Military Review

Khrushchev deliberately began to squander Stalin's legacy

161
Judah Gorbachev came to the prepared place. In the language of one of the heroes of the Shukshinovskaya “Kalina Krasnaya”, “the people were ready for debauchery”. Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, who took an active part in Stalin's poisoning, began to prepare the people. Then the line Khrushchev caught Brezhnev. When the most narrow-minded, self-serving part of the managerial elite won, one thing remained: to appropriate the accumulated by the people for seven decades.


Writer Nikolai Starikov:

“March 5 1953, the year Stalin died. He was poisoned. After his death, the entire geopolitical inheritance began to scroll very quickly. First Beria was shot, who was to become Stalin's heir. Following Lavrentiy Pavlovich, a whole galaxy of security officers was destroyed. And right there, 16 – 17 June 1953, riots take place in the GDR (mainly in Berlin), which are suppressed by Soviet troops. Pay attention - not with the “bloody” Stalin and not with the “executioner” Beria, but immediately after their withdrawal from the Big Game. Then Khrushchev and his henchmen destroy almost everything that was done by Stalin:

♦ the ocean navy started to be built (Stalin was going to make the Russian fleet sail in the World Ocean and to the shores of the United States);

♦ carry out army reform and reduction of the army. In the very boorish form, which was impossible under Stalin (an example is the dismissal of a front-line soldier with a combat wound a couple of months before the term giving him the right to a military pension);

♦ the campaign of defamation of Stalin leads to a rupture of relations with Albania and the loss of our Vlore base fleet in the Adriatic Sea, to the severance of China’s relations with the "Khrushchev revisionists."

Well, the famous report of Khrushchev at the XX Party Congress? It is generally a collection of fables, lies and slander from beginning to end. Read it - the report is easy to find on the Internet ...

Khrushchev deliberately began to squander Stalin's legacy

The prudent owner Stalin saved a record gold reserve over the years of his reign. Where is he now? Disappeared over the years of perestroika. “Young reformers” said that in the 1991 year, when they came to power, the golden “bins of the motherland” were empty. Even Yegor Gaidar seems to have hired American detectives to search for this gold. When you hear or read such things, you involuntarily want to laugh. Where can tens of thousands of tons of gold disappear? It's a whole train! And most likely - not one. So much in the suitcases and pockets can not bear. Here you need to carry the aircraft with the full permission of the government. But the gold has disappeared. Where could they take him? And what are the options? No options, only to the West - nowhere else. Soviet gold was not exported to North Korea! And then the American investigators, investigators could not find him. Well what will you do! The mystery is unsolvable, where the royal, then Kolchak, and then the gold of the Soviet Union disappeared ... ”.

Originator:
http://www.nenovosty.ru/
161 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. makst83
    makst83 23 January 2014 10: 36
    +52
    Perhaps he avenged a traitor for his son, maybe understanding the SCALE of the figure of Stalin and realizing his worthlessness, compared with him, he tried to belittle his role in HISTORY and realize his complexes.
    Many versions and each has a right to exist. what
    IMHO. But the trouble is not in this, but in the fact that Ambassador STALIN and BERIA, we did not find such figures (perhaps because two such persons, in one century and in one country, are too much wink ) and did not have time to reform the party according to the plan of IV Stalin (to leave the party with an ideological role). But history does not know the subjunctive mood, and therefore we have what we have. hi
    1. sledgehammer102
      sledgehammer102 23 January 2014 16: 14
      +18
      Quote: makst83
      Perhaps he avenged a traitor for his son, maybe understanding the SCALE of the figure of Stalin and realizing his worthlessness, compared with him, he tried to belittle his role in HISTORY and realize his complexes.


      The usual envy and desire to be exalted is not due to one's own achievements, but due to throwing off a strong opponent with the stool. Approximately the same strategy and current belolentochnyh.

      In general, Khrushchev, and in addition to his de-Stalinization, broke a lot of firewood, including with Cuba / China / agriculture, the arms race began just with him, the surface fleet developed with him on the residual principle, since the main emphasis was on submarines ... not the best General Secretary ... Yes, they were normal - Stalin, young Brezhnev and Andropov, the latter was very old ...
      1. olviko
        olviko 23 January 2014 16: 35
        +38
        "Common envy and desire to rise"

        Not only ! Nikita, like all his accomplices, has blood on his hands up to the elbows. Stalin even had to stop the frenzied zeal of this executioner. "Calm down, d .. urak" Stalin responded to Khrushchev's proposal to increase, so to speak, the quota for shooting "enemies of the people." After Stalin's death, this whole hop-company decided to blame all the chaos of the thirties on the dead, thus hoping to whitewash in the eyes of the people.
        1. A.YARY
          A.YARY 23 January 2014 16: 57
          +29
          Oleg here you hit the nail on the head.
          Who shouts louder "Thief!"
          We are "grateful" to Khrushchev for the Crimea, as well as for the mediocre lost "Caribbean knot". Read the enemy of Brzezinski, he puts all the dots on the i.
          Further, you can "bow" to him for ignorance (even then) of individual farms (and this would increase SH). For corn fever.
          For a break with China, a special "merci"!
          This mediocrity has done a lot, oh a lot.
          And our special "thank you" for STALINGRAD!
          1. Tersky
            Tersky 23 January 2014 17: 53
            +4
            Quote: A.YARY
            Further, you can "bow" to him for ignorance (even then) of individual farms (and this would increase SH). For corn fever.

            “According to the seven-year plan, the average annual growth rate of agricultural production in 1959-1963 was supposed to be 8 percent. In reality, they were 1,7 percent in the first four years, and 1963 was completed with minus indicators. cost is lower than in 1958. For 5 years, the cost of agricultural products in state farms had to be reduced by 21%, but in fact it increased by 24%. We still have not resolved the question of the material interest of agricultural workers. On this subject, Comrade Khrushchev made many speeches and signed many notes, but the result is negligible. In 1958, for one man-day, the collective farmers received money and food in the amount of 1 ruble 56 kopecks, and 5 years later - in 1963 - 1 ruble 89 kopecks. " The increase ", as you can see, was only 5 kopecks in 36 years, that is, annually 7 kopecks per person-day. If, on average, each collective farmer produces 230-250 person-days per year, this means that his hedgehog The monthly earnings are 37-40 rubles. This is more than two times less than the average monthly salary of other workers. But this is only on average. But in many of our collective farms they give out for a person-day even now at 50-60 kopecks. money and products. That is why people are fleeing the collective farms. In this connection, it is appropriate to note one more very important circumstance. Referring to the figures for the growth of the collective farmers' incomes, we always start from the indicators of 1953 and do not want to recall what earnings they had before the war! From the report of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU at the October Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, held on October 14, 1964 ("the report of DS Polyansky"). Andrew, hi !
        2. ele1285
          ele1285 23 January 2014 17: 38
          +20
          Quote: olviko
          gop company

          This is just a gay company, tell me, did anyone remember with a kind word Khrushchev or Gorbachev? And why do people welcome Lukashenko? Maybe I'm wrong, and the most important thing in life is to cut the dough and pinch the heifers while young?
          I don’t want to live like I am offered by DAM and GDP, I want to live in good conscience. I want people to be able to spend their money wherever they want, and not on loans. And let Artek return and the Komsomol with poners and stop parking on lawns and playgrounds .
          1. Danafxnumx
            Danafxnumx 24 January 2014 12: 40
            -3
            Quote: ele1285
            I don’t want to live like I am offered by DAM and GDP, I want to live in good conscience.

            DAM and GDP do not give you a conscience? and what they still do not give you?
            Quote: ele1285
            I want people to be able to spend their money wherever they want, and not on loans.

            to take or not to take loans is a private matter of everyone ...
            but if they did, then there’s nothing to blame for the mirror ...

            you must, in the end, learn to be responsible for YOUR actions ....
            1. Mikhail3
              Mikhail3 24 January 2014 13: 03
              +1
              The man clumsily put it. And I had in mind about the following. In a collision in the realities of the present life, a bastard and a good man in one hundred cases out of a hundred, the villain wins. A good person, if he follows the standards established in our state, has no line of conduct that could lead him to at least stay with his own.
              There is only one way in this coordinate system - to slide to an abomination. Or give your strength and independence to someone else, in return to do whatever they say. Diligently without thinking - what are you doing? Because it’s still necessary to create abominations, because you don’t have to survive, so the abomination is done by the whole structure - a ministry, a company, a factory, a hospital ...
              Russia has always put conscience above everything else. It didn't always work out, not everyone understood, a lot of bad things were done ... But now an attempt is being made to robotize us in a European, Western way. And if we do not want, "everyone is against us now, as if we did not even wear the cross." People are crying, longing is killing. What is happening, landmarks, goals, all this is NOT IN RUSSIAN! Do you understand?
              1. Danafxnumx
                Danafxnumx 24 January 2014 15: 39
                0
                Quote: Mikhail3
                Russia has always put conscience above everything else. It didn't always work out, not everyone understood, a lot of bad things were done ... But now an attempt is being made to robotize us in a European, Western way. And if we do not want, "everyone is against us now, as if we did not even wear the cross." People are crying, longing is killing. What is happening, landmarks, goals, all this is NOT IN RUSSIAN! Do you understand?

                Now is the 21 century, understand?
                we cannot remain in the same coordinate system in which we were in 19 ...

                and yet, we along the way in 2's different states live ...
                because a person cannot become bad, even if circumstances force him ...
                he can become bad only if he wants to ...

                all the excuses about this are nonsense and weakness ...
                1. Mikhail3
                  Mikhail3 24 January 2014 19: 06
                  0
                  There are no centuries. There is no story. There is now. You read old, old tales, and you see people walking by every day. The person does not change, do not fog your head yourself. From the fact that people came up with a calendar, the cannibals did not stop eating other people's hearts, and the tricky asses did not stop using the cannibals for their own purposes.
                  A person can become bad and becomes it all the time. Otherwise, we would have lived among the righteous. What did I try to convey the idea? About pushing out. Life is a struggle for resources. In order to bring food to the children themselves to build a house.
                  And Russia has always tried to arrange life on its land so that good people can breathe easier. Depart from the beast, which throats for resources.
                  And they push us back! That is, when confronted with a bad person, the good one is in a busy position. He has no opportunity to defend himself, since the state forbids self-defense and mercilessly persecutes. And I'm not only about the street. Raider say workshop captures what to do?
                  Say - can not a person become bad? Well? Kill the raider? Bandit. The state will trample. Go to court? In almost all cases, the raider wins there. Not even because I bought everyone. Just capturing someone else's is his specialty. And the specialty of an auto repairman is to repair cars. And he doesn’t have money for the raider class specialist, where does the SUPER profit in ordinary work come from? And the state does not protect more than its citizens, it only ensures that everything is formalized according to the laws. What can not a good person do? Leave crying? Good, yes? What about the family? And workers, where should they go? After all, they do not need the raider, he lives with destruction, cannot work. And is a person good that he hired bandits? Like, you know, like that.
                  And you have to disappoint. If you do not "howl like a wolf" from your current wolf life, that does not mean that you are good. This means that someone is doing mean things FOR YOU. So that you are clean. And if you honestly look around you, you will quickly find this person or these people. Because you know them well, you just forbid yourself to see the connection. They are the bad ones, and you are a shining angel, yeah ...
                  1. Akkypamucm
                    Akkypamucm 15 September 2017 17: 54
                    0
                    100% in the bullseye !!! Only many do not see it or do not want to
        3. Nick
          Nick 23 January 2014 21: 41
          +6
          Quote: olviko
          Stalin even had to stop the frenzied zeal of this executioner. "Calm down, urak" is how Stalin responded to Khrushchev's proposal to increase, so to speak, the quota for shooting "enemies of the people"

          Stalin, as he could, restrained this camarilla, Khrushchev, Eikhe, etc., and by the 39th year, he, with the help of Beria, had basically succeeded ...
      2. Tersky
        Tersky 23 January 2014 17: 41
        +30
        Quote: sledgehammer102
        In general, Khrushchev, and in addition to his de-Stalinization, has broken a lot of firewood, including with Cuba / China / agriculture,

        In 1991, the Japanese billionaire Heroshi Terawama, addressing Soviet economists, said the following: "You are not talking about the basics, about your leading role in the world. In 1939, you Russians were smart, and we Japanese were fools. In 1949 you became even smarter, and we were still fools. And in 1955 we got smarter, and you turned into five-year-old children. Our entire economic system is almost completely copied from yours, with the only difference that we have capitalism, private producers, and we are more 15% growth never reached, and you, with public ownership of the means of production, reached 30% or more. In all our firms hang your slogans of the Stalinist era. " As they say - do not subtract, do not add. Colleague, hi !
      3. INTER
        INTER 23 January 2014 18: 05
        +8
        Russia is not lucky with the right rulers, or rather, some are building, creating, leading people to great achievements, immediately after them careless followers come and donate everything that their predecessors achieved for 30 pieces of silver, the same thing in this case, oh, if 5 times in a row our homeland was managed if leaders, well, at least as close as Stalin, Alexander 3, and Putin (with a slightly different attitude to liberal issues), Russia would be justice and a bulwark of peace on earth.
        1. tenere1200
          tenere1200 23 January 2014 22: 50
          +1
          Quote: INTER
          Russia is not lucky with the right rulers, or rather, some are building, creating, leading people to great achievements, immediately after them careless followers come and donate everything that their predecessors achieved for 30 pieces of silver, the same thing in this case, oh, if 5 times in a row our homeland was managed if leaders, well, at least as close as Stalin, Alexander 3, and Putin (with a slightly different attitude to liberal issues), Russia would be justice and a bulwark of peace on earth.

          Not Putin on this list is clearly superfluous.
          1. Danafxnumx
            Danafxnumx 24 January 2014 12: 44
            0
            Quote: tenere1200
            Not Putin on this list is clearly superfluous.

            and you have not forgotten what "f" we were in 2000?
            but just some 13 years have passed, and without five-year plans and plans ...
      4. tirazu
        tirazu 23 January 2014 23: 59
        0
        It was the "normal" Andropov who sought out and promoted such a valuable shot as the beloved Mikhail Sergeevich Judin.
        1. wax
          wax 24 January 2014 13: 10
          +1
          Staying old men interrupted the natural thread of the change of personnel while maintaining continuity. Andropov had the task of quickly finding and checking out the young shift. One of these shots was Gorbachev. Andropov moved him up, but still managed to figure it out before his death. The killing of Andropov brought Gorbi to the arena. But he still would not have gone to the General Secretary if it had not been for the manipulation of the vote and, moreover, Gromyko’s gigantic mistake, who put his authority for Gorbi. He would know. Gromyko, with his rehabilitation of the Crimean Tatars and the promotion of Gorbi, is a vivid example of the fact that his authority among the people is completely and completely obliged to guide the foreign policy of the great man - Stalin. . And pygmies come to replace
    2. DEfindER
      DEfindER 23 January 2014 16: 47
      +7
      Quote: makst83
      and did not have time to reform the party according to the plan of I.V. Stalin (to leave the party with an ideological role)

      Yes, how would it be that Stalin wanted to create something like a parliamentary federation where the highest power belongs to the people elected from each region, and as far as I know, all the decrees were signed by Molotov, and he himself performed purely representative functions, i.e. as the spiritual leader of the people, but not the executive branch. A similar system was in the Jamahiriya, where Gaddafi actually had no power, but only represented his country in the world, and was a spiritual leader. The real power was in the council of the tribes.
    3. Civil
      Civil 23 January 2014 16: 53
      .
      Khrushchev abolished SLAVERY for half the population of the USSR, distributing passports to collective farmers.
      1. Gato
        Gato 23 January 2014 17: 27
        +16
        Quote: Civil
        Khrushchev abolished SLAVERY for half the population of the USSR, distributing passports to collective farmers.

