Military Review

December triumph. Stalin and the collapse of the "right opposition"

December 21 is Stalin's birthday, which is known and remembered by many, but few are aware that on the same day, in 1930, Alexander I. Rykov, who was one of the leaders, was removed from the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B). t. n. “Right bias” formed in 1928 year. The "Right deviators" actively opposed the Stalinist policy of accelerated industrialization and collectivization. The “soul” of this regular “anti-party” faction was the chief editor of Pravda, the leading ideologist of the party, N. I. Bukharin. (Of the other most prominent members of the group, we can name the chairman of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions M. P. Tomsky.) But, if we take the real sphere of government, Rykov was undoubtedly the number one figure.

By the way, his political career clearly demonstrates that ethnic Russians in Soviet Russia, and in the first years of its existence, were not at all some kind of powerless "mass" suppressed by "foreigners." Alexey Ivanovich Rykov, the son of a poor peasant from the Kukarka settlement in the Vyatka province, was a short time Commissar of Internal Affairs after October, then for a very long time headed the Supreme Council of National Economy (VSNH), while also serving as deputy chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars (SNK). And after the death of V.I. Lenin, he, in general, became the head of the Soviet government (only 19 of December 1930 was sent to resign him). In his views, the second Soviet prime minister was a moderate Bolshevik, who favored a broad social and political compromise. It is indicative that he resigned from his post as Commissar of Internal Affairs in disagreement with the position of Lenin, who is skeptical about the coalition with the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. Rykov spoke against forced collectivization, believing that the Russian village should go through an evolutionary path of development. In this, his position seemed to coincide with Bukharin’s, but one must take into account that the motivation of the two figures was different. If Rykov proceeded from considerations of pragmatism, then Bukharin, who not so long ago was the main ideologue of the Left deviation (1918 year), simply did not believe in the possibility of the Russian peasantry.

The “right deviation” itself was not overcome immediately and demanded considerable efforts from Stalin’s group. Behind Bukharin there were very, very many who were ready to go. So, they sympathized with the deputy chairman of the OGPU G. G. Yagoda. But what can we say if he even doubted such a loyal Stalinist as K. Ye. Voroshilov. (He also doubted M. I. Kalinin, who was loyal to the leader).

Throughout 1928, the Stalinists and Bukharinites engaged in restrained discussions about how to industrialize. Bukharin opposed high growth rates and preferred the development of light industry. Stalin, on the other hand, was inclined to take a high rate, focusing on heavy industry. During perestroika, the Bukharin position was exalted in every possible way. It was argued that a moderate pace would not have led to the upheavals of the early 1930s, known as the Great Turning Point. However, later many historians came to the conclusion that Bukharin's program was correct only in the cabinet sense. And it would work in the event that the USSR was somewhere on the moon - away from its geopolitical opponents. And in the then specifichistorical conditions, the country urgently needed to develop industry - in order to be ready for a new, big war.

In fact, Bukharin advocated the continuation of the NEP. But at the end of 1920, it was already a blissful utopia leading to a dead end. NEP fully developed its resource, restoring the pre-war level of production, which was a very relative achievement. (After all, the world has gone far ahead in the post-war decade. Production of marketable grain was less than half the 1913 level of the year.) And in 1927, production growth stopped altogether. “In industry, enterprises, which for some reason were also transferred to cost accounting, were left without working capital. In order to at least pay the wages to the workers, they had to urgently sell off finished products, naturally, at bargain prices, competing with each other, - writes M. Antonov. - In the Donbass famine began among the miners who were fired due to lack of money for wages. The government demanded to separate from the enterprises that which is not related to production, i.e., “reset social programs”. The distribution of free food rations to workers was stopped, their cost was included in the salary, as a result of which the standard of living decreased. Unemployment grew rapidly. The army of the unemployed at the height of NEP numbered more than 600 thousand people - this is about one fifth of the total number of factory workers before the revolution. ” ("Capitalism in Russia will not happen!")

This is what the NEP has led to, which we still admire by some historians and politicians. And here was the prolongation of which Bukharin spoke. So the historical truth was undoubtedly behind Stalin, while Bukharin approached the matter as a strictly theoretical theorist and an office dreamer.

But in the 1928 year (and later) it was by no means obvious to everyone. Therefore, the July plenum abolished emergency measures to seize bread, on which Stalin insisted. But only with the help of them it was possible to get bread for industrial breakthrough.

We have decided to be horrified by the "anti-peasant pressure" and Stalin's policy towards the village. And, indeed, there is little good. But we must also understand the situation in which the country finds itself. The industry was poorly developed, and only she could give goods that the peasants would willingly take in exchange for the surplus of bread. But these goods were not. Therefore, there was no bread. And without bread there was no development of the industry. It turned out a vicious circle from which Stalin wanted to leave at the expense of the village.

