Military Review

Khrushchev's gift: a historical stunt

Khrushchev's gift: a historical stunt

How and why the Russian Crimea, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev decided to donate to Ukraine?

The Soviet people would know both in the Crimea and in Ukraine, that they celebrated the day they laid a real political mine with equal joy and love - Crimea was solemnly presented to the Ukrainian SSR as a gift for the 300 anniversary of the Pereyaslav Rada. In honor of the reunification of the two peoples, Ukrainians and Russians climbed to the summit of Ai-Petri, leaving newsreel cadres to descendants.

Why Khrushchev unexpectedly gave Crimea - a question that then sounded always and everywhere - in Sevastopol, in Kiev, in Siberia, and in the Soviet Baltic. Not finding a logical answer, the people settled on a simple legend: Khrushchev, you see, he himself is Ukrainian, once walking in an embroidered shirt, made a gift to his wife, who is also Ukrainian. In general, he has nothing to do.

“It seems to me that it is equally wrong to perceive Khrushchev as an idiot. On the other hand, it is just as wrong to perceive him as a person who deliberately destroyed the Soviet Union. Maybe he did this partly consciously, maybe he was guided by some kind of ambition, he tried revenge. It is difficult for us to understand this now, but in the actions of Khrushchev there is a large share of stupidity mixed with a large share of betrayal, "noted the historian and writer Nikolai Starikov.

In the fall of 1953, Nikita Khrushchev secretly visited Crimea. Few people knew that he was forced to leave the Kremlin, in which, after the very recent death of Stalin, there was still a rift. Power was essentially collective.

After the departure of the father of the peoples for the role of leader, including Khrushchev, no one pulled, and Malenkov, Molotov, Kaganovich, Voroshilov, Bulganin pulled the blanket. But Khrushchev knew what he was doing. It was after returning to Moscow and arranging a feast, the first secretary of the Central Committee, as they later recalled, drained the second glass of cognac and made a speech: would you give the Crimea region to Ukraine? Only Molotov was against. The rest, being tipsy, did not see a political trick in the proposal.

“First of all, the fact was that he had been serving as secretary of the party’s Central Committee for only half a year and was in great need of help from the largest party organization. It was the party organization of Ukraine. And to a large extent, Crimea was such a badge of its Crimean comrades,” said the director of the Central Museum Tavrida Andrei Malygin.

There were more regional committees in Ukraine than in any other republic, and getting the sympathy of such a huge army of secretaries was expensive. And the Crimea was an all-union dream. The former pearl in the crown of the Russian Empire was now the main facade of the country. Foreign leaders were brought here, the famous Artek thundered here for the entire socialist world. This is not just a camp - the southern capital of the pioneers.

The author of a historical study, Georgy Dezhkin, points out that the then first secretary of the Crimean regional committee of the CPSU (b) Pavel Titov flatly refused to pass it on to Ukraine. He considered the Crimea exactly Russian territory, even once suggested to Stalin to rename the region Tauride. Titov objected to Khrushchev and was dismissed. And the Ukrainian secretaries have already helped the benefactor to come up with a rationale for a quick gift.
"Was историяthat this was done for economic development. But it looks very naive. I would say it is ridiculous, ”said Andrei Nikiforov, associate professor at Tavrichesky National University.

But Khrushchev did not give anyone any time to reflect on the meaning of the transfer of Crimea. 5 February 1954 of the year he launches a draft decree at the level of the Supreme Soviets of the two republics, and within two weeks - that same historical meeting of the presidium.

There was no quorum that day; voices were sent by telegrams. Yes, and in the Constitution there was not a single reservation that would allow the Union republics to legally transfer the territory to each other. But Khrushchev had another motive at all costs to bring his idea to the end. Initially, having conceived to debunk the personality cult of Stalin and condemn the repressions, he concealed that he himself took an active part in the repressions just in Ukraine, and it was possible to buy off the Crimea.

"Khrushchev carried out this accession solely to ensure that some part of the Ukrainian politically active elite forgive his sins committed during the period of repression," said Vitaly Tretyakov, a political scientist, dean of the Moscow State University Television School.

And after 40 years, there was a disconnect, and the Crimea from the once united country had already been transferred to an independent state. Leonid Kravchuk admitted that he was ready to abandon the non-native Peninsula for the sake of separatism of the rest of Ukraine, but Boris Yeltsin in Belovezhskaya Pushcha did not even give a hint at about this. It took another 20 years.

“As our history shows, Russians never abandon theirs. This is a feature of our national culture, our mentality. In this sense, I understand people of different nationalities who are members of a single Russian civilization,” the historian, writer Nikolai Old men

Today, journalists and historians are surprised at the sound of how Solzhenitsyn’s book “Russia in collapse”, published in 1998, actually sounded. “In today's Ukraine, it’s impossible to raise voices for its federal structure, with such reckless generosity adopted in Russia: the ghost of an autonomous Crimea, an autonomous Donbass speaks immediately. We have already forgotten to think about the Rusins ​​of Transcarpathia, with their strong Russian roots. imitate the Ukrainian nationalists. No need to respond to their heated anti-moskal propaganda. You have to wait it out as a kind of mental illness, "wrote Solzhenitsyn.