        In addition to the passport, there was such a thing as registration - that is, they will let you on a plane, but to get a job in the city or get housing there - FIG.
        1. Civil
          Civil 23 January 2014 17: 30
          +1
          Quote: Gato
          Quote: Civil
          Khrushchev abolished SLAVERY for half the population of the USSR, distributing passports to collective farmers.

          In addition to the passport, there was such a thing as registration - that is, they will let you on a plane, but to get a job in the city or get housing there - FIG.

          Native, it was impossible even to the district center without permission, to the neighboring village ...
          1. shasherin_pavel
            shasherin_pavel 23 January 2014 20: 02
            +15
            Quote: Civil
            Native, it was impossible even to the district center without permission, to the neighboring village ...

            In the Pushkinogorsk district of the Pskov region. the peasants of the Pobeda collective farm told me how they walked to Pskov for a pound of salt. Two days there, two days there, and two days back home. "People were kept only by the farm and the house. There were really documents according to which the collective farmer was allowed to get a job in the city, so this certificate was given by the chairman of the collective farm. So they said:" You will approach the chairman: I want to go to work. He: "Is there any paper?" Give him a piece of paper and a pencil. Just print it. So I went to work in the city. So after all, by the spring you still go back. You can't leave the house. I understand how difficult it is to separate anti-Stalinist propaganda from the truth. But it is better to speak with veterans, rather than read books written under the dictation of the post-Stalinist communists.
            1. My doctor
              My doctor 23 January 2014 23: 17
              +4
              And the peasants of the Pobeda kolkhoz told you that the kind collective farm chairman could (at least promised) to take away that piece of land from which the family lived if there were not a certain number of “sticks” of workdays.
              So yours is true
              Quote: shasherin_pavel
              So after all in the spring you still go back. You won’t leave the house.

              Perhaps this is a hidden threat that if you don’t come, then there may no longer be a farm.
              Maybe I'm wrong and this was an isolated case, after all, the country needed working hands to restore cities.

              and more
              Quote: shasherin_pavel
              . I understand how difficult it is to separate anti-Stalinist propaganda from the truth.

              And by the way, now pro-Stalinist propaganda has gone everywhere, which this site is an example of. But I personally personally think that it is not necessary to go to extremes from being addicted to completely deifying the person. This is fraught with swaying and, as a result, shattering of society.
              and more
              Quote: MyVrach
              Therefore, my dear keyboard hero, you're wrong.

              I apologize for that. Communication via the Internet with strangers gives rise to a sense of anonymity, permissiveness, lawlessness. And as a result of rudeness.
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 23 January 2014 23: 35
                +6
                Quote: MyVrach
                And by the way, now pro-Stalinist propaganda has gone everywhere

                Vova Obeshalkin wants to be the new Stalin - with the same world influence and unlimited powers within the country. To be loved, respected and afraid - on both sides of the border.

                Here's the problem. To be Stalin, you need to be able to live for the sake of a higher idea, and not ride along the mountain slope of Krasnaya Polyana and not travel in a bathyscaphe through the depths of Lake Baikal. It is necessary to keep "in check" the homies who have gone crazy with luxury and permissiveness. There is no need to change your people to crowds of Asian guest workers. It is necessary to develop the potential of our own country, and not to drain hydrocarbons over the hill, buying up real estate in Miami with the proceeds and at the same time gurgling about "spiritual bonds" and "the revival of the state."

                In short, nothing happens. History repeats itself twice - the first time as a tragedy, the second time as a comedy
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. postman
                  postman 24 January 2014 12: 54
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Yes, that's the problem.

                  forgot about a watch ... what changes once a month
                  and, yes, there is still such a "booger",Now if the leaders GOS (!) Corporation (enterprises) have earnings:
                  - Head of Rosneft Oil Company Igor Sechin. He earned $ 50 (000 r) for a full year of his work in business ...uh, 1,6 billion rubles.
                  - Head of the Management Board of VTB Bank Andrey Kostin $ 35 (000 p.)
                  -Gazprom Chairman of the Board Alexei Miller dropped to third place with an annual income of $ 25 (000 rubles). Oh (!) 000 million rubles just that?
                  - President of Sberbank German Gref (4th and 5th place in the rating, respectively) - $ 15 per year (000 p).

                  Istonic: Forbes Magazine

                  Let's compare with "comers" the general director of Uralkali Vladislav Baumgertner and the CEO of Renova Group Alexey Moskov, with $ 5 million in annual revenue.
                  1. So if the "red directors" earn in the year of the runoff, then the General Secretary should earn a lope, so as not to feel "flawed"?
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  ... It is necessary to keep "in check" the homies who have gone crazy with luxury and permissiveness.



                  2. Here that make money legally 1,6 billion rubles - what is so brilliant you need to "trick"?
                  3. Here that make money legally 1,6 billion rubles, after all.
                  -pay 13% personal income tax (in +)
                  -Pay 28% of social programs (in +)
                  -at least 5% yield "build" (in +)
                  - pay from this 20% income tax (in +)
                  -payment from revenue 18% VAT (in +)
                  In total, the head of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, must give Rosneft a year at least (!) 3 rubles. (almost 276 BILLION rubles) =
                  $ 102 405 120,00 = $ 0,102 billion



                  Rosneft managed to get the highest net profit in absolute terms. The company increased it by 19,7% over the year - up to 12,45 billion dollars

                  Read more: http://top.rbc.ru/economics/23/03/2012/643081.shtml

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  In short, nothing happens

                  Yes with such salaries need to spend 25 hours a day at work and tirelessly plow for the good of such a homeland.
                  (like Apollo, in the topic. it's true tiputi, but that's not the point)



              2. old rocket man
                old rocket man 23 January 2014 23: 49
                +2
                Quote: MyVrach
                And the peasants of the Pobeda kolkhoz told you that the kind collective farm chairman could (at least promised) to take away that piece of land from which the family lived if there were not a certain number of “sticks” of workdays.


                What chairman did Stalin appoint?
                Vernyak was from the same village or from a neighboring one.
          2. kavkaz8888
            kavkaz8888 24 January 2014 01: 42
            +2
            Civil (3) Today, 17:30
            "... it was not even possible to go to the regional center without permission, to the neighboring village ..."
            This is an exaggeration. To put it mildly.
        2. My doctor
          My doctor 23 January 2014 18: 25
          +7
          Hello wise guy.
          Quote: Gato
          In addition to the passport, there was such a thing as registration - that is, they will let you on a plane, but to get a job in the city or get housing there - FIG.

          They could take work with passports in the nearest town, but without a passport, I’m saying with confidence this is because it was like this with my parents. This is one of two things, either you invent or my father and mother, because the second is incredible to me and therefore my dear keyboard hero you're wrong.
          1. DEfindER
            DEfindER 23 January 2014 20: 05
            +5
            Quote: MyVrach
            They could take work with passports in the nearest town, but without a passport,

            And what's the problem, get a passport, and work at the factory, the country was undergoing powerful industrialization, workers were needed like air.
            And in the villages at that time, apparently, there was not much need for passports.
          2. shasherin_pavel
            shasherin_pavel 23 January 2014 20: 09
            -8
            I am 55 years old, my mother was born in 27 years old. At 45, she was 18 years old, but she first received a passport in Khrushchev’s time. And how old are you, and in what year did your parents meet each other, maybe at 57 or 60?
            1. Uncle lee
              Uncle lee 24 January 2014 03: 50
              +8
              My mother was born in 1926 in the village of Zvenigorodka Prim. region and in the Second World War she worked in Ussuriysk at an aircraft plant, for which she received the medal "For Valiant Labor in the Second World War". In 1945 she turned 19 years old. And all her brothers and sisters left the village, studied and lived all over the USSR.
      2. screw cutter
        screw cutter 23 January 2014 18: 34
        +1
        And all rushed to the capital for sausage.
      3. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 23 January 2014 19: 51
        +19
        And who had passports in Stalin's times? The passport system existed only for residents of the capital of Leningrad and other large cities, and it was introduced so that cities of regional or regional significance would not be overloaded, as is the case now. Anyone could move wherever he wanted, if it was not a regional city. Read carefully books about the work of the NKGB and the NKVD, when the difficulties of 41 years are described, when only officers had military books. Most of the soldiers had civilian documents. Yes, Muscovites' passports were often burned during mobilization right in the stoves of heating plants, and not even by officers, but by sergeants. I myself was amazed when I read this: how can it be that a sergeant burns the passports of mobilized Muscovites right in the heating house. Until I found out that passports were valid only in large cities, something like a place of registration. Only after the end of the battle near Moscow did the soldiers get certificates, but at first they did not indicate to which unit the soldier was assigned, so that after killing the soldier and taking possession of his documents, spies or saboteurs could not find out which units were in the area. By March 42, the part number began to be indicated in the documents, and a little later secret temporary signs appeared, which changed every two weeks. By the way, about the stainless steel scrapers, which distinguished fake documents, a month later the Germans changed the stainless steel to rusting paper clips. It is not necessary to apply our times to Stalinist times, when passports replaced birth metrics. Remember at least "Eternal Call" when you got yourself documents by killing people just like them. But these were already the times after the defeat of "NEP". So much for slavery, it was the passport system throughout the country that began to tie a person to the place of registration, and this was during the time of Khrushch, not Stalin. The main motto of "Perestroika" was the abolition of passport registration as a symbol of liberation from communist bondage! Canceled? No! It means that we remained in slavery, which was introduced by Khrushchev! You have to think before you write.
    4. Mareman Vasilich
      Mareman Vasilich 23 January 2014 16: 54
      +25
      You are right. He knew that the worm compared to Stalin. And instead of Stalin's self-improvement, he went the other way, decided to outshine Stalin as a state scale. It is thanks to him that we owe the decline of agriculture, to him we owe the fact that Russians use imported electronics and information technology. "Cybernetics pseudoscience" N. Khrushchev, that's right, fuck us cybernetics, corn is more important. But by 1953, the USSR was confidently ahead of the rest of the planet in the development of information technology, electronics, rocketry and all those areas where computers (technology) are affected.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 23 January 2014 17: 22
        +12
        I remember that during the years of the Finnish campaign, television tanks were created - the first combat robots in history. They had only one drawback - the negligible radio range
      2. CALL.
        CALL. 23 January 2014 17: 23
        +20
        Quote: Mareman Vasilich
        Then the line of Khrushchev was picked up by Brezhnev.

        The Khrushchev line was not picked up by Brezhnev, but by those officials from the Khrushchev team that he brought to power during his reign. Brezhnev was an honest communist, although not a statesman. It was with him in the years 70-80 that the party elite had already decayed in full. I remember all these posts, fake pathos of the congresses of the CPSU, endless lines and blat. By pulling it was possible to get comfortable, get something, get an apartment, arrange profitable children. The country has already rolled into the abyss. And it did not allow her to fall rapidly there, only the inheritance that Stalin left her. In districts, cities and regions, where he was still led by like-minded people, there was a Soviet Union about which they miss. In the same districts, cities and regions where the Khrushchevites won, no one wants to return to this USSR. Unfortunately, every year there were more and more Khrushchevites, and then Gorbachevites, and less and less Stalinists. And when the mass of scum in power exceeded the critical USSR collapsed. Those who believe that the USSR itself collapsed are mistaken. There is plenty of evidence that the main violin was played all the same by foreign intelligence services. They paid, they also ordered.
    5. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 23 January 2014 17: 17
      +14
      Khrushchev was one of the creators of the "Stalinist" terror, which overshadowed the necessary measures.
      During the defeat of the Trotskyite-Bukharin conspirators, the "Leninist Guard" who fought against the Stalinist course of building socialism and against Stalin himself I.V., Khrushchev showed such bloody zeal in the fight not only against the conspirators, but also against innocent people .AT. on his request for repression, he imposed a resolution: "Calm down, d.u.r.a.k.!"
      To whitewash himself and absolve himself of blame for the repressions, Khrushchev mixed the real history of the struggle of Stalin I.V. with the enemies of the USSR, with fiction and outright lies, putting on Stalin all the dirt that could have been invented.
      And most importantly, Khrushchev began the dismantling of the Stalinist USSR, giving rise in the future to the emergence of such traitors as Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their accomplices for the final defeat of the USSR.
      1. alone
        alone 23 January 2014 22: 58
        +2
        Once my father, who served 3 years in the Baltic Military District during the time of Khrushchev (he served in the headquarters, as secretary of the secretary), told me about a conversation between two generals. The lieutenant general openly told the major general that the country was ruled by an adventurer who would destroy the country The father told me that, from what he heard, his hair became on end. So Humpback simply completed what Khrushchev did not have time to do.
        1. demel2
          demel2 24 January 2014 06: 55
          +2
          Well, at least Khrushchev was there, but the hunchback was destroying the country consciously, and I won’t be surprised that sometime documents will be published proving that the hunchback was officially an enemy spy. I understand that we won’t live to see it. But I believe that this is so.
    6. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 24 January 2014 10: 47
      0
      Many versions, you are right.

      But I do not care, excuse me, as Mao prophesied very well !!!

      Just like looking into the water! So he was in the know about the events of those years ?!
    7. knn54
      knn54 24 January 2014 15: 59
      0
      For a country, a tragedy is when the Jester has power.
  2. AVV
    AVV 23 January 2014 11: 30
    +8
    Most importantly, so much gold was exported from Russia. Most likely to the United States, which would be enough for more than one generation to live comfortably !!! Some of us work as usual, while others get rich !!! This was the case in tsarist Russia, under Kolchak, when Soviet Union !!! Yes, the same thing and now money is flowing offshore !!!
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Deniska999
    Deniska999 23 January 2014 16: 02
    +8
    Khrushchev made many mistakes, mainly because of his hatred of the Great Leader. One can agree with Zedong, but partially. Regarding gold, we know that the enemies now have it.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. ABV
      ABV 23 January 2014 16: 44
      +6
      Quote: Deniska999
      Khrushchev made many mistakes, mainly because of his hatred of the Great Leader. One can agree with Zedong, but partially. Regarding gold, we know that the enemies now have it.

      And why exactly because of hatred ?? Perhaps this figure simply covered the traces of his deeds in this way, and "hatred" itself was not the main driving force!
    3. Dilshat
      Dilshat 23 January 2014 18: 41
      +5
      These were not mistakes.
  5. Arhj
    Arhj 23 January 2014 16: 03
    +22
    I can’t judge about gold, but I’m most offended by the Crimea. I think if Khrushchev had stayed longer he would have given some piece of Russian land. There are many memorable dates.
  6. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 23 January 2014 16: 04
    +16
    He lied to I.V. Stalin and paved the way for Gorbachev to betray the Motherland! And about gold, the question is very interesting ...
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 24 January 2014 12: 03
      0
      I do not think that Khrushchev was a traitor, but a fool is for sure. To be at the head of the country you need to think strategically, and he has the brains of a hangover.
  7. moremansf
    moremansf 23 January 2014 16: 09
    +12
    Resolution of the Military Council of the Kiev Military District "On the state of personnel of the command, command and political composition of the district", signed by the commander of the district Tymoshenko, a member of the Military Council of the KVO commander Smirnov and Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Ukraine Khrushchev .