He can be blamed for this for a long time, however, this is how industrialization took place in many other countries. In England, in general, the whole peasantry was driven out of the land. The peasants were forcibly turned into proletarians, who were forced to work hard at manufactories for 16 hours a day for pennies. In principle, the industry is always developing at the expense of the agricultural sector. The whole question is - what is the size of this bill that history sets. Alas, in Russia, which went through a revolution and a monstrous civil war, this score was very substantial. (Although smaller than in the same England.)

Meanwhile, the party leaders continued to incline towards Bukharin. The Central Committee adopted a resolution that left the industry at the same rate of growth. It is quite possible that Bukharin would soon have won a decisive victory over Stalin. But he made a few mistakes. First, for a long time Bukharin did not dare openly oppose Stalin, which would mean an application for the elimination of the latter from power. He got off with mediated criticism. Bukharin could have dumped Stalin already at the July plenum, but he did not dare to do so. Secondly, Bukharin "slipped" on the fact that he entered into secret negotiations with L. B. Kamenev, one of the leaders of the left, "Trotsky-Zinoviev" opposition. To do this to him was absolutely no reason. Bukharin’s supporters were already enough, and together with the hesitant, they could form a very real majority.

The negotiations between the two old Bolsheviks soon became known. And stone rushed to confess everything to Stalin, which greatly helped him. When the party members learned about Bukharin’s talks with the left-wing who were extremely unpopular then their indignation knew no bounds. And the defeat of Bukharin was already only a matter of time, which Stalin accelerated with his powerful party apparatus.

Already at the beginning of 1929, the Bukharinites were defeated in the struggle for power and admitted their mistakes. But this did not mean that they ceased to be politically dangerous. They rushed sympathy nonparty sections of the intelligentsia. Their relations with the power of the Soviets were always rather tense, but in the “right-wing” communists they saw the most liberal and, therefore, acceptable force. In the 1929-1930 year, the OGPU revealed a number of opposition groups, whose support consisted of “specialists” from the scientific, technical, humanitarian and military intelligentsia. We are talking about the Industrial Party (the leader is deputy chairman of the production department L. Ramzin), the Labor Peasant Party (economists A. V. Chayanov and N. D. Kondratiev), the Menshevik Union Bureau of the RSDLP (N. Sukhanov and member of the State Planning Committee V. Groman) . In addition, authorities discovered the existence of an opposition group in an academic environment and seriously undertook military experts.

The perestroika of the above organizations was declared a “KGB invention” and the fruit of “Stalin's falsification”. But a number of circumstances can seriously doubt this. A. V. Shubin, one of the most objective anti-Stalinist historians, points to these circumstances. Here, for example: "... The accused V. Ikov really was in connection with the foreign delegation of the RSDLP, corresponded and headed the Moscow Bureau of the RSDLP, but did not tell anything about his true connections." That is, it turns out that the secret Menshevik organization really existed, and the investigation did not even manage to find out all about it.

But the main thing - the data obtained in the study of correspondence between the Soviet leaders. It follows from them that Stalin really knew about the presence of a large-scale anti-Soviet underground, relying on "specialists." And about any falsification of speech did not go. So, in 1930, Stalin writes Menzhinsky the following: “Ramzin’s testimony is very interesting. In my opinion, the most interesting thing in his testimony is the question of intervention, in general, and especially, the question of the duration of the intervention. It turns out that it was planned in 1930 year, but was postponed to 1931 or even to 1932 year. This is likely and important. ” It turns out that the leader was "convinced that Ramzin was a carrier of real information, and it was unlikely that the OGPU would decide to mystify him on such an important occasion." ("Leaders and conspirators")

From the testimony of Ramzin it followed that the "Industrial Party" was in contact with the Bukharin group. And in September 1932 of the year, Stalin wrote to Molotov: “About bringing the communists to the answer, who helped the Kondratyan gossipers. I agree, but what about Rykov (who undoubtedly helped them) and Kalinin ... ”

Most likely, it was Rykov’s contacts with opposition-minded specialists that caused him to be removed from his post as chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. In general, we think about the situation. Bukharinites (and Rykov himself) have long been crushed and repented - but one of their leaders continues to head the government! It turns out that Stalin and the Politburo considered it possible to use his organizational skills at the very top of the Soviet party-state pyramid.

But here, Rykov removed. It is clear that this required some completely new circumstances. The premiere was indeed exposed in connection with anti-Soviet structures - this is the reason for his resignation. At the same time, the masses were not informed about this true reason - not wanting to tell the truth about the Fronde, which continued at the very top.

