of resources.
    3. Hort
      Hort 17 December 2013 16: 27 New
      0
      for the wise, of course, thanks, but somehow I do not regard myself as such, out of modesty.
      If you read carefully, then I said that the program housing provision was carried out with errors I did not say that it didn’t have to be carried out at all - it’s yours speculation. Having adopted the experience of such construction from the French, they did not make amendments for the climate. And I focused on the major repairs because in France by now almost all ... uh ... "De-Gaulles" have been repaired or demolished. That is, they were initially considered as temporary housing, which was later replaced with more comfortable ones. We have them demolished only when they begin to crumble.
      I personally do not consider Stalin to be my father (I don’t know how others are), in Norilsk I saw with my own eyes the "reverse side" of his rule.
      As for foreign policy (in relation to the United States, in particular), then no one reproaches Khrushchev. But the inner limp.

      By the way, the same shit is happening now.
    4. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 18 December 2013 19: 27 New
      0
      Quote: dmb
      Leader’s activities cannot be evaluated with one stroke.

      However, the original way you have a leader to check out is with lubricants. Share where you get the "strokes"? From which places? What item do you collect material with? How do you dispose of your used tool later? How is your personal hygiene? Do you wash your hands or what? Write, do not hesitate!
    5. SmirnoFF
      SmirnoFF 11 January 2014 15: 23 New
      0
      At the expense of the Khrushchev houses and barracks - the people were given the minimum to prevent a riot, and they are given. But not for the people, but to prevent a riot. And again: "And you ask those who entered these khrushchebs, they were very unhappy" - give a man dying of hunger with a piece of rotten potatoes - he will say the most sincere thanks to you.
  16. Crang
    Crang 17 December 2013 19: 15 New
    -4
    Khrushch is a normal guy. I respect. A strong, handy Russian man who could do everything. Former miner. Under him, they were the first to fly into space. Under him, the latest military technologies and the combat power of the armed forces reached parity with the West. Under him, the latest combat systems went into series. Under him, every bastard kept his mouth shut or was promptly destroyed. To resurrect him. Oh, he would show both the USA and the Caucasus "Kuz'kina's mother". Everyone with chips and beer would watch the reality show - "Fry the barbarians with nuclear fire."
  17. alert_timka
    alert_timka 17 December 2013 19: 28 New
    0
    I see no reason to blame Khrushchev for a long time that the man has not been among the living. He led the country in a new round of confrontation with the Western world. And it is not known how people would curse or elevate him if they were in his place at this stage of time. It’s very easy to sit at home, make moves and choose when the game is already over and you see all your mistakes and wrong moves, but we don’t seem to notice those omissions during the game itself. My opinion is that it was he who scored the first nail into the coffin It all started when Brezhnev began to fade away and was just a convenient doll, behind which the new communists were hiding, just then the party elite, the golden youth of these party people, who had the opportunity to travel abroad, unlike ordinary people, went.
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 18 December 2013 19: 42 New
      0
      Quote: alert_timka
      I see no reason to blame Khrushchev for a long time there is no man among the living

      Did you take the novel by AS Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"? Review (chapter 1 stanza 1) "His example to others is science." The people gave an assessment to the bald maize, and slightly different from yours in the negative direction.
  18. alert_timka
    alert_timka 17 December 2013 19: 32 New
    0
    I think no one needs to explain how Brezhnev and his team came to power !? Eliminating Khrushchev. So Khrushchev could bring up and direct future Soz destroyers.
  19. Alew
    Alew 17 December 2013 20: 37 New
    0
    Again, about this yap of corn. Finally, give an article about Gorbachev and they with a crunch two boots of steam. hunchback come out
    1. Alew
      Alew 18 December 2013 10: 51 New
      -1
      Quote: ALEW
      article and about Gorbachev they are with a khrushchem two steam boots. hunchbacked

      Two boots of a pair, they both mocked well over the USSR over people and the country. could spend hours of their nonsense from the rostrum. one has oaks. corn is a ban on private farming. another is speeding up coupons queuing up anti-alcohol stores. All that both of them did good will more than cross out the harm they have done.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  20. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 17 December 2013 21: 49 New
    +1
    <<< Winston Churchill even reprimanded the Soviet secretary general for having "defiled the memory of a true hero" at the XX Congress. >>>
    And (as they say) Churchill proposed to award Khrushchev with the Nobel Prize, as he is the only one who managed to leave Russia without his bread!
  21. Current 72
    Current 72 18 December 2013 00: 51 New
    0
    It was with this "cunning little man" that all the bedlam that continues at this time began.
    1. SmirnoFF
      SmirnoFF 11 January 2014 15: 42 New
      0
      Well, the fact that he is directly involved in "BEDLAM" - I will not argue. But I will argue that "BEDLAM" began with him. Here, in my opinion, the beginning comes from the Romanovs, from the very beginning of their dynasty ...
  22. ism_ek
    ism_ek 18 December 2013 08: 04 New
    -3
    You can say anything about Khrushchev, but he is the father of our nuclear missile shield. The missiles that began to be developed under Khrushchev still serve us ...
    Mass housing construction is also the merit of Khrushchev. And in just 8 years of rule ...
  23. Ilja 22
    Ilja 22 18 December 2013 08: 10 New
    +1
    If Joseph Vissarionovich would have known how he would "decorate", his successor, showed him Kuzka's mother! angry
  24. sigdoc
    sigdoc 18 December 2013 09: 04 New
    0
    How long has Khrushchev the father of a nuclear missile shield? Did Khrushchev create a nuclear bomb and the first missile?
    And who said that before Khrushchev there was no mass housing construction?
    The merit of Khrushchev is that after two years of emergency construction, the volume of housing construction has gradually decreased to a minimum, as a result, people were still not provided with housing, and those who were lucky got a kennel instead of an apartment
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 18 December 2013 15: 56 New
      0
      Quote: sigdoc
      Does Khrushchev know the father of a nuclear missile shield? Did Khrushchev create a nuclear bomb and the first missile?

      The Queen's missiles were not weapons. They had to be prepared for the start for several days.
      All design bureaus involved in the development of military missiles were founded under Khrushchev
      Khrushchev threw all the forces of the state onto the rockets, cutting the pilots and tankers. For this and do not like on this forum
      1. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru 18 December 2013 19: 45 New
        0
        Dmitry Fyodorovich Ustinov had more merit in ensuring the security of the USSR than that of a bald maize.
  25. Borough
    Borough 22 December 2013 18: 58 New
    0
    All that remains is to argue, in reality N. Khrushchev intentionally sold the remnants of the USSR, or he naively believed that life according to the US pattern would become better ... Perhaps the illusion created in his sick imagination is to blame ...