    “... The Military Council set the task of“ rooting out ”the enemies of the people and recruiting loyal and growing commanders for leading positions. corps by 25%, division commanders by 1938%, brigade commanders by 100%, regimental commanders by 96%, UR commandants by 55%, chiefs of staff of corps by 64%, chiefs of staff of divisions by 100%, chiefs of staff of regiments by 67%, chiefs of the district headquarters by 72% ... In total, 58 people were dismissed from the district for political and moral reasons, 84 of them were arrested by the NKVD ... " (see "Military History Journal", 1989, No. 3).
    Khrushchev inflicted great damage on the defense capability of the USSR. Under Stalin, immediately after the restoration of the national economy destroyed by the war, the course was taken to build a powerful ocean fleet. Why does the USSR need an ocean fleet? It was obvious to Stalin that the "peaceful coexistence" of capitalism and socialism was impossible in principle. Clash was inevitable. Therefore, the USSR needed a powerful fleet in order not to be afraid of the aggression of the great maritime powers — the United States and Great Britain, and to be able to defend its interests anywhere in the World Ocean. It is necessary to take into account the fact that a strong shipbuilding industry has given the country thousands, tens of thousands of jobs. Khrushchev destroyed this grand and deadly project for the West in the bud.
    1. CALL.
      CALL. 23 January 2014 17: 48
      +8
      It is believed that in Russia in the twentieth century there were 3 revolutions: in February and October 1917 and in 1991. Sometimes called the year 1993. As a result of the February revolution, the political system changed within a few days. As a result of the October Revolution, both the political and economic systems of the country changed. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, but no changes in the political or economic system took place this year. The political system changed in 1989, when the CPSU lost power in connection with the abolition of the relevant article of the Constitution. The economic system of the USSR changed in 1987, when the non-state sector of the economy appeared in the form of cooperatives. Thus, the revolution did not take place in 1991, in 1987, and, unlike the 1917 revolutions, the people who were then in power carried it out.
      In addition to the above revolutions, there was another one about which not a single line has yet been written. During this revolution, cardinal changes took place in both the political and economic systems of the country. These changes led to a significant deterioration in the financial situation of almost all segments of the population, a decrease in the production of agricultural and industrial goods, a reduction in the assortment of these goods and a decrease in their quality, and a rise in prices. We are talking about the revolution of 1956-1960, carried out by N.S. Khrushchev. The political component of this revolution was that after a fifteen-year hiatus, power returned to the party apparatus at all levels, from party committees of enterprises to the Central Committee of the CPSU. In 1959-1960, the non-state sector of the economy (industrial cooperative enterprises and household plots of collective farmers) was liquidated, which provided for the production of a significant part of industrial goods (clothing, shoes, furniture, dishes, toys, etc.), food (vegetables, livestock and poultry products , fish products), as well as domestic services. In 1957, the Gosplan and branch ministries (except defense) were liquidated. Thus, instead of an effective combination of planned and market economies, neither one nor the other became.
  8. moremansf
    moremansf 23 January 2014 16: 10
    +15
    In addition, the strongest blow was inflicted on Soviet aviation, to which Stalin paid great attention. This enemy began to argue that since the USSR has good ballistic missiles, it is possible to seriously reduce costs, including aviation, to other areas. A significant number of aircraft were sent for scrapping, although they could still watch over their homeland for a long time, many promising breakthrough projects were “stabbed to death”. Thus, Khrushchev struck hard blows at the USSR Navy and Air Force (and other troops suffered), and now we see that it is the air force and navy that are the most important tools in ensuring the sovereignty of the state.

    The officer corps under Khrushchev was simply shredded. Hundreds of thousands of experienced military experts who had behind them the experience of the worst war in the history of mankind, the heroes of the war were simply dismissed. People were simply deprived of the land under their feet, dismissed without retraining, without housing, without referral to a new service. Many divisions, regiments, and schools were disbanded. Many important military scientific projects and developments were put under the knife, which could turn the Soviet Union into a military-space superpower, the power of the 21 century in the second half of the 20 century. The West didn’t evaluate Khrushchev’s disarmament initiatives, he didn’t evaluate the line for "easing tensions", nuclear tests continued, armies and fleets did not decrease, the arms race continued.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 23 January 2014 19: 10
      +1
      Quote: moremansf
      Khrushchev struck hard at the Navy

      For example?
      1. postman
        postman 24 January 2014 01: 41
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        For example?

        Dear ... Well, what examples?
        One VMС - the answer is already
        Are you in your mind?
        Directive of the Minister of Defense of the USSR Marshal Zhukov in 1956, attack aircraft was eliminated
        - In 1957, fighter-bomber aviation was formed as part of front-line aviation
        - MiG-21 fighters from the beginning of the 60s enlisted in droves in the Air Force and Air Defense drill regiments. For many years, it was they who became the main combat vehicles of the Soviet front-line aviation and air defense
        - In the mid-1960s, fighters such as the MiG-25, capable of flying at speeds three times the speed of sound, and rising to 24 meters, began to enter the Soviet Air Force.

        well and so on.
        Oh yeah, damn it, you're talking about the Navy

        The First Secretary dated his first intervention in military affairs in 1954, when, on his return from a trip to China, he inspected the fleet, as a result of which he came to the conclusion that he could not resist the US or British fleet. Given the emergence of a new weapon, N.S. Khrushchev rejected the concept of building a surface navy proposed by the commander in chief of the Navy, Admiral N.G. Kuznetsov, in a memorandum dated March 31, 1954, which generally continued the Stalinist naval reform. Since 1955, the USSR refused to focus on the surface fleet. The construction of new ships was discontinued, a significant part of the ships sent for scrap. The development of nuclear and diesel submarines, as well as the production of a large series of strategic submarine missile carriers, which later became the basis of naval strategic nuclear forces, received priority development.

        truncated?
        1. Kars
          Kars 24 January 2014 02: 04
          +2
          And I can recall Khruzhov’s barrel artillery and tanks.
          1. postman
            postman 24 January 2014 12: 10
            0
            Quote: Kars
            I can recall Khruzhov

            Andre ....
            These are legends.
            (I also have relatives of the military, the same is Khayutchev’s khayut)
            1. there was a war (the largest in history
            2.after, despite the demobilization, a huge army that needs to be fed, fed, shod and (!) After years of service pay a pension
            A HUGE number of capable men "withdrawn" from NH.
            Such an army, with such a nomenclature and number of weapons, WAS NOT NEEDED.
            "Bolivar won't pull two" - THE COUNTRY WOULD NOT PULL
            “... The arms race is already a heavy burden on the shoulders of the peoples,” noted the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. - It entails a rise in prices for consumer goods, a reduction in real wages, adversely affecting the economies of many states ... over one hundred million people torn away from peaceful labor (note my world essno all), moreover, the most energetic and efficient people of labor, people of science and technology. A huge amount of human energy, knowledge, ingenuity, skill falls, as in a bottomless barrel, absorbed by the growing armaments ”[13, 167].
            “If the major were a pigman, then he would not have a price ... They inflated the army, what is this for?”

            ONLY FEW "majors" went to SH, industry, etc., despite:
            ] -1960 January 20, 1960 adopted a resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 74
            -23 March 1960 in pursuance of this decision was issued a directive of the Ministry of Defense and GlavPUR No. 23
            On September -1, 1960, the directive of the Ministry of Defense and GlavPUR No. D-69 “On the employment of reserve officers” was signed
            -July-July 9, 1963, a similar directive of the Ministry of Defense and GlavPUR “On sending in 1963 to shock construction sites and enterprises of military personnel transferred to the reserve” No. 19
            -Decisions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for September 1953 B.g. For administrative use
            On January 20 and June 8, 1960, resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Soviet Government were adopted No. 74 and No. 591,


            “And our generals,” the First Secretary continued, “they will say,“ what, I’ve done you bad, I’ve fought for my homeland ”

            on pensions alone they "saved" 915 rubles a year
            Government Decision No. 876 of July 27, 1959 Proposal for the revision of pension provision for military personnel
            1. postman
              postman 24 January 2014 12: 10
              0
              3. The military-industrial complex is "used to" riveting the T-34, not plows and combines.
              4. The frantic expenditures on armament and army maintenance

              the proportion of military spending in the budget in 1953 officially amounted to 20, 8%, but in fact - 31, 2%
              This is for a country in ruins.

              5. The realities of the world (war) have changed (well, it seemed so anyway)
              “One bomb will spread several divisions. So the number of divisions is now not a sign of strength, but, roughly speaking, human slaughter meat. Therefore, we take a different approach to the issues of war and do not measure the correlation of forces by population ”
              The lack of probability of local wars and the presence of powerful nuclear weapons, from the point of view of the head of state, made it possible to practically abandon the development of conventional weapons.

              and why only tanks and artillery?
              Don't you know about tactical nuclear weapons?

              In February 1963, at a retreat of the Defense Council, where the issue of prospects for further rocket science was considered, the head of the party noted that he had a negative attitude to tactical nuclear weapons, comparable in cost to an intercontinental missile warhead. Costs of manufacturing tactical nuclear weapons Khrushchev perceived as money thrown to the wind. At a meeting of the Defense Council, it was decided not to develop tactical nuclear weapons

              Although "tactical" nuclear weapons .... funny.

              Quote: Kars
              I can remember

              better "remember" to him:
              -housing
              tax reduction
              -space
              -RVSN
              -appl
              -mts, mechanization CX
              -development of the economy and industry of the USSR
  9. invisibility
    invisibility 23 January 2014 16: 12
    +14
    "Young reformers" said that in the 1991 year, when they came to power, the golden "bins of the motherland" were empty.
    That's who I would believe in the last place!
    1. CALL.
      CALL. 23 January 2014 17: 37
      +8
      Quote: invisible
      "Young reformers" said that in the 1991 year, when they came to power, the golden "bins of the motherland" were empty.


      In 1990 The USSR threw 234 tons of gold worth $ 1 billion 638 million to the world market. Dividing $ 1,638 billion by 234 tons shows that gold was sold at a price of $ 7 per 1 gram! And this at a stable price of $ 400 per ounce, that is, $ 12,9 per gram. Why is gold sold at a ridiculously low price of $ 218 per ounce? 80 tons of gold GIVEN FREE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USSR! The price of 234 tons of gold ranges from 2,64 to 3 billion dollars, with the latter price more likely. And if this was done more than once, it is not at all surprising that there was no gold left in the treasury. The hunchback and his accomplices are that gang.
    2. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 23 January 2014 20: 19
      +4
      Remember how the first millionaire of Russia Tarasov accused Yakovlev of lying when he reported on the amount of gold exported abroad, allegedly about deliveries of industrial equipment to the country, so Tarasov proved at western prices for these products that no more than 1% was spent on purchases from exported gold. Of course, after this bins were empty. And it was not printed in the textbooks, it was happening before our very eyes.
  10. bomg.77
    bomg.77 23 January 2014 16: 15
    +10
    With the amount of gold, the author went too far, and that's it. After Khrushchev’s speech at the 20 congress, the USSR began to have problems in the Warsaw block, because there, like the Stalin, they were sitting on the same scale, only on a smaller scale.
  11. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 23 January 2014 16: 16
    +11
    Khrushchev began to slander Stalin for two reasons: he wanted to cover up his participation in the repressions, blame everything on Stalin and downplay Stalin's role in building and defending the USSR. Neither one nor the other he failed. You can’t deceive history.
  12. Denis
    Denis 23 January 2014 16: 18
    +47
    Found a funny picture ...
    1. Alex66
      Alex66 24 January 2014 06: 40
      +4
      A cool picture, which is most striking, is that the form and content of both reformers are at the same level, the difference is that one will be remembered as a maize and the other as an iPhone.
  13. erased
    erased 23 January 2014 16: 19
    +15
    What is the use of cursing Khrushchev and Gorbach ?! They have done their job. But those who are now in power continue to destroy the country and steal - they must not only be cursed, but also crushed by legal means.
    1. Borninussr
      Borninussr 23 January 2014 16: 54
      +4
      Would they be these legal ways. Everything that can be done in such a situation is prescribed in the Criminal Code. request
  14. major071
    major071 23 January 2014 16: 20
    +17
    Honestly, I can only say this about Khrushchev’s rule:
    1. Gave Crimea
    2. Destroyed the memory of Stalin (personality cult)
    3. Knocked a shoe on the podium and showed everyone "Kuzkin" mother
    4. Planted everything with corn
    5. Having decided that rockets are the main weapon, he almost destroyed artillery, aviation and the navy.
    That's all, there is nothing more to add.
    1. andrei332809
      andrei332809 23 January 2014 16: 25
      +17
      Quote: major071
      2. Destroyed the memory of Stalin

      the commandant of the Kremlin does not sign a bypass sheet to Khrushchev; he took two at the Mausoleum, but passes one lol
    2. Boris55
      Boris55 23 January 2014 16: 33
      +4
      Quote: major071
      That's all, there is nothing more to add.

      Oh well ... the list of his sins is endless.
      - Quarreled with China, Albania ...
      “He put boys and girls at one desk, which significantly reduced academic performance ...”
      - He stopped the development of the country ...
      - The Law on the Non-Touchability of Senior Officials ...
      etc...
    3. Poppy
      Poppy 23 January 2014 17: 23
      +8
      there is that:
      - for example, agriculture collapsed by canceling MTS
      - destroyed churches
      1. CALL.
        CALL. 23 January 2014 17: 42
        +6
        Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, despite the fact that he banged his boot on the UN rostrum, threatening to bury capitalism, is one of the idols of the Russian "democrats". And it doesn't have to be proven. He is especially fond of the media. He, along with Gorbachev, is not forgotten, and, it seems, is considered the forerunner of all modern ugliness? And not without reason! It is easy to imagine that perestroika would have begun 30 years earlier if the comrades-in-arms, being afraid, had not thrown the voluntarist from the "throne". It's not hard to guess why they were scared? - People's anger! At that time, the pendulum of history was still swinging, it could swing in the other direction. Indeed, much later Gorbachev looked into the eyes of the workers, he was afraid to see in them the end of his reforms!
    4. S-200
      S-200 23 January 2014 17: 53
      +6
      Quote: major071
      Planted everything with corn

      Peter I - potato forcedly imposed on us and WHAT? ...
      There are people who want to blame him after the Great Patriotic War (if it weren’t for the potato how many would die of hunger ..) ???!
      а silage (from green corn) in the winter, in our harsh Russian conditions, they very readily turn milk into milk ...
      The yield of green mass of corn per 1 ha is much higher than other fodder crops suitable for cultivation in central Russia ...
      So for Corn I wouldn’t harass Khrushchev ! hi
      PS Since childhood, I have known examples of successful cultivation of maize in a silo in an area equated to the Far North ... right up to the EBNovsky collapse of agriculture
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. S-200
        S-200 23 January 2014 18: 29
        +3
        I’ll add that (for the feed base) it is very difficult for our large-horned animal husbandry to find a more valuable and technologically advanced crop than corn in the foreseeable future ...
        but how can we feed our children healthy without milk?
        not on hot dogs ... wink
        1. Luzhichanin
          Luzhichanin 23 January 2014 20: 00
          +1
          haylage made from ordinary grass is ten times more nutritious than corn, but even oats, which I remember fed horses with. so do not get excited with your corn hi and the cost of harvesting haylage from meadow grass is an order of magnitude lower than the harvesting of feed from corn.
      3. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 23 January 2014 20: 29
        +7
        But that's what your flaw is: Khrushchev bought an American corn and ordered it to be sown. What is the question tell me? My answer is: American corn will bear fruit well in the first year, and in the second year it will degenerate. Middle-range potato: Sineglazka or the White rose cannot be planted in Karelia until it passes adaptation in scientific areas and becomes the Northern rose. That’s what the Khrushchev’s trick is, to fill the country's pantries with American corn from the first harvest, take our Russian corn out of circulation and get corn pestilence for the third year. So do not hi Khrushchev. In the far north, American corn grew 25-30 cm from the ground.
        1. S-200
          S-200 23 January 2014 21: 59
          0
          Quote: shasherin_pavel
          In the far north, American corn grew 25-30 cm from the ground.

          do you know how to read - carefully?
          Far North and region equated to...
          WHAT in 70-90gg. American seeds - already zoned for a long time!
          about the nutrition of haylage ...
          IF THIS -clover, alfalfa, sainfoin and others, as well as leguminous-cereal mixtures - vetch-oat, pea-oat, etc.
          only not all SOILS and wetlands are suitable for growing these crops in Western Siberia.
          Therefore, in our conditions "stupid Soviet agronomists" they sowed the CORN, which did not have time to grow and the ears did not ripen ...
          However, the stem height was approximately 150-170 cm, which was quite satisfactory for harvesting the silo.
          And the question of feed for cattle basically consisted of 3 components:
          1. senazh (forbs of floodplain meadows and reclaimed areas)
          2.silos
          3. alfalfa, clover, etc. (if possible soils and places)
          4. coniferous vitamin meal
          1. Luzhichanin
            Luzhichanin 27 January 2014 13: 21
            0
            Silage, like silage, is made from those herbs that grow in a given area, and not exclusively, as you wrote, on specially planted crops!