This front was still very dangerous. But no less dangerous was the front in the army. And here in the foreground is the figure of M. N. Tukhachevsky, commander of the Leningrad Military District. This leader had his own vision of “Marxism. He wanted to militarize the camp, rigidly subordinating all spheres of her life to the interests of the army. Back in December 1927, Tukhachevsky suggested that Stalin create next year 50-100 thousand new tanks. Any thinking person will immediately understand the absurdity of this plan. After all, the country has not even really embarked on industrialization, and 50 thousand is the amount that the Soviet tank industry allowed itself for the entire post-war period (meaning, of course, the Great Patriotic War).

In the same unrealistic plan was proposed by Tukhachevsky in 1930 year. According to him, the USSR needed to urgently produce 40 thousands of aircraft. This is not an isolated fact, this is a trend. Tukhachevsky led the business to ensure that translate the entire country on a war footing. The entire national economy was supposed to work on the production of armaments, and the entire male population of draft age should master them. Approximately the same order existed in 1941-1945 in our years, but then the war, unprecedented in the history of mankind, was raging. And then industrialization took place.

Tukhachevsky and close to him, the army team followed the internal political struggle with special interest. The military expert, former Colonel N. Kakurin reported that senior army leaders often gather and discuss how to intervene in the struggle of the Stalinists and Bukharinites. According to him, their goal was "military dictatorship, coming to power through the right deviation." And as a military leader, the army team saw Tukhachevsky. Maybe this is - falsification of organs? Yes, no: “Kakurin’s testimony was especially valuable because, firstly, he was an admirer and comrade of Tukhachevsky ... and, secondly, they were not obtained under pressure - he initially shared his revelations with an OGPU informant, his relative.” ("Leaders and conspirators")

In September 1930, alarmed Stalin, advised on this issue with Ordzhonikidze: “Therefore, Tukhachevsky was captured by anti-Soviet elements and was also specially processed by anti-Soviet elements from the ranks of the right. So goes on materials. Is it possible? Of course, perhaps, since it is possible. Apparently, the right are even prepared to go to a military dictatorship just to get rid of the Central Committee, the collective and state farms, the Bolshevik pace of development of the industry ... These gentlemen obviously wanted to supply the military people to the Kondratieff-Grohman-Sukhanovs. Kondratieff-Sukhanovskaya Bukharin-party - this balance. Gee ... "

What was to do? Arrest conspirators? But the trouble is to make it very difficult. The chairman of the OGPU, V. R. Menzhinsky, wrote to Stalin: “To arrest the members of the group one by one is risky. There can be two ways out: either immediately arrest the most active members of the group, or wait for your arrival, while taking intelligence measures so as not to be caught off guard. I consider it necessary to note that now all the rebel groups are ripening very quickly and the last decision represents a certain risk. ”

But the commander of the Leningrad Military District Tukhachevsky was in very good relations with the Leningrad leader Kirov. Affection also connected him with Ordzhonikidze and Kuibyshev. In turn, these three Politburo members constituted an elite clan that enjoyed a certain autonomy. Try, touch Tukhachevsky - and the consequences can be the most unpredictable.

And despite the fact that there was another frondial grouping in the Red Army — anti-Soviet military experts. Today it is difficult to judge how serious their organization was. (The investigation materials are still classified.) But from the reports of the OGPU, it follows that the former special officers did indeed meet for secret meetings, which were a cross between the gatherings of old comrades and the frontier circles. It was reported and the growth of Bonapartist and monarchical sentiment in the military environment. In addition, white emigration openly pinned hopes on military experts, from whom they expected an armed overthrow of Soviet power. So, back in March 1928 of the year, the White-Immigrant newspaper “Renaissance” published a letter from General A. I. Denikin to a certain “red commander”. The former leader of the white South to justify the transition of military experts to serve in the Red Army. Denikin reasonable notice that a strong army can be used to overthrow the Bolsheviks.

The situation was complicated by the fact that the loyal leaders of a sufficiently high level began to move to anti-Stalinist positions yesterday. Thus, in 1930, the first secretary of the Krasnopresnensky District Committee of Moscow, M. N. Ryutin, began to actively recruit supporters among party functionaries. He was arrested, however, the OGPU board released this newly-minted oppositionist to freedom, where he composed his famous “Platform” and organized the underground “Union of Marxist-Leninists”. It turns out that Ryutin had high patrons at the very top.

At the same time, the “left-right” bloc of N. Syrtsov (Chairman of the SNK of the RSFSR) and V. Lominadze (Persek of the Transcaucasian Territorial Committee) emerged. And the latter enjoyed the special patronage of Ordzhonikidze himself, which leads to some thoughts.