            Thanks to the attempts, such figures as Khrushchev, who only crap under the silage, namely on the silo, and not under the haylage, were not grown: and ragwort, and corn, and sunflower ...
            Although not in all areas in comparison with typical vegetation, this is more profitable, more often not several times.

            Cows are not fed with clover, you can immediately see a "specialist" from you, otherwise he writes for cattle, otherwise the cows will give bloody milk and die quickly. Clover is used only for feeding for slaughter, for meat.
    5. Salamander
      Salamander 23 January 2014 18: 03
      +8
      Quote: major071
      Honestly, I can only say this about Khrushchev’s rule:
      1. Gave Crimea
      2. Destroyed the memory of Stalin (personality cult)
      3. Knocked a shoe on the podium and showed everyone "Kuzkin" mother
      4. Planted everything with corn
      5. Having decided that rockets are the main weapon, he almost destroyed artillery, aviation and the navy. Therefore, this is one of the few real merits of Khrushchev.
      That's all, there is nothing more to add.


      I do not like Khrushchev either as a person or as a politician. But: it was under Khrushchev that they were created as a type of troops of the Strategic Missile Forces, often their development occurred due to the decline in other types of troops - but everything at that time depended precisely on missiles.
      Wait a bit crying
      1. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 23 January 2014 20: 39
        +1
        I will not put any cons, you cannot offend the poor from history. The first rocket took off in 32, in 37 the missiles were installed on airplanes, in 41 on June 22 the Katyusha or RS-82 and RS-13 were adopted. Khrushchev received a rocket force as a gift from Stalin. But for this, he destroyed strategic aviation, and in those days missiles did not yet provide defeat overseas. The planes were destroyed in advance for the future achievements of the missile forces. The skew is not small, if you understand that the rocket should take off from the ground, and the strategic aviation plane is a few minutes away from the rocket.
        1. Salamander
          Salamander 24 January 2014 00: 59
          +1
          Quote: shasherin_pavel
          I will not put any cons, you cannot offend the poor from history. The first rocket took off in 32, in 37 the missiles were installed on airplanes, in 41 on June 22 the Katyusha or RS-82 and RS-13 were adopted. Khrushchev received a rocket force as a gift from Stalin. But for this, he destroyed strategic aviation, and in those days missiles did not yet provide defeat overseas. The planes were destroyed in advance for the future achievements of the missile forces. The skew is not small, if you understand that the rocket should take off from the ground, and the strategic aviation plane is a few minutes away from the rocket.


          Well, about the "poor from history" - this is more your comment. The first rocket did not take off in 32, since rockets were invented by the Chinese long before our era - they would start with this, otherwise about 32 ...
          About RS (missile shells) - well, if you don’t see the difference between a ballistic missile and RS - what can you do ...
          Regarding the collapse of strategic aviation - by the way, the first Soviet (Tu-4 was a copy of the B-29) "strategist" Tu-16 was adopted in 1953 (Khrushchev's "accession to the throne").
          As for "a strategic aviation plane is a few minutes away from a rocket flight" - is it infinite fuel? And he never lands on the airfield? Straight to the ISS ...
          If you want to argue, argue wisely, not with abuse.

          But most importantly:
          The first nuclear missiles began to appear on the arsenal of the USSR since 1958.
          Strategic Rocket Forces were created as a branch of the armed forces in 1959.


          Note: Stalin died in 1953.

          I do not praise Khrushchev, but it is necessary to blame wisely!
      2. Salamander
        Salamander 24 January 2014 01: 10
        +4
        By the way, Khrushchev, it turns out, had a lot of interesting quotes. Some of them are not quite, so to speak, decent (but accurate!), But to complete the picture:

        “We will never accept Adenauer as the representative of Germany. If you take off his pants and look at his ass, you can make sure that Germany is divided. And if you look at it from the front, you can see that Germany will never rise. ”

        Khrushchev asked one American senator that he liked: “Where are you from?” - "From Minneapolis." Khrushchev went to the world map, circled Minneapolis with a pencil and said: “This is so that I don’t forget that this city must survive when our missiles fly.”

        "We will bury you." At a reception in Moscow on November 18, 1956, in an interview with American diplomats, Khrushchev wanted to emphasize the contradictory nature of the two world systems. He wanted to quote Marx's thesis that socialism is the grave digger of capitalism, but instead gave out the phrase “We will bury you”, which he repeated at a meeting with reporters in the United States in September 1959.

        “Ped .. the damned!” Khrushchev about abstraction artists when visiting the exhibition in the Manege on December 1, 1962, in the program of the artist E. Belyutin: “Are you guys or ped ... damned, how can you write like that?”

        “American and Soviet pigs, I am convinced that they can coexist together” (August 28, 1959) - Khrushchev discusses the topic of peaceful coexistence after an employee of the University of Iowa presented him with a symbolic figurine of a pig.

        “We will show you Kuzkin’s mother.” On June 24, 1959, during a visit to the American exhibition in Sokolniki, Khrushchev told US Vice President R. Nixon: “We have funds at our disposal that will have grave consequences for you. (...) We’ll show you Kuz'kin’s mother again! ” The translator, in confusion, translated the phrase verbatim: “We will show you another mother of Kuzma!” “The Americans were dumbfounded: what is it? A new weapon, even more formidable than a nuclear missile? ” The phrase was repeated by Khrushchev in the report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the XXII Party Congress on October 17, 1961.

        "Bake back!" - remark about the hot weather in Moscow upon returning from India.

        “Politicians are the same everywhere: they promise to build a bridge where there is no river either.”

        “You didn’t understand the advantages of this system, you lost the prospect of developing this technology, Comrade Sudets, put your S-75 in your w..pu!” - Khrushchev’s answer to V.A. Sudtsu, who was trying to prove the futility of the 2K11 Krug anti-aircraft missile system compared to the S-75 Dvina air defense system during a demonstration of promising armored vehicles at the Kubinka training ground in 1963.

        (moderators, do not delete, this is not me, this is Khrushchev laughing)
    6. Tersky
      Tersky 23 January 2014 18: 23
      +4
      Quote: major071
      That's all, there is nothing more to add.

      There is something to add, you forgot about foreign policy - 1. Suez crisis-- (with Egypt we didn’t even have a mutual assistance agreement; there was no request for help, we were on the verge of a big war)
      2. “The Berlin Question” - At the meeting of Khrushchev with Kennedy in Vienna because of this question, the matter got to such an intensity that Kennedy said: “If this goes on, the weather in Europe will become disgusting in the near future.” He meant the war.

      3. The Caribbean Crisis- In one of his speeches, Khrushchev said that if the US touches Cuba, then we will strike at them. He insisted that our missiles be sent to Cuba. This caused a deep crisis, brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Having no other choice, the USSR was forced to accept all the requirements and conditions dictated by the United States, up to the shameful inspection of our ships by the Americans.

      4.Creation of arbitration or conducting public polls regarding territorial disputes between socialist countries, wassat (generally a madhouse, which country will give its territory to another country upon the verdict of a third country?)
    7. Dilshat
      Dilshat 23 January 2014 19: 21
      +5
      There is something to add. He canceled financial incentives for mentoring and rationalizing proposals, innovation in science and industry. In general, if the US special services had slipped Khrushchev's double into power in 52-53, then he would hardly have done more harm than the real Khrushchev. Or maybe Operation Twin "took place?
      1. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 23 January 2014 20: 42
        +2
        I will add to the "dilshat": he introduced rationing and stopped paying for shock work, and the excess of the standard was introduced into the norm, and the person remained after 2 months with the same salary.
    8. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 23 January 2014 20: 39
      +1
      Quote: major071
      1. Gave Crimea

      Not presented, but exchanged for Belgorod Oblast
      Quote: major071
      3. Knocked a shoe on the podium and showed everyone "Kuzkin" mother

      And he did it right. The Yankees were @ scared of fear - the only time in their entire 200-year history
      Quote: major071
      5. Having decided that rockets are the main weapon, he almost destroyed artillery, aviation and the fleet.

      Almost destroyed the fleet?

      (most of all amusing how the stoned Stalinists rewrite each other about the fleet "destroyed" by Khrushchev, despite the fact that it was Khrushchev who brought the USSR Navy into the world ocean and made it the second largest in the world
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 23 January 2014 22: 09
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Khrushchev brought the Soviet Navy to the oceans and made it the second largest in the world

        Can be more?
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 23 January 2014 22: 53
          0
          Quote: Dart2027
          Can be more?

          Please
          http://topwar.ru/38719-hruschev-soznatelno-stal-razbazarivat-stalinskoe-nasledie
          .html # comment-id-1878299
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 23 January 2014 23: 52
            +1
            Project 58 - 5500 tons, project 61 - 4300 tons - this is a maximum of ships of the second rank. The ocean fleet is primarily ships of the first rank, which Stalin laid.
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 24 January 2014 00: 11
              +2
              Quote: Dart2027
              The ocean fleet is first and foremost

              this is first submarines, which under Khrushchev were built in dozens.
              Quote: Dart2027
              Project 58 - 5500 tons, project 61 - 4300 tons - this is the maximum ship of the second rank

              This is a new generation of the fleet, 1960-ies. The era of armadillos ended with the advent of nuclear weapons.

              And do not forget to compare the composition of weapons and the electronics of missile cruisers - with the obsolete trash that was built under Stalin
              Quote: Dart2027
              which Stalin laid.

              Outdated artillery cruisers and battleships, which, if they were completed, would be considered the weakest in the world?
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 24 January 2014 06: 08
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                nuclear submarines that were built by dozens under Khrushchev

                Submarine nuclear submarines are weapons exclusively for the Third World War. They, in principle, are not capable of solving the tasks of the Cold War, like ships of projection of force.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The era of armadillos ended with the advent of nuclear weapons

                Well yes. With the advent of nuclear weapons, they decided to abandon the reservation of new ships, but it does not follow from this that it is necessary to cut everything already built. And by the way, ships of the first rank are not necessarily armadillos, but simply large and powerful ships.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                weapons and electronics of missile cruisers

                Radio electronics becomes obsolete in a maximum of 10 years, but this does not prevent ships from serving 20-30 years.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Deprecated Artillery Cruisers and Battleships

                There is such a thing as modernization and replacement of weapons. In the USA, battleships were used until the 90s.
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 24 January 2014 15: 21
                  0
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Submarine nuclear submarines - a weapon designed exclusively for the third world war

                  This is the main strike force in the ocean. In any situation
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  They, in principle, are not capable of solving the tasks of the Cold War, like ships of projection of force.

                  For the "projection of force" (intimidation of "probable opponents" by one of its presence) - for this the USSR had a huge fleet of hundreds of cruisers, large landing and anti-submarine ships.
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  that you need to cut everything already built

                  We cut from the heels of the unfinished cruisers on the stocks, a deliberately outdated trash, useless in modern conditions.

                  And they did it right. Khrushchev, regarding the Navy, has nothing to blame.
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  by the way, ships of the first rank are not necessarily armadillos, but simply large and powerful ships.

                  The PLO cruisers "Moscow" and "Leningrad" - 15 thousand tons of displacement
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Radio electronics becomes obsolete in a maximum of 10 years, but this does not prevent ships from serving 20-30 years.

                  Why is this passage?
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  In the USA, battleships were used until the 90's.

                  But we did not have battleships like the American Iowa. And it’s pointless to blame Khrushchev for this - we didn’t have anything like that at all.

                  If the Stalinist "Stalingrad" had been completed, it would have become the weakest battleship in the world. With its 305 mm - against the 406 mm Iowa and British Vanguard cannons.
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 24 January 2014 18: 23
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    This is the main strike force in the ocean.

                    Only if the third world war begins.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The PLO cruisers "Moscow" and "Leningrad"

                    And how many were there?
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Why is this passage?

                    To the fact that you compared the electronics of ships laid down with a difference of several years.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    If the Stalinist "Stalingrad" was completed, it would become the weakest battleship in the world

                    And what prevented the modernization and replacement of some of the weapons with missiles? The Americans have delivered missile weapons to Iowa and fine. Or was it so good with ships and money that we didn't have to waste time on trifles? First, they cut what was almost ready, and then they began to do it again.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    hundreds of cruisers, large landing and anti-submarine ships

                    And how many of them were of the first rank.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 24 January 2014 19: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      Only if the third world war begins.

                      The British did not think so, sending 5 submarines to the Falklands
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      You compared the electronics of the ships incorporated with a difference of several years.

                      And he did the right thing - electronic "stuffing" and rocket weapons are the main difficulty in creating modern ships

                      The small RKR pr.58 was much more complicated and more expensive than any Stalinist 68 bis. And its combat value was higher - anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 350 km, air defense systems, radars ... The New Era of the Fleet

                      Quote: Dart2027
                      The Americans put missile weapons on the Iowa and normally

                      It happened 25 years later - in the 1980 years

                      In the 1960s, the presence of "Stalingrad" as part of the USSR Navy was senseless. We were throwing money down the drain - it would be better to build a dozen nuclear-powered ships with these funds.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      First they cut what was almost ready, and then they began to do it again.

                      Yeah, were ALMOST ready
                      "stalingrad" - construction stopped when ready as much as 18,8%
                      Moscow - 7,5% and Kronstadt - 2,5%

                      Quote: Dart2027
                      And how many of them were of the first rank.

                      first rank)))

                      the boat HMS Conqueror will come and sink the "Stalingrad", like the Argentine "General Belgrano" (as you can see, his nose was torn off by an explosion, on the first turret of the main battery)
                      Although it was also "first rank")))
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 24 January 2014 21: 57
                        +1
                        ((((((((((((((((((

                        http://waralbum.ru/175879/
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 24 January 2014 22: 25
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The British did not think so, sending 5 submarines to the Falklands

                        Right. When hostilities began, they were involved. But the key word is "combat". The Premier League was needed as an argument in a possible direct clash with the United States, but not for "flexing" in front of the public. In addition, they were not so good with us - only the third generation became truly silent.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Yeah, were ALMOST ready

                        The time spent on designing the ship is several times greater than the construction time (with the normal organization of labor, of course) they began to be designed in 1941, plus during construction a significant part of the work is carried out in parallel with the main construction - counterparty enterprises, so it’s almost.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        It happened 25 years later

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        RCC with a launch range of 350 km, air defense systems, radars

                        And what prevented the necessary changes during construction, or a little later, when the new weapons will be fully developed?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        the boat HMS Conqueror will come and sink the "Stalingrad", like the Argentine "General Belgrano" (as you can see, his nose was torn off by an explosion, on the first turret of the main battery)
                        Although it was also "first rank")))

                        The constructed compartment of "Stalingrad" was used as a target for testing missiles, aerial bombs and torpedoes entering service - they could not sink it. Of course, if you want and spend a lot of effort, you can break and sink anything you want, but such survivability says something, so whether those two torpedoes would have sunk it or not is a big question. But for any project 68, one torpedo or missile would be enough.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 25 January 2014 02: 46
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        When hostilities began, they were involved. But the key word is "combat".

                        You are a strange person.
                        Otherwise, why the navy?
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        but not for "flexing" in front of the audience.

                        For these purposes, 8 missile cruisers, 2 helicopter carrier and 20 large anti-submarine ships could be used

                        FEW?
                        (besides RKR Grozny made a splash, unlike the obsolete 68 bis junk)
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        In addition, they weren’t so good.

                        “Stalingard” was also bad. Completely outdated, the weakest battleship in the world. But for some reason you protect him)))
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        so it’s almost.

                        "Almost" - when at least launched into the water
                        it was cheaper to disassemble than 5 years to build this huge USEFUL ship
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        And what prevented the necessary changes during construction, or a little later, when the new weapons will be fully developed?

                        Meaning?
                        Do we have nowhere to put rockets - do you really need a huge expensive bucket with 1400 crew?

                        Missiles can be successfully placed on the RKR, BOD, submarines. Even on missile boats - which without any talk will fill up Israeli Eilat.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        however, such survivability speaks for something

                        Doesn’t say anything in the era of submarines

                        the sinking of the battleship Barham. Special effects from 0:21
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 23 January 2014 16: 31
    +2
    Discovered, damn it, America ...
  • plotnikov561956
    plotnikov561956 23 January 2014 16: 31
    +4
    On every word of the article, the blood of the Russian people ... every word shouts about betrayal .. history no matter what. Mercilessly pays tribute to Judas ...
  • konvalval
    konvalval 23 January 2014 16: 35
    +4
    Quote: makst83
    Perhaps he avenged a traitor for his son, maybe understanding the SCALE of the figure of Stalin and realizing his worthlessness, compared with him, he tried to belittle his role in HISTORY and realize his complexes.
    Many versions and each has a right to exist. what
    IMHO. But the trouble is not in this, but in the fact that Ambassador STALIN and BERIA, we did not find such figures (perhaps because two such persons, in one century and in one country, are too much wink ) and did not have time to reform the party according to the plan of IV Stalin (to leave the party with an ideological role). But history does not know the subjunctive mood, and therefore we have what we have. hi

    And everything is very simple. His hands were so bloody that he tried to transfer all the blame on Stalin.
  • screw cutter
    screw cutter 23 January 2014 16: 37
    -1
    The campaign of the Khrushchev was recruited on the first visit to the states.
    1. screw cutter
      screw cutter 23 January 2014 18: 31
      +3
      And if you are really involved in the poisoning? Isn't this a reason to take Kerch by the leash, and who gave the Germans Kerch, "During the Great Patriotic War, Khrushchev was a member of the military councils of the Southwest direction, Southwestern, Stalingrad, Southern, Voronezh and 1st Ukrainian fronts. Was one of the culprits of the disastrous encirclement of the Red Army near Kiev (1941) and near Kharkov (1942). "In October 1942, an order was issued signed by Stalin, abolishing the double command system and transferred commissars from command staff to advisers. Thanks to Khrushchev's inept management.
  • Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 23 January 2014 16: 44
    +5
    Khrushchev never acted consciously, as did Gorbachev, by the way. for this they have a short mind. no matter what they do, it was always subconscious and on the principle that God will put a soul on his soul.
  • calocha
    calocha 23 January 2014 16: 50
    +3
    This is a failure of Soviet intelligence ... We missed the introduction into our midst of deficiencies ... Western nerds. Joseph Vissarionovich did not have time to finish what he started ...
    1. O_RUS
      O_RUS 23 January 2014 21: 54
      +1
      Quote: calocha
      This is a failure of Soviet intelligence ...


      read about intelligence (what kind of intelligence is it) of that time
  • Black
    Black 23 January 2014 16: 52
    +6
    Khrushchev, of course, is a big bastard, but the article is nothing more than an agitation.
    Superficially everything. Very superficial. "revenge for the son", "poisoning", "party gold", "destruction of the fleet" ... All these are the topics of tabloid yellow press.
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 23 January 2014 21: 06
      -2
      But if it’s not superficial, then it is necessary to change the worldview, journalists and editors are afraid of this.
      It is likely that Stalin was a victim of a UFO raid on Washington in the summer of 52 years. http://www.sunhome.ru/journal/510244 The Nazi raid was an ultimatum that the United States accepted and refused to strengthen the USSR in the Arctic and at sea, but Stalin strove for independence and was destroyed for a change of course, and was abandoned a few days later almost built road to Norilsk and other projects.
      Forrestall died 3 years earlier on the same occasion - they threw it out the window when the US military failure became clear.
      But Khrushchev was just a Nazi - he served them, they pulled him.
  • DEfindER
    DEfindER 23 January 2014 16: 53
    +18
    What can I say, everything to the last word comes true ..
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 23 January 2014 16: 57
    +6
    To the list of "to do" Khrschev
    - dispersed an exhibition of avant-garde artists with the words: you, what are you, 3,14 doras? Thus, creating the "sixties" who did not less than the CIA for the ideological corruption of the country in "perestroika"
    1. S-200
      S-200 23 January 2014 18: 17
      +5
      Quote: samoletil18
      dispersed an exhibition of avant-garde artists with the words: you, what is 3,14doras? Thus, creating the "sixties" who did not less than the CIA for the ideological corruption of the country in "perestroika"

      "sixties" - 3,14 Doras appeared not from the dispersal of exhibitions, but as soon as they sensed the WEAKNESS of the authorities ...
      that's NOW ...
      at first - crooks and bandits of all stripes raised their heads,
      behind them, the embezzler-bribe-takers-dared ...
      Well, and then 3,14 dorazy arranged a grand squeal!
      eh Pinochet would be!
      well, at least for 1 year-to purify Russia with bloodletting from scum ...
      1. samoletil18
        samoletil18 23 January 2014 18: 38
        +2
        I had in mind any intellectual woman who considered herself to be intellectuals, and who undertook to teach the country from the media. For example, Parajanov is a disgruntled pornographer, other contraceptives have already been forgotten, but remember the programs, articles of those years.
      2. Black
        Black 23 January 2014 23: 35
        0
        Quote: S-200
        the sixties "- 3,14 doras appeared not from the dispersal of exhibitions, but as soon as they sensed the WEAKNESS of the power ...

        Yes, they didn’t appear; they were with him !!! And they were waiting for his death.
        They say about Orlova Lyubov Petrovna (how this bitch was nurtured !!! a week later I flew to Paris for shabols !! to Aleksandrov PERSONALLY - he told the shore to cherish it ,,,) .... died, the news found her somewhere in the market ... came home - "Dead !!!!"
  • 1961NNN
    1961NNN 23 January 2014 17: 00
    +4
    Khrushchev is an unfinished Trotskyist, Vladimir Karpov wrote about this in his book "Generalissimo"
  • 1goose3
    1goose3 23 January 2014 17: 04
    +6
    Khrushchev deliberately began to squander Stalin's legacy

    Whatever you say, Stalin created such a powerful and stable state that it took two Judas, Khrushchev and Gorbachev, to collapse, and 40 years of their "shock work" in destroying the USSR. The second didn’t have to come up with anything, he did the same as Khrushchev. And if the first, relatively quickly, had their horns broken off, still strong Stalinists, then no one interfered with the second, all the healthy forces under Brezhnev were slowly "chewed".
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. WIN969
      WIN969 23 January 2014 17: 09
      +3
      They also let Yeltsin pass.
      1. fedorovith
        fedorovith 23 January 2014 19: 04
        +3
        And this alcoholic drank everything that they failed to sell.
      2. 1goose3
        1goose3 23 January 2014 21: 27
        +2
        Well, this one of what surfaced thanks to Gorbachev. The list is not necessary.
  • Andrey_K
    Andrey_K 23 January 2014 17: 06
    +4
    If you read the memoirs of Khrushchev, then, at the time of his work in Ukraine, he protected local nationalists (former Petliurists).
    He wrote that he was "considered a hare" and that is why many people came to him to complain about the actions of these nationalists - he did not give a course to these complaints, but he himself wrote denunciations about especially active ones.
    And this is just what you can learn from his own memoirs.

    In fact, he could be a Petliur agent, not exposed.

    Here is a quote from the memoirs:
    He, in fact, once was
    Petliur’s {24}. I myself saw a photograph where it was shot with a future academician
    Grushevsky, Vinnichenko and Petliura himself {25}. Everyone knew that there. Therefore on
    all Ukrainian party congresses Donbass delegation always opposed
    Lyubchenko’s candidacy for elections to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine (b) U. But I thought
    that Lyubchenko is a very capable person who moved away from the Petliurites and
    firmly stood on Bolshevik soil.

    http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/HRUSHEW/wospominaniya1.txt
    And how did this Lyubchenko get into the Bolsheviks?
    In 1917, a member of the Kiev Council. In the spring of 1917 it became part of the Central Council, but in the autumn it was arrested by it and sentenced to death. Released 26.1.1918/1918/1920 by the Red Army. In May XNUMX he joined the party of Borotbists, which self-dissolved in XNUMX, and most of its members switched to the RCP (B.).

    Those. he was a Petliurist, he worked actively in the Central (Petlyurovskaya) Rada, and before the Red Army finally liberated Ukraine, he was suddenly found in prison - allegedly sentenced to death.
    The classic way of sending spies in those years is if you are in prison, then your own.
    And here is how this Lyubchenko finished:
    On August 20-30, 1937, a plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine was held in Kiev, at which S. V. Kosior delivered a report "On the bourgeois-nationalist anti-Soviet organization of former Borotbists and on Lyubchenko's ties with this organization." He categorically denied his guilt. According to the official version, Lyubchenko returned home from the plenum, shot his wife N.N. Krupenik shot himself.

    According to other sources, someone warned him, by telephone, about the arrest and he managed to shoot himself ... but why kill his wife?
    Did you know too much?

    And who are these borotbists?
    Did they do much harm?

    Well, for example, another borkotbist Grinko G.F. - One of its organizers turns out to be Kuybyshev’s deputy and was developing a plan for the first five-year plan for agriculture!
    (Kuibyshev himself was engaged in industry)
    The very plan, which turned out to be overstated, and because of which the "surplus" was taken from the peasants and a terrible famine occurred in Ukraine and other parts of the USSR.

    These people were long and stubbornly defended by Khrushchev.
  • negeroi
    negeroi 23 January 2014 17: 15
    +3
    Um ... I don’t know what to say. At the same time as the real facts, all the garbage was screwed up. Khrushchev really made a lot of mistakes. But a number of mistakes do not have the nature that they are attributed to. That is. these are opportunistic errors, due to the circumstances of that time, right and correct actions that turned out to be erroneous in the long-term strategic perspective. But no one is safe from this. Stalin himself is full of such errors. All living people, everyone is mistaken. I never thought that I would to defend Khrushchev, who I so disliked. But still, you don’t need to hang ALL sabaks. Khrushchev has enough of his sins to come up with something that wasn’t funny. The homeland, and the gold and assets of the CPSU, which were actively shoved abroad when marked, and sold foreign assets, bringing them into private ownership, from the party. In fact, not that they would not have been found. They simply warned that further searches were impractical. The last party ticket holders know that they all committed suicide. Then I agree, Gorbachev is a near and stupid person who he was not only seated on the throne, but kept on a short leash. What can’t be said about Khrushchev, although he himself may not be the best strategist, however, the Stalinist school did not allow anyone to play with him like Gorbachev. And we spent the USSR’s gold .. we spent Gorbachev, after all, is not only a bad secretary general, but also no economist, it was with him that coupons and wars started. And huge money was spent on Chernobyl. Where did the state treasury get money if it was controlled by tagged? But the party had money , and considerable, big money!
  • archimedes 33
    archimedes 33 23 January 2014 17: 28
    +2
    yes it’s a pity that such a people's heritage was lost
  • Gato
    Gato 23 January 2014 17: 33
    +4
    In my family, Khrushchev was never recalled obscenely. When the grandfather (fighter pilot) was cut (in the literal sense), he was fired 3 months before his legal pension. And where to go? In civil aviation - without options, there were enough bombers, but there is no other profession. I went as an electrician.
  • Salamander
    Salamander 23 January 2014 17: 35
    +6
    Now they are kicking, but:

    Article "-" for the fact that all the dogs were hanged on the leaders of the country. Yes, neither Khrushchev nor Brezhnev were ideal rulers, used their power for personal enrichment, but not to the point of betrayal! Khrushchev was afraid and hated Stalin in panic, and therefore fought against the "personality cult." As for the reduction of the army, many are still convinced that the army is not needed, since there is a nuclear club! Imagine what people could think then ... Well, about Brezhnev - you can read literature: he was practically "appointed" to the post of general secretary (without his special will), most of his life he did not decide anything at all.
    I am sure that the point is this: the Soviet bureaucracy, which under a strong Stalin more or less successfully fulfilled its functions, under the weaker rulers became corroded and eventually ruined the country. It was "on the ground" that they decided what and when to do, presenting information to the top management in a distorted form. Small example:
    During the Cuban missile crisis, Khrushchev ordered submarines to be sent to the shores of America. It is known how it all ended. And during the "debriefing" the following happened:
    But [Marshal Grechko] for a long time could not understand why we were forced to come up. They explained again that we went to Cuba in diesel submarines, and not in nuclear ones. Got it!
    - How not atomic ?! The Marshal roared.
    He pulled his glasses off his nose and grabbed them on the table. Only the glass flew with small splashes. The country's top military-political leadership believed that nuclear boats were sent to the Caribbean Sea. Later it became known to me that one atomic boat was sent ahead of us, but something broke and she was forced to return to the base.
    And the crafty courtiers did not re-report to Khrushchev which boats went to Cuba.

    (N. Cherkashin "Disturbers of the Depths. Secret Operations of Soviet Submarines during the Cold War")

    That is, they did not report everything - and on this, at least several hundred lives depended, or even the fate of the population of an entire country. And nothing! No one was shot, these "comrades" had their own patrons and "intercessors".
  • tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 23 January 2014 17: 38
    +4
    Khrushchev deliberately discredited Stalin and tried to blame all the shed blood on him only because he himself had hands really elbowed in blood, many already knew what this figure was doing in Ukraine in 30 years. Unlike I.S. this leader had neither the strategic nor the economic talent of a leader, and therefore he and the people he selected as a team so that he wasn’t smarter and didn’t sit up, we see the consequences of his activity today.
  • baskoy
    baskoy 23 January 2014 17: 42
    +3
    By the way Khrushchev and Gorbachev are shown in the "new" history textbook, it will be possible to understand where we are going and what kind of power we have.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 23 January 2014 17: 51
    -5
    The author is so lazy that he didn’t think of anything better how to rip out of Starikov’s next brainwashing "Stalin. We recall together" a passage from the chapter and pass it off as our "opinion."
    March 5, 1953, Stalin died. He was poisoned.

    And who poisoned him? Really Lavrentiy? Oh yes, they still suspect him.
    First, Beria was shot, who was to become the heir to Stalin.

    And what to lament over the killing of the poisoner?
    And then, on June 16-17, 1953, unrest occurred in the GDR (mainly in Berlin), which were suppressed by the Soviet troops. Pay attention - not with the “bloody” Stalin and not with the “executioner” of Beria, but immediately after their withdrawal from the Big Game.

    Here he is Starikov, an illiterate balabol, and the author of this opus is the same. Probably only students who know history within the framework of the EG do not know that the head of the suppression of the uprising in the GDR is 17.06.1953/XNUMX/XNUMX. was L.P. Beria, who flew to the GDR for this, because was the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
    It is certainly possible to accuse Khrushchev of "squandering", but only who was a faithful Stalinist was Khrushchev, unlike Beria ...
    1. dmb
      dmb 23 January 2014 18: 54
      +3
      Chesh you. STARIKOV said. And you allowed to doubt, and even require evidence. It’s so simple, Starikov listened, you feel with your heart, he doesn’t like him, like you are the State Department, but you don’t need to think anymore, why bother your head.
    2. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 23 January 2014 20: 59
      +1
      The uprising in Germany began two weeks after Khrushchev's speech with "the exposure of Stalin's personality CULT." What could be Beria at this time?
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 23 January 2014 21: 07
        +3
        Quote: shasherin_pavel
        The uprising in Germany began two weeks after Khrushchev's speech with "the exposure of Stalin's personality CULT." What could be Beria at this time?