And this whole tangle (“right” - “nauchspetsy” - “army men” - with the possible connection of “military experts”, “new oppositionists”, Kalinin, Ordzhonikidze, Kirov and Kuibyshev) was tied against the background of acute social discontent caused by collectivization. The country was surrounded by peasant uprisings. In January-April, 1930, 6117 mass demonstrations took place, in which about 800 thousands of people took part. In fact, a peasant war broke out in the country. In addition, the peasants began to slaughter cattle on a massive scale, not wanting to give it to collective farms. By March 1930, the 15 of millions of cattle was slaughtered. Under the knife was a third of the livestock of pigs and a quarter of the sheep.

The case, as they say, smelled fried, and yesterday's victor Stalin was facing the threat of a coup.

Joseph Vissarionovich unraveled this opposition ball with the grace of an experienced politician. He decided not to touch Tukhachevskogo - in order to avoid a serious conflict with the participation of the army. Moreover, Stalin provided him a new round of career. In 1931, Tukhachevsky becomes the Deputy Commissar of Defense. At the same time, he left Leningrad - away from the mighty Kirov. In 1930, Stalin criticized Tukhachevsky for excessive militarism, but in 1932, he wrote a letter to this military commander, in which he admitted his criticism was not entirely correct. Thus, the fronde Tukhachevsky was temporarily calmed down.

Stalin also refused any repression against the "right", because it could cause a wave of chaos in the party. (Such a wave, and not just one, swept across the country in the 1937-1938 years.) He limited himself to Rykov’s resignation. But "Bukharchik" was thrown sugar bone - in 1931, he was again allowed to attend Politbureau meetings. (Naturally, without the restoration of membership in this collegiate body.) Thus, Stalin drove a wedge between two colleagues in the opposition — one was punished and the other was encouraged.

But on the specialists was struck a crushing blow. All the leaders of the opposition groups came under investigation and trial. But here, there was no continuous prosecution. Some specialists (Groman) were hidden behind bars, others (Ramzin) were mercifully forgiven.

Most suffered military experts. 10 thousands of former officers were cleaned out of the Red Army - 31 was shot from them. Stalin (like other members of the PB) was seriously afraid of a White Guard assault attack, with the support of Britain and France. Operation Vesna even touched B. M. Shaposhnikov, who was demoted from the post of chief of staff to commander of the Volga Military District. (However, after a while, Stalin would bring him back. The leader’s confidence in this military expert was huge and almost limitless.)

Well, and everything else, Stalin was concerned about creating his own social base, so necessary in the conditions of mass unrest. He introduced a new card distribution system. Now better supply has been granted "Drummer production", managers and workers in the capital.

In December, 1930 Rykov fell from the political Olympus, leaving the Politburo. And only then it was possible to talk about overcoming the “right” (Bukharin-Rykovka) threat.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. predator.3
    predator.3 25 December 2013 10: 11
    . And as a military leader, the army saw Tukhachevsky.

    Mikhail Nikolaevich had a sin, well, the laurels of Napoleon Karlych did not give rest, they were dumbly obeying the former officer of the guard yesterday's seminar.
  2. Alexander Petrovich
    Alexander Petrovich 25 December 2013 10: 29
    There is a version that Stalin is the son of Przhevalsky.
    1. Alexander Petrovich
      Alexander Petrovich 25 December 2013 11: 57
      And why did they mess it up? Did I say something wrong?
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov 25 December 2013 12: 53
        Zaminusili because you said it and did not reveal the essence of the topic.
        With the same success: "- Lenin's son of Alexander II" ...
        1. Alexander Petrovich
          Alexander Petrovich 25 December 2013 13: 32
          By the way, I said, since the topic is just about Stalin.
      2. Bear52
        Bear52 26 December 2013 09: 54
        This is not a version - this is a moronic joke of A. Bushkov, which he confessed long ago. But it was made a "version" ... well, "special" people! bully
    2. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 25 December 2013 12: 15
      What is the difference of whose son he is - Przhevalsky or a shoemaker?
      The main thing is what he himself Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (Dzhugashvili)?
      Stalin I.V. - The leader and leader of the people of Russia-USSR, under the leadership of which the superpower of the world was created.
      Stalin in the practice of state building of the USSR proved the existence of a socialist state of workers and peasants in the surrounding capitalist world. He was the first to proclaim the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different political systems.
      In contrast to all his "learned" opponents from Trotsky, who called for a world revolution at the expense of Russia, ending with the "favorite of the party" Bukharin, who called for the continuation of the NEP policy, for the policy of capitalist construction, Stalin built a socialist state for the Russian workers and peasants.
      The rightness of Stalin I.V. history itself proved.
      The Soviet Union he built withstood the siege of the capitalist world, won the Second World War, in an extremely short time after the war he restored the destroyed cities and villages, factories and factories, created atomic weapons that still protect us, the first in the world to send man into space.