        Go to school immediately! 2 on the story!
        Uprising in the GDR - June 17, 1953
        Khrushchev's speech at the XX Party Congress - February 25, 1956
        Maybe confused with the Hungarians?
    3. postman
      postman 24 January 2014 01: 49
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      Here he is Starikov, an illiterate balabol, and the author of this opus is the same

      hit point.
      BUT (!) With what pleasure the apologists "read" and repeat (quote) this.
      Probably they have a ganglion instead of a brain.
  • q_556
    q_556 23 January 2014 18: 06
    +6
    Sorry, but who created the system in which one person has tremendous power? Stalin. Who created a system in which they come to power through palace intrigues, and not through fair elections? Stalin. Who guaranteed the worthy successor to power? Nobody, and if guaranteed, is not good enough. So do not be surprised that Khrushchev came to power and broke firewood - thank your beloved Stalin for allowing such a situation.

    Regarding the article - complete nonsense.
    March 5, 1953, Stalin died. He was poisoned.

    Absolutely not proven by anyone.

    Saw the ocean fleet

    Under Khrushchev, the first Soviet nuclear submarines, the first Soviet SSBNs, and the first BODs were built. Actually, the technology race started under him, so it’s hard to blame him for pacifist moods.

    breaking China’s relations with Khrushchev’s revisionists

    Then China parasitized on Soviet technologies in the same way as today, therefore, Khrushchev and Brezhnev often came into conflict with them.

    But what about the famous report of Khrushchev at the XX Party Congress? This is generally a collection of fables, lies and slander from beginning to end.

    Oh yes, only lies and slander! No repression, no cult of personality, no lawlessness, no obvious mistakes in Stalin’s rule, thank you)

    Khrushchev was, of course, not an ideal politician, but I would not hang all the dogs on him. And Stalin was not at all as bright and beautiful as he is painted here.

    PS Now the Stalinists will zamusutut how to drink.
    1. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 23 January 2014 21: 10
      +3
      Democrats are all Romanovs, and Ivan the Terrible, too, with the Rurikovich. We have one tyrant and one lord Stalin! Well, I forgot that Godunov created the parliament.
      If doctors are negligent in the presence of a terminally ill, then this is a crime, and when doctors are not allowed to see a paralyzed Stalin, waiting for his death, it is not a crime. Regarding repressions: when Putin was elected president, it was he who said: Now we have 2 million convicts, this is twice as many as in 37 ", and this is when the country collapsed and the population fell from 200 million in 39 to 148. Repression ! Did you notice them these repressions, which reached 2 million during the Yeltsin era?
    2. Black
      Black 23 January 2014 23: 46
      +1
      Quote: q_556
      PS Now the Stalinists will zamusutut how to drink.

      Well, well, well .... The Stalinists here look smarter than their opponents ...
      1. q_556
        q_556 24 January 2014 15: 43
        -1
        Stalinist Stalinist strife.
    3. svp67
      svp67 23 January 2014 23: 57
      +1
      Quote: q_556
      Absolutely not proven by anyone.

      But it is not disproved ... Where are the autopsy materials? It seems like democracy and glassiness
      Quote: q_556
      Under Khrushchev, the first Soviet nuclear submarines, the first Soviet SSBNs, and the first BODs were built. WITH
      Do not remind how many ships were sent "on pins and needles"
      Quote: q_556
      Oh yes, only lies and slander! No repression, no cult of personality, no lawlessness, no obvious mistakes in Stalin’s rule, thank you)
      But Khrushchev forgot to mention his far from small role in this process
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 24 January 2014 00: 19
        +2
        Greetings, Sergey!
        However, the discussion is hot here

        Quote: svp67
        Do not remind how many ships were sent "on pins and needles"

        Or can you remind us? wink

        All "sent to the needles" ships were in fact completely outdated rubbish - instead, dozens of modern combat units were built. Under Khrushchev, the USSR Navy first entered the World Ocean
        1. svp67
          svp67 24 January 2014 10: 53
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Or can you remind us?

          Well, for example
          By a decision of the Government, on September 2, 1959 discontinued and six cruisers were transferred to the “needles”: “Arkhangelsk”, “Varyag”, “Vladivostok”, “Kronshtadt”, “Tallinn” and “Shcherbakov”. I don’t think that they would hurt us even now ...
          And here are some interesting data
          In 1974, the chairman of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, said that in ten years under Brezhnev they did not plant as much as under Khrushchev in one year. Massively applied the 58th article of the Criminal Code ("anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda") - mainly against collective farmers and workers. During the events in Novocherkassk on June 1-2, 1962, 23 workers were killed and 87 wounded, seven people were sentenced to death, more than a hundred - to imprisonment. In Tbilisi, a mass demonstration of the memory of Stalin was shot. It was under Khrushchev that punitive psychiatry began to be used.

          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 24 January 2014 15: 29
            0
            Quote: svp67
            Arkhangelsk, Varyag, Vladivostok, Kronstadt, Tallinn and Shcherbakov. I don’t think that they would hurt us even now ...

            This is all type 68 bis. the weakest heavy cruisers in the world.

            artillery pelvis, which were already in the ranks of 14 units - it was necessary to put forces into the construction of the RKR and BOD.
            After all, "Arkhangelsk", "Varyag", "Vladivostok" - will not protect against the underwater "Djordazh Washington"
            In 1974, the chairman of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, said that in ten years they hadn’t been planted under Brezhnev as much as under Khrushchev in one year.

            You do not confuse the cause with the effect?
            Stalin-Khrushchev-Brezhnev. Under each of them, the "siloviki" abused less and less "Punitive functions" - the inevitable influence of time.
      2. q_556
        q_556 24 January 2014 15: 28
        0
        But it is not disproved ... Where are the autopsy materials? It seems like democracy and glassiness

        And yesterday I saw a dinosaur on the street. Honestly! And let me, I can’t prove it, but no one can refute my words. So, you need to take them extremely seriously.
        About the autopsy:
        http://top.rbc.ru/society/13/03/2013/848957.shtml

        Do not remind how many ships were sent "on pins and needles"

        Who cares? The important thing is not how many ships are decommissioned, but the important thing is how many new ships are being built. It is possible to renew the fleet at least every year, there would be funds for the construction of new ships.
        For example, in Germany, the service life of submarines does not exceed 20 years and no one arises that ships are written off for needles in such a short time - the main thing is that there is something to replace them with.

        But Khrushchev forgot to mention his far from small role in this process

        Yes, I agree here.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • shelva
    shelva 23 January 2014 18: 25
    +2
    Khrushchev's "thaw" became an ideal environment for the cultivation of Western-democratic microbes, which survived the "Iron Curtain" and fell almost intact into the hands of "perestroika".
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 23 January 2014 18: 33
    +1
    ♦ saw the newly launched ocean fleet

    Khrushchev could not cut the ocean fleet, because complete absence ocean fleet during the era of Stalin

    USSR Navy first entered the oceans precisely under N.S. Khrushchev. The era of the atomic submarine fleet. Missile cruisers. BOD and BDK. All this is a merit of Khrushchev’s times, as well as Gagarin’s flight
    Stalin was going to make the Russian fleet sail in the oceans and to the shores of the United States

    Stalin - was about to. Khrushchev - did good


    Multipurpose nuclear submarine of the 627 project (A), according to NATO classification November, The main submarine of the project was built in the 1958 year. In total, the 13 nuclear submarine was built for this project.



    Anti-submarine cruiser "Moskva" - helicopter carrier with missile weapons. built in the period 1962-67.



    The large anti-submarine ship, 61 Ave., is the world's first ship with a gas turbine power plant. Under Khrushchev, a series of 20 of such glorious boats was laid


    Missile cruiser "Grozny" (project 58), 1962
    1. screw cutter
      screw cutter 23 January 2014 18: 43
      +4
      If Khrushchev is such a sweetheart? Answer just one question? Where now all his relatives live?
      1. screw cutter
        screw cutter 23 January 2014 18: 54
        +4
        The answer is simple, all relatives (or almost all) of Khrushchev live in America. Like Gorbachev, he does not want to stay at home, but their customers (recruiters) shelter them.
        And one more question? If everything is correct, both Stalin and Beria are to blame, then why has not a criminal case been brought against these people yet, but a criminal case was brought up against Gorbachev about treason, but he was quickly hushed up under Yeltsin.
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 23 January 2014 18: 57
        +1
        Quote: screw cutter
        If Khrushchev is such a sweetheart? Answer just one question? Where now all his relatives live?

        In the same place where Stalin’s relatives are in the USA

        Svetlana Iosifovna Alliluyeva (nee Stalin, in exile - Lana Peters); 28 on February 1926, Leningrad, USSR - 22 on November 2011 on November XNUMX, Richland, Wisconsin, USA) - Soviet philologist-translator, candidate of philological sciences; memoirist.
        She gained wide fame as the daughter of I.V. Stalin, whose life left a number of works in the genre of memoirs. In 1967, she emigrated from the USSR to the USA.
        1. postman
          postman 24 January 2014 01: 54
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          In the same place where Stalin’s relatives are in the USA


          You "discovered America" ​​for the boy ... shock I suppose
    2. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 23 January 2014 19: 16
      +4
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      But this is nonsense !!
      Khrushchev could not cut the ocean fleet, due to the complete absence of the ocean fleet in the 1950 years
      The Navy of the USSR first entered the World Ocean precisely under N.S. Khrushchev. The era of nuclear submarine fleet. Missile cruisers. BOD and BDK. All this is a merit of Khrushchev’s times, as well as Gagarin’s flight

      All significant military and civil engineering programs were developed and started under Stalin.
      Nuclear Research Program Approved in 1918. In 1937. at the Radium Institute (Leningrad) was launched the first in Europe cyclotron. 25November 1938 By a resolution of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences (AN), a permanent commission on the atomic nucleus was created. It included S. Vavilov, A. Ioffe, A. Alikhanov, I. Kurchatov and others.
      The space research program using rocket technology was approved in the 1946 year, by the decree of the USSR government of 13 in May a new research institute-4 was created,
      The largest shipbuilding programs of the USSR “The Ten-Year Navy Ship Construction Plan” (1938 — 1947 years) and “The Ten-Year Military Shipbuilding Program for 1946 — 1955 years”.
      Under Khrushchev, a gradual curtailment of construction programs began, and the fleet was particularly affected.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 23 January 2014 19: 27
        0
        Quote: Corsair5912
        The space exploration program using rocket technology was approved in 1946,

        “Do you want water ?,” the investigator smashed the carafe on my head, “the Soviet state does not need your fireworks and pyrotechnics
        (memoirs of S.P. Korolev about the arrest and years of imprisonment)


        By the way, why was the Katyusha designer Georgy Langemak shot?
        Quote: Corsair5912
        All significant military and civil engineering programs were developed and started under Stalin.

        Only not one of them was realized - they were all mentally aged even at the time of their writing

        All military shipbuilding programs were urgently reformed, taking into account the appearance of new missile weapons and threats at sea. Stalin has nothing to do with the above ships. This is the New Era of the Fleet.
        Quote: Corsair5912
        Under Khrushchev, a gradual phasing out of construction programs began, especially the fleet suffered

        For example?
        1. Corsair5912
          Corsair5912 23 January 2014 20: 04
          +4
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Want water ?, - the investigator smashed the carafe on my head, - the Soviet state does not need your fireworks and pyrotechnics
          (memoirs of S.P. Korolev about the arrest and years of imprisonment)

          Korolev never wrote or dictated any memories of the arrest and years of imprisonment. The author is a journalist Y. Golovanov. However, in his book, he emphasizes that this is only a version. The text shows that the investigator’s speech was made by a journalist, investigators don’t talk such nonsense, they don’t do expert evaluations, it’s not their business.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Only not one of them was realized - they were all mentally aged even at the time of their writing
          All military shipbuilding programs were urgently reformed, taking into account the appearance of new missile weapons and threats at sea. Stalin has nothing to do with the above ships. This is the New Era of the Fleet.

          Nonsense, there was no new era of the fleet, the program is not a working draft and is always subject to adjustment. It was the Stalinist program that was implemented in the framework of real events and opportunities
          On August 6 of 1939, the People's Commissar of the Navy, N. G. Kuznetsov, presented to the Council of People's Commissars a revised “Ten-Year Navy Ship Construction Plan” (for 1938-1947 years), which included the construction of 15 type A battleships, 16 heavy cruisers and 32 light cruisers (including six types of "Kirov"). The plan was to be implemented in two stages: a five-year shipbuilding plan (1938 — 1942) and a five-year program (1943 — 1947). As part of the five-year shipbuilding plan, 8 battleships, five heavy and 16 light cruisers [26] were to be laid. The final version of the “Ten-Year Navy Ship Construction Plan” envisaged to have by 1946 the year: 15 battleships of the 23 project (type Soviet Union), 15 heavy cruisers of the 69 project (Kronstadt type), 28 light cruisers (26 bis and 68 projects) , 36 destroyer leaders, 144 destroyer destroyers (7, 7-U, 30 and 35 projects), 336 submarines, 96 patrol ships, 115 submarine hunters, 204 minesweeper, 28 minefields and 14 cannons and 6 cannons and 348 cannons , 1 torpedo boats [XNUMX].

          By the beginning of World War II, the ship crew of the RKKF consisted of 3 battleships, 7 cruisers, 59 destroyers and destroyers, 218 submarines, 269 torpedo boats, 22 patrol ships, 88 minesweepers, 77 submarine hunters, and a number of other submarine hunters and a number of other also auxiliary vessels. There were 219 ships under construction, including 3 battleships, 2 heavy and 7 light cruisers, 45 destroyers, 91 submarine.

          27 September 1945 years I.V. Stalin held a meeting on the post-war construction of the country's Navy. A naval shipbuilding program for the 1946 – 1955 was adopted, according to which 10 units, including 3524 cruisers, 34 destroyers, 188 submarines and 367 patrol ships, were to enter service in 177 years.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 23 January 2014 20: 22
            +1
            Quote: Corsair5912
            Korolev never wrote or dictated any memories of the arrest and years of imprisonment.

            And in general he was not arrested on a delusional occasion, like all members of the GIRD - the cradle of Russian cosmonautics

            By the way, you still didn’t answer - for what G. Langemak was shot
            Quote: Corsair5912
            It was the Stalinist program that was implemented in the framework of real events and opportunities

            You wishful thinking

            The Stalinist program for building the fleet was a profanity, a senseless decree - read about the progress of the construction of the Soviet Union type aircraft and how it ended. Almost nothing from your list was built (and could not be built in principle!) - except for small submarines and destroyers
            Quote: Corsair5912
            The final version of the “Ten-Year Navy Ship Construction Plan” envisaged to have by 1946 the year: 15 battleships of the 23 project

            Who needs this writing, if on November 15, 1960, "George Washington" went out on combat patrols. Stalin could not dream of this in a nightmare


            The guidance of the USSR Navy had to urgently develop measures to neutralize SSBNs - to build dozens of BODs and develop specialized anti-submarine cruisers (and do not forget to build their own submarine missile carriers)

            Stalin's decrees have nothing to do with this, just like your personal fantasies.
            Quote: Corsair5912
            By the beginning of World War II, the ship crew of the RKKF consisted of 3 battleships, 7 cruisers

            All battleships are of royal construction, like half of the cruisers, everything else is a trifle
            Quote: Corsair5912
            There were 219 ships under construction, including 3 battleships, 2 heavy

            Dismantled on a slipway when ready from 1% to 20% - after several years of construction.
            The Stalinist program of the ocean fleet completely failed - with the beginning of the Second World War, the ordered mechanisms from Germany ceased to arrive, in the embedded hulls of the battleships a marriage of rivet joints was discovered.

            American Submarine Hunter
            1. Corsair5912
              Corsair5912 23 January 2014 21: 51
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              By the way, you still didn’t answer - for what G. Langemak was shot

              And who is Langemak?
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 23 January 2014 22: 55
                +1
                Quote: Corsair5912
                And who is Langemak?