      Unfortunately, the enemies of Stalin and the people were not all removed from power, they changed the essence of the Stalinist politics and state system, removed from the control and criticism the top party leadership of the CPSU, degrading towards voluntarism and direct betrayal, due to the lack of an appropriate control mechanism and periodic turnover, substitution of state functions by the party.
      In the 21st century, after the people of Russia and other post-Soviet states lost during the destruction of the socialist state, people understood and accepted the correctness of the actions of Stalin I.V. and pay tribute to his brilliant teaching and actions.
      1. unclevad
        unclevad 25 December 2013 14: 49
        All these premises make Stalin's actions logical later. It is immediately clear why Kirov was slammed and hit by the car of Kamo, Ordzhonikidze's best friend, and Kalinin's wife was in the camps - she was a hostage (moreover, she was imprisoned in the year of Kalinin's election as "Great Head", and released - in the year of his death). Yes, Stalin is a great politician. One formation of the "Caucasian" republics of the USSR on the principle of "balance" from the long-standing warring nationalities arouses respect. Yeltsin allowed them to self-determination and Russia received a big "drumhead". Although my shot great-grandfather, a lineman on the Trans-Siberian Railway, did not feel any better from this, as well as his entire large family.
    3. 25 December 2013 17: 30
      Quote: Alexander Petrovich
      There is a version that Stalin is the son of Przhevalsky.

      There is another version, confirmed by entries in church books:
      The mother of I.V. Stalin is Ekaterina Georgievna Ekaterina Georgievna Dzhugashvili. The maiden name is Geladze.
      The father of I.V. Stalin is Vissarion Dzhugashvili.

      Discover family secrets: who do you bring to Lev Davydovich Bronstein?
    4. Archibald
      Archibald 26 December 2013 21: 22
      The son of a jackal and hyena
  3. AX
    AX 25 December 2013 11: 22
    My grandfather, suffered a lot at that time ... Three wars passed ... But Vissarionych respected very much ... Although he sat, after the 58th ... Strange ... He served eight years ...
  4. reality
    reality 25 December 2013 11: 22
    Che, seriously?
    1. Poppy
      Poppy 25 December 2013 13: 01
      I think that 8 years is not a joke
  5. AX
    AX 25 December 2013 11: 51
    I repeat, but it is so ...
    1. reality
      reality 25 December 2013 11: 53
      I’m sorry, I’m not for you, I asked about Prezhivalsky. While I was writing my comment, and yours appeared, I did not see it.
      1. Alexander Petrovich
        Alexander Petrovich 25 December 2013 12: 00
        I said there is a version, firstly the similarities, secondly Przhevalsky sent money to Stalin’s mother until his death, and in general little is known about Stalin’s father. The son of a shoemaker received a good education for that time.
        1. smersh70
          smersh70 25 December 2013 12: 08
          Quote: Alexander Petrovich
          secondly Przhevalsky sent money to Stalin's mother until his death

          What are you) if there was such a Svanidze, and even earlier Beria would have long ago found these translations and the mail from where they were sentlaughing
          Quote: Alexander Petrovich
          I got a good education for that time.

          and what kindly ask this education ... ordinary church education, school at the church ....
          1. Alexander Petrovich
            Alexander Petrovich 25 December 2013 12: 10
            I just expressed the version, and you like jackals attacked with their minuses and ridicule, pah damn it.
          2. Alexander Petrovich
            Alexander Petrovich 25 December 2013 12: 13
            It is also known that Stalin exiled, imprisoned (or executed) almost everyone who knew anything about his childhood and youth. And, if we assume that Joseph Vissarionovich knew who his real father was, then it is noteworthy that during the life of the leader they wrote a lot about Przhevalsky, his travels understood school textbooks.

            The portrait similarity of the famous Russian traveler Przhevalsky with Stalin was noted a long time ago. And the resemblance is really amazing! Of course, one external resemblance is not enough to recognize paternity, but ...

            Przewalski really visited Gori. And there is also a documented fact that Nikolai Mikhailovich sent money to Stalin's mother until his death in 1888. And without serious reason, officers of the General Staff of Russia, of which Przhevalsky was, did not transfer money to women in the provincial town of Tiflis province. There is something to think about ...

            If you want to know more for yourself, look for information yourself.
        2. Lindon
          Lindon 25 December 2013 13: 02
          In the 21 century we live - give us a DNA test, give him more faith.
          Building theories based on external resemblance and sending money is not serious.
          Therefore, do not be surprised at the cons.
          1. IRKUT
            IRKUT 25 December 2013 13: 20
            Was Stalin an Ossetian?
            Russian Bulletin
            The first rumors that Stalin is the son of Nikolai
            Przhevalsky, appeared during the life of the leader, in
            1939. That year, Soviet scientists celebrated the 100th anniversary.
            from the birthday of the great explorer of Asia and
            received an unusual “gift” from the anniversary
            journalists. Polish newspaper "Jiche Warsaw"
            claimed (and without any reference to
            source) that Przhevalsky was Joseph's father
            Dzhugashvili. The legend quickly overgrown with new
            story lines. Przhevalsky, they said, was visiting
            in Gori, in the house where the maid worked
            Dzhugashvili - Ekaterina Geladze.
            Rumors fueled an amazing resemblance
            Przhevalsky and Stalin, as well as the fact that the leader himself
            did nothing to stop them.
            The Przewalski family - of course, the noble family - no one
            not repressed, its members, like many representatives
            the nobility at that time, calmly worked for the good
            Researchers in the biography of Stalin believed that such
            rumors impressed the generalissimo: they say, more honorable
            to have a famous traveler in fathers than to be
            son of a shoemaker. “I do not think so. Rather
            The thing is different. You probably heard that Stalin
            was fond of the teachings of [religious mystic] Gurdjieff,
            and it suggests that a person should hide
            your real origin and envelop your date
            birth by a certain fleur. The legend of Przhevalsky,
            Of course, I poured water on this mill. And what looks like
            outwardly, so please; there are still rumors that
            Saddam Hussein is the son of Stalin, ”says the grandson
            generalissimo theater director Alexander
            He says that he saw his grandfather only a few times, and then
            in parades, but his genes store about Stalin much
            more memories. Bourdon agreed to surrender
            DNA sample, and received after a few weeks
            transcripts showed that Joseph's DNA
            Vissarionovich belongs to the haplogroup G2. "Her
            representatives originating in India or Pakistan,
            spread throughout central Asia, Europe and
            The Middle East. In the territory of the former USSR
            representatives of this haplogroup live on
            North Caucasus and Georgia. However, according to
            according to some, the highest frequency of this
            haplogroups are among modern Ossetians, ”says
            Oleg Balanovsky.
            This news did not surprise Bourdon: “I have many times
            I heard talk that Stalin was an Ossetian.
            Although Georgians have always claimed one thing about its roots,
            Ossetians are different. ” Confirm Ossetian
            Dzhugashvili's origin may be more detailed
            a study of Caucasian DNA that scientists
            promise to be done in a few years (trial will be
            stored in an American laboratory for 25 years).
            In the dispute about Przhevalsky, we still put
            bold point. Of course, historians are always related
            denied, but many did not believe; even today in
            the Internet often appears messages like: "A
            did you know that Stalin was the son of Przhevalsky? ” "It's one
            of those rumors that, if not refuted,
            only get stronger and stronger, ”says
            Traveler sibling great grandson doctor
            chemical sciences Nikolai Przhevalsky. "Yes, it does not look like
            he is on Stalin, only on his ceremonial portrait,
            which has nothing to do with real
            Dzhugashvili. Only common - thick mustache, good
            hair, ”- repeats the words of Stalin’s grandson Nikolai
            After analyzing his DNA, a point of contention
            finally dropped: Przhevalsky - representative
            pan-European haplogroup R1a. And not at all
            Stalinist G2. Meanwhile, DNA analyzes of such close
            relatives, like father and son, would show
            absolute coincidence. "I am glad that the noble
            the Przewalski family finally got rid of this
            legends, ”the descendant of the traveler told us.
  6. reality
    reality 25 December 2013 12: 07
    And why was this information hidden? I mean, why is Prezhivalsky unprofitable in the role of Stalin's father?
    1. The comment was deleted.
  7. klimpopov
    klimpopov 25 December 2013 12: 43
    Some sort of hat in komenty lit. Anyway. The article is not about that. The article shows the ambiguity of that time, which is now (mainly liberals) perceived as monolithic, as the time when Stalin ruled infinitely, but to compare the 1930 (for example) and the 1938 of the year ... After all, everything is different. And Stalin 1930 of the year with Stalin 1939 of the year oh how different. Well this is me upstairs.
    Thank you for the article! Thoughtfully and articulate - very pleased.
    1. Evgan
      Evgan 25 December 2013 15: 51
      By the way, Mikoyan writes about the same in his memoirs. True, his attitude is such that in 1930 Stalin was "better" than in 1938.
      1. Bear52
        Bear52 26 December 2013 10: 06
        Believe unconditionally Mikoyan - I would not. Much in his memoirs .... doubtful!
  8. wulf66
    wulf66 25 December 2013 15: 00
    Article plus. He never united the stony bacchanalia of Leninist Trotskyists and the construction of the State by Stalin. Russia was lucky that among this cohort, the world revolution of the blowers, there was one sane statesman.
  9. pRofF
    pRofF 25 December 2013 15: 18
    Also put a plus. The country needed unity of command, the development of the economy and culture, and not "world quirks" (Trotsky), projects from the realm of science fiction (Bukharin), a retreat to their former positions (Rykov, Yagoda, etc.). And Stalin was able to provide it. With the support of all the people. And so that now about him and about our grandfathers and great-grandfathers the gentlemen-liberals of the new-century do not yelp - you cannot hide the truth.
  10. datur
    datur 25 December 2013 15: 52
    [quote = Aleksandr Petrovich] And why did they get it? Did I say something wrong? - This is stupid! here are the cons. wink
  11. dmb
    dmb 25 December 2013 15: 57
    The article (as opposed to individual comments) is certainly interesting. The main thing that she confirms, and which a number of our individual fellow citizens cannot understand, is that all these people were people of the same idea. And their goal was absolutely the same - building socialism. And they fought with each other by and large for their plan of building it, believing that the rest of their associates would lead the country to death with their plans. Since they were people of idea, not dough, the fight was to the death. Which one was right? We believe that Stalin, since he won, and we know the results of his victory. Win, say Rykov or Tukhachevsky, today the gallant "analysts" would vilify Stalin with the dirtiest words, but how it would be in reality and what the country would be like nobody knows, well, except for commentators who write with errors on the site. I know one thing for sure, neither Przhevalsky, nor his horse had anything to do with the choice of the path of development of the USSR.
  12. demotivator
    demotivator 25 December 2013 17: 53
    Quote: dmb
    .... all these people were people of the same idea. And their goal was absolutely one-building socialism. And they fought with each other by and large for their plan for its construction, believing that the other comrades-in-arms with their plans would lead the country to death.