                The creator of the BM-13 multiple launch rocket system, better known among the people as the "Katyusha"
                1. Corsair5912
                  Corsair5912 24 January 2014 08: 49
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  The creator of the BM-13 multiple launch rocket system, better known among the people as the "Katyusha"

                  This is not entirely true, and not as straightforward as you think, the creators were a whole team and Langemak is by no means the most important.
                  In 1921 year employees of the Gas-dynamic laboratory N. I. Tikhomirov and V. A. Artemyev began to develop rockets for aircraft.
                  В 1929-1933 Years B. S. Petropavlovsky with the participation of other GDL employees, official tests of rockets of various calibers and purposes were carried out using multiply charged and single-shot aircraft and ground launchers.
                  In 1937 — 1938 rockets developed by RNII under the leadership of G. E. Langemaka adopted by the RKKVF. PC-82 rockets of the caliber 82 mm installed on the fighters I-15, I-16, I-153. In the summer of 1939, the RS-82 on the I-16 and I-153 were successfully used in battles with Japanese troops on the Khalkhin-Gol River.
                  In 1939 — 1941 years, RNII employees I.I. Gvay, V.N. Galkovsky, A.P. Pavlenko, A.S. Popov and others created multi-launcher mounted on a truck.

                  So the author of "Katyusha" is not Langemak at all.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    Santa Fe 24 January 2014 15: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Corsair5912
                    So the author of "Katyusha" is not Langemak at all.

                    Langemak.
                    He created the entire "scientific base" of rockets, derived formulas for calculating the TTRD on smokeless powder - without this, all the fuss with the truck chassis would be useless
                    Quote: Corsair5912
                    In 1929 — 1933 years B. S. Petropavlovsky

                    Do not try to pull an owl on a globe
                    Petrpavlovsky was a functionary, director of the gas-dynamic laboratory
                    Directly the sector of powder rockets supervised by Langemak

                    By the way, you didn’t answer again - why did you shoot Langemak?
            2. Corsair5912
              Corsair5912 23 January 2014 22: 03
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The Stalinist program for building the fleet was a profanity, a senseless decree - read about the progress of the construction of the Soviet Union type aircraft and how it ended. Almost nothing from your list was built (and could not be built in principle!) - except for small submarines and destroyers

              Yeah, of course, 59 destroyer leaders and destroyers, 218 submarines, 269 torpedo boats, 22 patrol ships, 88 minesweepers, 77 submarine hunters from the damp.
              What do you mean "small submarines and destroyers"? We mean small, but who then have large ones? Soviet submarines and destroyers were in no way inferior to the German ones, only they did not have free access to the seas and oceans, so their range of action was mainly limited by the Black and Baltic Seas.
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 23 January 2014 23: 19
                0
                Quote: Corsair5912
                59 Leader and Destroyer Squadron

                Of these, 30 - "Noviks" of the royal building
                Quote: Corsair5912
                218 submarines

                Of these, half - Babies, which were calculated for transportation by rail in assembled form. displacement 150 / 200 tons, great ships))
                Quote: Corsair5912
                269 torpedo boats, 22 patrol ships, 88 minesweepers, 77 submarine hunters from the dampness wound up.

                It’s indecent to even mention these longboats
                We're talking about the "ocean" fleet (which Stalin did not have, and could not be by definition)
                Quote: Corsair5912
                We mean small, and who then large?

                The Germans, the Yankees - by displacement twice as large as ours. And, unsurprisingly, stronger.

                Stalin's "sevens" (es. Project 7) were a modification of the small Italian "Maestrale". The Italians counted on their ships for the calm Mediterranean Sea - our sailor had to plow the northern seas on these pelvis. As a result, the part simply fell apart in the campaigns, unable to withstand the ocean storms. Death of "Crushing". Or "Grozny" - also collapsed, barely leaving the shipyard (google this funny incident - the ship was commanded by the future commander in chief Gorshkov).

                However, this is completely unimportant - they still had a negligible number (a couple of dozen). For comparison, the Yankees at that time built the 151 aircraft carrier and 850 destroyers.
                Quote: Corsair5912
                Soviet submarines and destroyers were not inferior to German

                Lost in everything. But this is not so important. It is important that the Germans had Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorsts, Admirals Scheer - and Stalin had cookies.

                The Russian Navy first entered the ocean only under Comrade Khrushchev, for which praise and glory were given to him.

                Baby
        2. postman
          postman 24 January 2014 02: 28
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          For example?

          easy:
          1. As part of the reduction of the armed forces in 1955-1958 Soviet military were eliminated base Porkkala-Udd in the Republic of Finland Port arthur in China; Soviet troops were withdrawn from Austria and Romania; reduced troop groups in Hungary, East Germany, Poland ..

          2.on the initiative of N.S. Khrushchev and Minister of Defense G.K. ZhukovaN.G. Kuznetsov removed from the post of commander in chief of the Navy. This decision was formalized by a resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of December 8, 1955. On February 13, 1956, the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted a resolution “On the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the Navy”condemned naval alert and military discipline and blaming the situation on N. G. Kuznetsov.

          3.N.S. Khrushchev was convinced that if the military were not controlled and allowed to turn around “at their own pleasure”, “they would drive the country into a budget coffin”, “they would let the whole country go around the world”, “the enemy wouldn’t need to fight ... we’ll perish ourselves, go bankrupt ". In the fall of 1959, at the talks of N.S. Khrushchev and US President D. Eisenhower agree that money for the armed forces The Defense Ministers “beat out” the same way: first they frighten the Government with the adversary’s success in developing weapons, and then they demand money to close the “backlog”.
      2. postman
        postman 24 January 2014 02: 20
        0
        Quote: Corsair5912
        All significant military and civil engineering programs were developed and started under Stalin.

        touched.

        The change in priorities in the construction of the USSR Armed Forces is evident from the ratio of expenditures on rocket technology и other weapons.
        So, in 1958 it was spent on rocketry 0 billion rubles., to other types of weapons - 2, 43 billion rubles. at wholesale prices in 1959 (at the scale of prices in 1961);
        in 1959 - 0, 896 к 2 billion rubles.
        in 1960 is respectively 1, 37 к 2 billion rubles.;
        according to the plan of 1961 - 2, 287 к 2 billion rubles.;
        and by 1965 4, 1 к 3 billion rubles

        Russian State Military Archive; Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

        Quote: Corsair5912
        Under Khrushchev, a gradual phasing out of construction programs began

        The numbers above refute this misinformation

        On December 14, 1959, at a meeting of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, a note by N. S. Khrushchev, in which, according to the memoirs of a diplomat O.A. Grinevsky, First Secretary of the Central Committee actively defended his point of view: “We have a nuclear shield ... our missiles are the best in the world. The Americans ... can't catch us... Why do we need huge armies concentrated in Europe? This is old rubbish, scrap metal, which is pood
        kettlebells hanging on the neck of the people, distracting millions of working hands from creative labor»
        1. Corsair5912
          Corsair5912 24 January 2014 09: 01
          0
          Quote: Postman
          The change in priorities in the construction of the USSR Armed Forces is evident from the ratio of the costs of the production of rocket technology and other weapons.
          So, in 1958, 0, 46 billion rubles were spent on rocket technology, and 2, 43 billion rubles on other types of weapons. at wholesale prices of 1959 g. (at the scale of prices of 1961 g.);
          in 1959 - 0, 896 to 2, 654 billion rubles.
          in 1960, it amounts to 1, 37 to 2, 71 billion rubles, respectively;
          according to the plan of 1961, - 2, 287 to 2, 918 billion rubles;
          and by 1965, 4, 1 by 3, 7 billion rubles

          You confuse the Navy’s construction program with the ship’s construction projects.
          Under Stalin, no country in the world had rocketry or nuclear powered ships. By themselves, the figures for arms spending mean nothing.
          You can spend the entire budget of MO for the construction of the AUG, or you can use 10 missile cruisers or nuclear submarines.
          The world's first civilian nuclear powered icebreaker - the icebreaker "Lenin" (1959, USSR).
          The world's first military nuclear submarine - the Long Beach missile cruiser (1961, USA).
          The first Soviet military - the cruiser "Kirov" (1980).
          The first submarines with nuclear reactors on board appeared respectively in the USA in 1955 - USS Nautilus, and in the USSR in 1958 - K-3 "Lenin Komsomol".
          In 1963, the first British atomic atom HMS Dreadnought (S101) was commissioned.
          In 1969, the first French nuclear submarine Le Redoutable (S 611) began to perform military service, and it belonged not to torpedo submarines, but to the class of strategic submarines.
          In 1974, China commissioned its first nuclear submarine.
          1. postman
            postman 24 January 2014 12: 18
            0
            Quote: Corsair5912
            You confuse

            No . I do not confuse.
            You write "ruined", "ruined", "cut down"
            The figures for spending suggest otherwise
            YES MORE WITH ACCOUNT:

            -According to Western estimates, the Soviet Armed Forces reached a minimum size (3 people) by July 1961, compare on March 1, 1953 the strength of the USSR Armed Forces was 5 396 038 people
            - retirement pension (cut down)
            = this is just huge money.
            A COSTS FOR OTHER WEAPONS- GROW
            Quote: Corsair5912
            Under Stalin, rocketry

            I led the Strategic Missile Forces to refute ridiculous accusations: destroyed the fleet and aircraft in the field of missiles.
            MIG-19, MIG-21?
            Quote: Corsair5912
            You can spend the entire budget of MO

            You can not.
            Then there will be a coup tomorrow
    3. vlad.svargin
      vlad.svargin 24 January 2014 09: 58
      0
      SWEET_SIXTEEN (1)

      Khrushchev could not cut the ocean fleet, due to the complete absence of the ocean fleet during the era of Stalin

      At the direction of the "hidden Trotskyist" Khrushchev, all battleships of the USSR were cut (for example, in the United States, "New Jersey" participated in military operations even in the Lebanese events). He refused to build aircraft carriers, allegedly "we do not need large targets." I will not recall his "heroic and wise deeds" (although you can recall how he "heroically" fled to the other bank of the Volga in Stalingrad) members of the forum have written a lot about him. The destruction of the USSR began during the "Soviet perestroika", and even earlier with his "hidden reforms" in the KGB (since 1945 he was in charge of the KGB), why did he so easily "come into power" after Stalin's death (When Beria noticed this, he simply did not have time to fix it all).
      And Brezhnev was not a strategist, and he simply did not notice that the destruction machine continued to work (everything was done behind his back). And then Gorbachev's mole was "brought" to power - he was already directly following the instructions of the Western elite. I would like to hope to see the trial of this "Judaic biorobot" (I can’t name it even softer)
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 24 January 2014 15: 43
        0
        Quote: vlad.svargin
        At the direction of the "hidden Trotskyist" Khrushchev, all battleships of the USSR were cut (for example, in the United States, the "New Jersey" participated in military operations even in the Lebanese events)

        Stalin's battleship "Stalingrad" - a puppy compared to "New Jersey"
        The weakest of the battleships in the world - open at least a few articles on this topic, read, otherwise Linkor

        To build such "battleships" is to disgrace
  • negeroi
    negeroi 23 January 2014 18: 38
    +3
    Who created a system where one person has a huge loan? Well, actually, it has historically developed in Russia a long time ago, and if in modern times, then V.I. Ulyanov. And Stalin had repressions too. However, he killed people less than Gorbachov and Yeltsin were several times less. And since this same Khrushchev report reflected on the international situation of the USSR, one can write a dissertation on the personality cult of Khrushchev, and his authoritarian actions that harmed the country both at the time of its accomplishment and negatively influenced subsequent decades. And now this very report harms us. It harms Russia by virtue of the rhetoric used by the real enemies of Russia, which includes elements of the report. While events in all competing countries were no less monstrous and terrible, Russia and Stalin are to blame and blame. whatever it is, they worsen the international political situation of any country. So this report is not so harmless even now. Now each of us pays for short-term ideality and marketability, an attempt to whitewash himself and the CPSU, blaming everything that they did, on a scapegoat. Then, as for the similar actions of the British in Britain, they put monuments to them. And from the rostrum the UN stigmatizes Russia and other international venues. he killed tens of millions of people with his actions, but for this he receives awards in the west. And I am not a Stalinist, and certainly not a commi.
  • Altona
    Altona 23 January 2014 18: 44
    +1
    Quote: shelva
    Sorry, but who created the system in which one person has tremendous power? Stalin. Who created a system in which they come to power through palace intrigues, and not through fair elections? Stalin. Who guaranteed the worthy successor to power? Nobody, and if guaranteed, is not good enough. So do not be surprised that Khrushchev came to power and broke firewood - thank your beloved Stalin for allowing such a situation.

    -------------------------------
    Stalin did not have sole power, he was only the secretary general of the ruling and only party ... If he wanted to, he could be demolished, but his hardware chuyka was stronger and he stopped possible threats - Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, Tukhachevsky, Zhukov .. .We shall not consider small fry ...
    As for the successor, the same song, the monarchy was liquidated in 1917, the system of rotation and suppression of personal ambitions, as in China, did not have time to come up with ... The system of successive "autocracy" of the general secretary is only in the DPRK ...
    As for the elections, they are now writing that Stalin wanted to remove the party from direct leadership of the country, transferring this matter to professionals, and removing the ideological framework from everything and everything ...
  • Suvorov
    Suvorov 23 January 2014 18: 55
    +1
    One must look at things objectively. Stalin is undoubtedly a great leader. Under him, the country carried out industrialization, collectivization of agriculture, won the Second World War, and restored what was destroyed by the war. Yes, there were many mistakes and "excesses", but the one who does nothing is not mistaken. Stalin "left" on time. After the Soviet soldiers passed half of Europe and saw how the people of "defeated Europe" live in the country, it was impossible to maintain a tough administrative system based on the one hand on "fear", and on the other on people's patience and boundless faith in a better future after victory. From the people and so "squeezed" everything that was possible. It's time to keep the promises of this better future and give some indulgences. Because the people are really "tired". The conquerors cannot live worse than the conquered, even for the sake of a great goal. Therefore, Khrushchev correctly understood the mood of the people and began to make "dreams come true." During his reign, the "large housing construction" practically began, the first "house kombinats" appeared (that is, the construction of housing according to the same type of projects by the "conveyor" method). We must not forget that we won the "space race" with the United States and started making rockets "like sausages." A large army, in peacetime, was also useless, after all, these are millions of healthy strong men, while the country lacked workers so badly. As for the ocean-going fleet, in the era of missile technology, it really was not needed in this form. The USSR was not going to wage colonial wars, it was useless to compete with the Americans in the construction of the fleet, and it was more expedient to direct resources for other purposes. Nikita also made a lot of mistakes, especially in agriculture, but, as they say, he was also "replaced" in time. All Soviet leaders are "children of their time". You can, of course, scold them, but they did their job the way they understood it, and I must say mostly successfully. Gorbachev alone on this list looks like a dissonance. You can call him a deliberate "Judas", "destroyer" of a great country, but most likely he does not deserve such epithets, he is just "a pathetic worthless loser."
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 23 January 2014 19: 37
      +3
      Quote: Suvorov
      After Soviet soldiers have passed half of Europe and saw how the people of "defeated Europe" live in the country; it was impossible to maintain a rigid administrative system based on the one hand on "fear", and on the other hand, on the people's patience and boundless faith in a better future after victory. From the people and so "squeezed" everything that was possible. It's time to keep the promises of this better future and give some indulgences. Because the people are really "tired". The conquerors cannot live worse than the conquered, even for the sake of a great goal. Therefore, Khrushchev correctly understood the mood of the people and began to make "dreams come true." During his reign, the "large housing construction" practically began, the first "house kombinats" appeared (that is, the construction of housing according to the same type of projects by the "conveyor" method).