    It's a little different. Until a certain moment, before coming to power, they were all like-minded people. But after that, Stalin's views on life and those who were later allowed "under the knife of repression" radically diverged. Most of those who opposed Stalin adhered to the principle: "If you have taken power, live to your heart's content." And they lived without denying themselves anything. Stalin and his associates came to power in order to make the people happy, and not to rob them. Therefore, all their lives they constantly studied "technique" and not skiing and diving for amphorae to the bottom of the sea. But, "handy communists" and "communist Oblomovism" did not want to study. Therefore, when, in the mid-30s, these idlers and talkers began to be replaced by personnel trained in Soviet universities, a circle of "offended" was formed from these "communist talkers". Why, they did the revolution, and they are deprived of their posts, mansions, cars and recreation on the French Riviera. This is the real reason for the formation in the USSR of the abscess that Stalin had to squeeze out for a long time. Of course, you can look for all sorts of ideological differences as much as you like, especially since they did take place. But this does not change the essence of the matter - in fact, there was a struggle between people who wanted to build a state of workers, and between those who craved immediate material benefits from this state. Various "ideas" served as a cover for this struggle. Well, just like we did in 1991, when all sorts of crooks broke into power just to plunder the country and the people. But at the same time, for some reason they chatted about some kind of "democracy" and "universal human values."
    1. valokordin
      valokordin 25 December 2013 19: 55
      Quote: demotivator


      Michael, Bravo! Your motivated message deserves respect.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. dmb
      dmb 25 December 2013 21: 26
      Without challenging your assessments of the current government, which I actually did not mention, I would like a more convincing confirmation of your views on the reasons for the struggle between party groupings. And evidence of the "malignity" of the losers. in particular, the politicians I have named.
  13. 25 December 2013 17: 59
    Maybe I don’t know something or didn’t understand it?
    From the author of the article: "Operation" Spring "even touched BM Shaposhnikov, who was demoted from the post of Chief of Staff to the commander of the Volga Military District. (True, after a while Stalin will bring him back." In the third paragraph from the end of the article.

    Let's decide on the timing: the first paragraph of the article under discussion is "that on the same day, in 1930, AI Rykov was removed from the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks."

    Refer to the sources: Shaposhnikov Boris Mikhailovich.
    to April 1931 - chief of staff of the Red Army; until March 1932 - commander of the Volga Military District;

    The problem with the author of the article is obtained with dates.
    B.M.Sh. was unconditionally loyal to I.V.S. human. Putting your man in the Volga Military District on the NSh PrivO, in whose hands all the "threads" of communications and streams of information converge after the "year of the great turning point" - this is quite in the spirit of I.V.S.

    Well, and Rykov? The people called the vodka of that era "rykovka", the people, after all, they look at the root!
  14. hitech
    hitech 25 December 2013 19: 25
    A kind of "alternative" picture in a nutshell:
    1. invisibility
      invisibility 25 December 2013 21: 06
      Wacky picture! Stalin despised swearing.
  15. valokordin
    valokordin 25 December 2013 20: 06
    I.V. Stalin is a real worker, not a gentleman, who are the real leaders of the country, they behave in a gentle manner and they have such thoughts, and you should not expect from them concern for the simple.
  16. alone
    alone 25 December 2013 20: 09
    After reading the article, I was once again convinced that Stalin was a talented politician who knew how to analyze the situation very well and find the right solution. To do this, he needed only to finish the seminary))
    1. Fedya
      Fedya 25 December 2013 20: 59
      Well, he also had considerable revolutionary experience! And you cannot get it in any seminary.
  17. invisibility
    invisibility 25 December 2013 21: 30
    A good article, but the format of the site will not allow to describe the entire intensity and the process of internal party struggle. It is touched by the position of some opponents, which opposition, the cause of the industrial party, the Trotskyists, the military conspiracy, etc.? But it was also about our future, including! Do you like an alternative? Imagine Bukharin, Rykov, Tukhachevsky, Trotsky in power. You can take turns, you can all together. No horror movie to watch. Lapotnaya, half-starved Soviet Russia on the eve of the war! 100000 tanks and everything is visible from overseas material, but with our reed roof, sorry, tower. 40000 aircraft, apparently steam-powered. IL-2, for armor, adobe can be coated. Not funny? A deep bow to Comrade Stalin for saved Russia and for our lives! By the way, if our rulers (domestics) occasionally adopted the experience of past years, they would have learned a lot. Oh, what am I talking about! Tigers and cranes are waiting! Can you imagine Stalin flying on a hang glider with cranes?
    1. pRofF
      pRofF 25 December 2013 22: 45
      By the way, there are a couple of funny facts about these many thousands of tanks and aircraft. So, this is what one of the leaders of the Northern Territory, Comrade V. Bergavinov: "Comrade Tukhachevsky is tempting to tease us, he sent the frames to him the grandiose plan of civil aviation in the North - in 1931 - 151 aircraft, in 1932 - 934, in 1933 - 929. Total 1384 + two airships. Of course, we will not master such a very exaggerated amount, and there is no need to get them from anywhere. Knowing that although it’s civil aviation, but it flies under you, we tearfully ask you to give at least one plane for the edge to our immediate disposal"He wrote this to Voroshilov. So I would say that it was not about the militarization of the entire country, but about the banal" projection ". Moreover, Tukhachevsky distinguished himself to others. Tens of thousands of tanks have already been mentioned. there are no dual-use "and" armored "tractors. The quote is taken from the works of Tukhachevsky himself:"It must be borne in mind that in the tank issue we still have a very conservative approach to the design of the tank, requiring all tanks to be of a special military type ... we need to strive to ensure that special military tanks comprise about one in total thirds, for special tasks, etc. The rest of the tanks, which are usually in the 2 and 3 echelons, can be slightly less speed, larger, etc. This means that such a tank can be an armored tractor, exactly the same we have bron Rowan cars, trains"This is from Tukhachevsky's letter to Stalin dated July 19, 1930.

      So comrade. The invisible man is right - mind us from such alternatives! If such "generals" were at the helm of the country, a small northern animal would come to us ...
      1. invisibility
        invisibility 25 December 2013 23: 44
        And there was still a universal gun! Such an anti-tank howitzer anti-aircraft gun.
    2. Archibald
      Archibald 26 December 2013 21: 26
      All this greatly helped at the beginning of the war.
  18. Not hearing
    Not hearing 25 December 2013 23: 49
    If you look at today's China, which is rapidly turning into the second most powerful power in the world, and especially carefully look at what positions it started from. And carefully look at the economic model that he uses for his ascent. You can find that it is based on what we called the New Economic Policy (NEP). Naturally, this is not about simple copying, but about the basic basic principles. And therefore, when the author says that the NEP has exhausted itself and could not do anything, well, look at China.
  19. msv
    msv 26 December 2013 00: 29
    Article plus.
    The author rightly expounds on a serious intra-party struggle, which completely ended in 38-39 years, when Stalin raised and set up his electorate (mainly from workers and peasant families), replacing professional "revolutionaries".
  20. Egor.nic
    Egor.nic 26 December 2013 12: 02
    ........ "It is customary for us to be horrified by the" anti-peasant pressure "and the Stalinist policy in relation to the countryside. And, indeed, there is little good here. But you also have to understand what position the country is in."
    It would be more accurate to write: - in which country the leaders took her with their hands.
  21. mithridate
    mithridate 27 December 2013 20: 30
    history has shown fidelity to Stalin's foreign and domestic policies. In contrast, the lament of the liberals about millions of innocent victims of Stalinism