      For whom are you repeating all this nonsense? Nobody believes in these stamps of the liberal propaganda of the 90's for a long time.
      Soviet soldiers in Europe did not see anything worthy of envy, and they could not see anything, and there was no fear and no promises, no one promised anything to anyone. These are stupid inventions of filthy dissidents who dreamed of making a mess in the USSR in order to get the status of a "political refugee" over the hill.
      House plants did not begin under Khrushchev, but under Stalin.
      From 1 July 1941 to 1 January 1946, 49,8 million square meters were built. m of housing
      The Fourth Five-Year Plan (1946 — 1950 gg.) Built 102,8 million square meters. m of housing
      The Fifth Five-Year Plan (1951 — 1955 gg.) Built 151,7 million square meters. m of housing
      Khrushchev also had successes and considerable ones.
      The history of the panel "Khrushchev" dates back to the 1955 year, when the decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On eliminating excesses in design and construction" was issued. This document for many years determined the style of Soviet housing construction and our ideas about home comfort. Among the "excesses" were assigned not only the Stalinist arches, porticos and towers, but also "unacceptably high areas of the front, corridors and other auxiliary premises." The decree ordered by September 1956 of the year to develop standard projects designed to drastically reduce the cost of housing construction - so that by the 1980 year, “when communism comes”, every Soviet family would meet him in his apartment.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Suvorov
        Suvorov 23 January 2014 22: 23
        0
        Quote: Corsair5912
        For whom are you repeating all this nonsense? Nobody believes in these stamps of the liberal propaganda of the 90's for a long time.

        This "nonsense", as you will say, I am not writing for you. I'm just expressing my opinion. Apparently for you the world consists only of black and white tones. "Halftones" and other "excesses" are not for you. Unfortunately, not everything is so simple in this world. The world is more complex and diverse. Even outspoken opponents, the same "liberals" (which I am not) are right. I am opposed to making an "icon" out of a person, even from someone like Stalin. Unfortunately, in Soviet times, "cults of leaders" occupied an important place in state ideology. Behind the "idols" the human essence of many great people was lost. Stalin is the same person as all of us. No need to attribute super-genius to him. Yes, he is a good organizer, a true Russian leader (despite his Georgian origin and "Soviet nationality"), he can be put on a par with the great Russian leaders. But what are we discussing? The author gives the following thought: if Stalin would come now and everything would be fine. Rave. Each era needs a corresponding leader. At one time we were lucky with Stalin, he ideally corresponded to his era. If Trotsky had won, it would have been a disaster for the Russian people. But at other times other leaders are probably needed. Today, for example, Putin is ideally suited to his era, but his time is running out and a leader of another formation will be needed (I hope that he will appear). And in Gorbachev, despite the fact that he started in the right direction and had the colossal support of the people, he could not cope later, and not only did he not save the country, but also left in disgrace. The "personality" turned out to be on the wrong scale.
        1. Corsair5912
          Corsair5912 24 January 2014 08: 36
          0
          Quote: Suvorov
          The world is more complex and diverse. Even outspoken opponents, the same "liberals" (which I am not) are right. I am opposed to making an "icon" out of a person, even from someone like Stalin. Unfortunately, in Soviet times, "cults of leaders" occupied an important place in state ideology. Behind the "idols" the human essence of many great people was lost. Stalin is the same person as all of us.

          Vyacheslav, it’s not me who makes the icon from Stalin, but you and the current liberals, making stupid claims. Stalin was not a miracle worker and did not promise anyone a good life, and no one expected this. You can’t blame the Soviet people for stupidity, everyone understood that miracles do not happen, everything must be created with your own labor.
          These are not my words, but yours:
          From the people and so "squeezed" everything that was possible. It's time to keep the promises of this better future and give some indulgences. Since the people are really "tired", the conquerors cannot live worse than the defeated, even for the sake of a great goal.

          Who squeezed? Stalin or what? War and need squeezed.
          What is "time" to keep promises? Stalin has a warehouse with bags of happiness, but he did not give it to anyone, so what?
          What kind of relief? Give everyone a lot of money, but do not require work?
          The great goal of the people and of Stalin was one to ensure the security of the country and the welfare of the people. The path to this goal was one, working, working and working.
          Winners could live better than the defeated if they themselves in this war suffered less than them, as, for example, USA Americans. The second way is to rob and turn the vanquished into slaves, as the Germans did in the USSR.
          What would you choose in the place of Stalin?
          Khrushchev came to power 8 years after the war, when the devastation was liquidated and peaceful construction could be carried out, with much greater efficiency than he did, without voluntarism and adventures, such as virgin lands and corn.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  • clidon
    clidon 23 January 2014 18: 57
    +2
    Khrushchev is a product of the Stalinist system of leadership, when the entire elite was shaking in anticipation of the "owner" getting up on the wrong foot and appointing the culprit in miscalculations. Therefore, after the death of the leader, practically no one (including the military) wanted such a "new owner". Everyone was satisfied with Khrushchev, who immediately declared that there would be no more of this horror. But the system worked normally only when everyone was running around and trembling from the last switchman to the minister. Therefore, under Nikita Sergeevich, who continued to lead in the "Sultan" style (as taught), but could no longer force him to answer, everything began to stumble and fall. And the personal ambitions of Khrushchev were no longer satisfied with the then elite - so they did what they could with him - they removed (but not shot!) And installed an even more tolerant leader - Brezhnev. Not for intelligence, not for some outstanding achievements and qualities, but for gentleness (relative, of course) and the ability to negotiate. And they kept him even when they could see that the elder needed to be changed. Only in the 80s did someone decide that they needed to tighten the nuts, someone that needed global changes. As a result, Andropov caught the "relaxed" people in turns, and Gorbachev decided to start Perestroika.
    Therefore, Nikita Sergeevich, this is not the end, but the logical continuation of the Stalinist policy.
  • Ruswolf
    Ruswolf 23 January 2014 19: 12
    +3
    SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Khrushchev could not cut the ocean fleet, due to the complete absence of the ocean fleet in the 1950 years

    Dear!
    But what about the fact (Zhukov’s letter to Khrushchev May1956) about the need for the Marine Corps, as a result of which the entire MP was disbanded, and the documents and manuals for the training of officers were destroyed. Then the only electoral naval school in the country was closed.
    At the suggestion of Zhukov (with an emphasis on rocketry), they hacked down all of the aircraft carrier construction projects (having previously fired Kuznetsov’s only strong opponent - with the loss of rank without the right to reinstate). Naval officers fired through one?
    This is not a cut fleet?
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 23 January 2014 19: 50
      +1
      Quote: Ruswolf
      This is not a cut fleet?

      No, because the article was about the OCEAN FLEET.
      It was he who created N.S. Khrushchev, whether you like it or not
      Quote: Ruswolf
      But what about the fact (Zhukov’s letter to Khrushchev May1956) about the need for the Marine Corps

      It turns out Zhukov is to blame - his own idea

      However, Nikita Khrushchev soon figured out what was happening and quickly returned everything to its original place:

      Already in the 1963 year in the Baltic, the Guards Marine Regiment was formed. In the same year, the Marine Corps was formed in the Pacific, in the 1966 - in the North, and in the 1967 - in the Black Sea Fleets.
      Quote: Ruswolf
      At the suggestion of Zhukov (with an emphasis on rocketry), they cut down all of the aircraft carrier construction projects

      As it turned out later - damn right decision
      1. Corsair5912
        Corsair5912 23 January 2014 20: 24
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        No, because the article was about the OCEAN FLEET.
        It was he who created N.S. Khrushchev, whether you like it or not

        Khrushchev did not create any fleet, but destroyed him.
        Kuznetsov was reinstated in the former military rank of Fleet Admiral, received during the war. It seemed that all the troubles were already behind. The project was approved and the construction of the first nuclear submarine begins. The admiral once again raises the question of the necessity of considering the shipbuilding program for the Navy before the Minister of Defense and the government. He is awarded a new, just established title - Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union with the award of a Marshall star - and all this in 50 years, in the prime of life and talent for leadership.
        However, the admiral did not have a relationship with Nikita Khrushchev who replaced Stalin. By order of that, they began to cut into the scraps ready for launching the cruiser for scrap.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 23 January 2014 20: 45
          +2
          Quote: Corsair5912
          Khrushchev did not create any fleet, but destroyed him.

          We heard a ring, but you don’t know where it is
          Quote: Corsair5912
          By order of that, they began to cut into the scraps ready for launching the cruiser for scrap.

          Well, to do if this junk is out of date on the slipway

          In this case, we are talking about artillery cruisers, etc. 68-bis (based on the project 30-s). It was a shame to continue to build such a homo in the era of the nuclear missile fleet



          Instead, such a technique began to be built (a large anti-submarine ship, etc. 61 - under Khrushchev, a series of 20 such boats were laid)
          1. Corsair5912
            Corsair5912 23 January 2014 21: 47
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            to do if the junk is outdated on the slipway
            In this case, we are talking about artillery cruisers, etc. 68-bis (based on the project 30-s). It was a shame to continue to build such a homo in the era of the nuclear missile fleet

            The nuclear missile fleet construction programs have nothing to do with Khrushchev, they were developed before Khrushchev and implemented after Khrushchev.
            Khrushchev was not the initiator of the construction of the Navy, but an adversary, fortunately not omnipotent and not too powerful and competent, otherwise he would have cut a lot of things.
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 23 January 2014 21: 56
              0
              Quote: Corsair5912
              The programs of building a nuclear missile fleet have nothing to do with Khrushchev

              Of course, after all, Khrushchev was never the Secretary General and generally was not responsible for anything.
              Quote: Corsair5912
              they were developed before Khrushchev and implemented after Khrushchev.

              You just want it to be

              But, alas, the real facts contradict the picture of your worldview. Details are in the comments on the discussion of this article.
              Quote: Corsair5912
              otherwise I would cut a lot of things.

              There was nothing to cut, that’s the catch
              1. Corsair5912
                Corsair5912 24 January 2014 14: 09
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                You just want it to be
                But, alas, the real facts contradict the picture of your worldview. Details are in the comments on the discussion of this article.

                My worldview is in perfect order, I perfectly remember the times of Khrushchev and the real facts:
                - how they tried to limit our infield from 20 to 6 hundred,
                - how they tried to get my father to hand over the cow to the meat factory,
                - as a tax was imposed on a goat, as on cattle,
                - as in a school experimental site forced to grow corn,
                - how the father of the brother of the major of the coastal artillery was dismissed from service,
                - how the Marines disbanded and their mother’s brother the foreman 1 articles were demobilized,
                - how sharply reduced the salaries of geological engineers, mining foremen and other engineers in industry and agriculture,
                - how they changed money and raised prices in 1961, a joke - How did the monetary reform affect you? No way, I had lunch at 5 rubles 2 times before the reform, and after the reform, too,
                - I remember the queues for wheat bread in 1963, posters on every corner "Catch up and overtake ...", "Corn is the queen of the fields", "The party plans are like a 3-stage rocket, in 3 seven years there will be communism in the USSR", and etc. etc.
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 24 January 2014 15: 45
                  0
                  Quote: Corsair5912
                  - how they tried to limit our infield from 20 to 6 hundred,

                  And this was what we had to start with, otherwise the whole Fleet, Fleet)))
                  1. Corsair5912
                    Corsair5912 24 January 2014 21: 20
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    And this was what we had to start with, otherwise the whole Fleet, Fleet)))

                    The fleet is also important, in my relatives in the war and after the war 7 people served in the fleet.
                    Garden 6 acres for a family with 5 children and grandmother was not enough.
                    My father was not a member of the CPSU, he didn’t limit the garden and didn’t lead a cow, and the neighbor, a communist, was left without a cow to save his party card.
            2. FRITZ LANG
              FRITZ LANG 24 January 2014 14: 13
              0
              You respected in vain argue with Kaptsov about the fleet, for him one submarine is steeper than all the US Navy combined. He is going to take a submarine Washington and other cities of America
          2. Corsair5912
            Corsair5912 24 January 2014 12: 18
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Well, to do if this junk is out of date on the slipway
            In this case, we are talking about artillery cruisers, etc. 68-bis (based on the project 30-s). It was a shame to continue to build such a homo in the era of the nuclear missile fleet

            Baby talk.
            In the 50s, the era of the nuclear missile fleet was still far away. Turning an artillery cruiser on slipways into a missile cruiser is much easier and cheaper than building a new one from scratch.
            Moreover, ship artillery has not lost its significance until now.
            The revival of modern naval artillery began in 1967, when an artillery direction was organized as part of the Leningrad Arsenal Design Bureau, E.I. Malishevsky. The unit provided for the implementation of all design work on naval artillery at all stages of design. At the same time, the design bureau began to create new automatic naval gun mounts for the Navy, caliber 100 and 130 mm.
            Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/749

            Since 2002, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have been built with the new 127-mm gun mount Mk-45 Mod 4, which is adapted for firing EX-171 rocket projectiles ERGM (Extended Range Guided Munition) at a range of up to 140 km. The ammunition of each of these artillery mounts includes 232 rounds. The EX-171 projectile with a cluster warhead was developed by Texas Instrument; it weighs more than 50 kg. Targeting is carried out by an inertial system using a GPS system, which ensures firing accuracy up to 10 m.
            Despite the fact that more than 200 gun mounts of the 127 / 54 mm caliber are in service with many countries of the world, American firms are developing 155-mm artillery systems. This is due to the transition of the field artillery of the NATO countries to the standard 155-mm caliber with a wide range of ammunition for hitting various types of targets.
            Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/749
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 24 January 2014 15: 47
              0
              Quote: Corsair5912
              In the 50s, the era of the nuclear missile fleet was still far away. Artillery cruiser

              But just not like the Stalinist 68 bis

              It was a complete junk - compared to any foreign cruiser
    2. Millibyte
      Millibyte 23 January 2014 21: 45
      +1
      I ask everyone not to forget that it was "Marshal" Zhyukov who arrested L. Beria in 1953. For what strings the Khrushchevites pulled the marshal to persuade him to do this - history is still silent. But Zhyukov received for this, as usual, "according to the concepts" of a gang of gangsters.
    3. Millibyte
      Millibyte 23 January 2014 21: 45
      0
      I ask everyone not to forget that it was "Marshal" Zhyukov who arrested L. Beria in 1953. For what strings the Khrushchevites pulled the marshal to persuade him to do this - history is still silent. But Zhyukov received for this, as usual, "according to the concepts" of a gang of gangsters.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • v53993
    v53993 23 January 2014 19: 54
    +3
    Mao the wise, Gorbachev JUDA, Yeltsin with .... a
  • v53993
    v53993 23 January 2014 20: 02
    0
    Putin has a chance to become Stalin. This is salvation for Russia. If not he will be different.
  • Not hearing
    Not hearing 23 January 2014 20: 40
    +4
    Rosstat data.
  • v53993
    v53993 23 January 2014 21: 02
    0
    USSR - growth. Then a drop in the number of Russian population. And what's behind the 2006 sawn-off shotgun.
    1. q_556
      q_556 23 January 2014 21: 11
      +1
      Until 2008 - growth, then recession to 2010, then growth again.
      1. v53993
        v53993 23 January 2014 21: 29
        0
        Unfortunately you are right, but we will correct the situation.
  • Millibyte
    Millibyte 23 January 2014 21: 39
    +1
    At the celebration of his eightieth birthday, Churchill, after hearing the speakers about how much he had done against communism, said that there was another person in the world who had harmed world communism more than he did and named Khrushchev.

    Churchill, when asked: "Who is the smartest person in the world?", Replied: "Undoubtedly, Khrushchev. One must be able to leave two hundred million people without bread."

    “Khrushchev is the only politician in the history of mankind who declared war on the dead. But not only that - he managed to lose it. ”Churchill
  • v53993
    v53993 23 January 2014 21: 51
    +2
    “Khrushchev is the only politician in the history of mankind who declared war on the dead. But not only that - he managed to lose it. ”Churchill

    And who will win it? I think that they are not liberals, they are alien to the Russian people.
  • Betahon
    Betahon 23 January 2014 22: 33
    0
    That's why he is bald dumpling to harm! ....