Today, Russians are being forced to respond. Either because the mental illness of the nationalists in Ukraine has become too acute, or because Russia is no longer in a collapse.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. smel
    smel 4 March 2014 09: 07
    All this is sad. It’s a pity that they gave it away. Yes, and it is a pity that the state of Ukraine 20 years was in autonomous navigation. They didn’t share anything - neither culture, nor history, but, on the contrary, quietly rejoiced at the problems of the neighbors. Here is the reckoning. we knew where and in whom grandmas to invest.
  2. Renat
    Renat 4 March 2014 09: 24
    Yeah. He did the business a bald maize.
    1. I think so
      I think so 9 March 2014 00: 08
      The "bald" you mentioned, oddly enough, has nothing to do with the loss of Crimea by Russia ... There, the main was not bald , and drunk ...
  3. rotmistr4
    rotmistr4 4 March 2014 09: 43
    Ukraine was so eager for independence, and the result ..... The country is fragmented, political intriguers came to power, the economy collapsed !!!! And again RUSSIA is to blame !!!
  4. bazilio
    bazilio 4 March 2014 09: 50
    I heard about another, very wonderful, version of the transfer of the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR. This version said that allegedly Vladimir Ilyich at the dawn of the formation of the young Soviet state took from Europe (I don’t remember the exact country) a large loan in the name of the RSFSR, and Crimea promised on bail. And when the time came to either repay the debt or give back the Crimea, Khrushchev presented the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR, she had no debt obligations.
    1. Shick
      Shick 4 March 2014 10: 06
      yes yes yes, I also heard in addition to the same version that the Jews seemed to regard Crimea as a territory for the formation of Israel. It seems like in repayment of a debt they would form a country there instead of the current territory.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 4 March 2014 17: 16
        Quote: Shick
        yes yes yes, I also heard in addition to the same version that the Jews seemed to regard Crimea as a territory for the formation of Israel. It seems like in repayment of a debt they would form a country there instead of the current territory.

        Not only Crimea, but also the Black Sea coast from Abkhazia to Romania, these are the appetites of the chosen ones.
        Unsinkable aircraft carriers of the Americans - Britain and Japan nervously smoke on the sidelines.
  5. Forward
    Forward 4 March 2014 10: 08
    Khrushchev marked the decline of a gigantic country. He appeared to those who began to ruin the legacy of Joseph Vissarionych, who left his most powerful nation to his descendants. The case of Khrushchev was completed by the empty-headed and spineless Gorbachev, and we must not forget about the drunk. Drank the country in fact am
  6. Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign 4 March 2014 10: 08
    Khrushchev, with all his pronounced "communism" and promises to build communism by the 80th year, is still a "contrarian and opportunist with a left deviator in one bottle." The fact that this figure has heaped up still has to be cleared up. The thaw of the 60s served only as a screen, the reverse side of which is the Novocherkassk events in the 61st year ...
    The lack of understanding of a fool is a cruel thing.
    1. Uhe
      Uhe 5 March 2014 03: 50
      At the expense of the promise to build communism - there was still a major continuation, which for some reason everyone forgets: if the international situation allows. So, Khrushchev’s fault was that he didn’t understand the international situation, he tried to make friends with the aggressive West, while Stalin deftly maneuvered between the interests of Western countries, using them for the benefit of the USSR. Therefore, it would never have been possible that Khrushchev began to flirt with the West, tried to be friends, and they began to crush him, and in such conditions neither socialism nor communism could be built. This is the fault of Khrushchev - he was not a strategist, he was not the leader of the country, but only not above the regional one, but he was useful to lead. Therefore, Shelepin took part in his dismissal, and then he realized that they had lost the way with Brezhnev, but this was no longer possible to throw off, which is a pity.

      In general, at least in part, Trotsky was right: socialism cannot be built in one country. He was wrong in that he wanted to burn Russia in the fire of the world revolution. And Stalin understood this, so he went the other, more correct way and created a whole union of countries, different formats of unions. But in them socialism could already be built if Khrushchev hadn’t been such a weak strategist. However, at least he was not a traitor, like Humpbacked or even more so Yeltsin. Stalin was a strategist, but also mistaken, but not in international affairs.
  7. parusnik
    parusnik 4 March 2014 10: 09
    One bald started, another bald, with a spot on his forehead, finished .. and how the little heads remained
    1. I think so
      I think so 9 March 2014 00: 05
      Strange as it may seem, all the "bald" ones you mentioned have nothing to do with the loss of Crimea by Russia ... There, the main was not bald, and drunk ...
  8. VadimSt
    VadimSt 4 March 2014 10: 58
    Khrushchev was filmed long ago and in disgrace, the broadcast was authoritarian, without observing the relevant procedures of the USSR Constitution, the Pereyaslavl Council in Ukraine has long been told "Get out" - Get out and all the agreements about the gift!
  9. Intensive
    Intensive 4 March 2014 11: 13
    With the borders and divisions of states "on a lively" basis in the twentieth century, in general, everything somehow very much suggests the idea of ​​deliberate programming of conflicts with the aim of preventing the strengthening of individual states in the relatively near future. Preventing their self-sufficiency and stability in relation to the supranational structures of world regulators.
    1. Coltxnumx
      Coltxnumx 4 March 2014 22: 08
      It’s hard to say, for what purpose, purely Russian regions were organized = Narva in Estonia-Tiraspol in Transnistria — our virgin and mining regions in Kazakhstan — the lowland grain regions in Chechnya — MON was buried somewhere ... and it was already vomiting somewhere and where it explodes = what tsuuuka came up with this?
  10. Shav1
    Shav1 4 March 2014 11: 14
    one half-witted step by a declarative leader (to say the least) and the suffering of nations that responded through decades
    1. I think so
      I think so 9 March 2014 00: 03
      You mean the drunkard Yeltsin and his words to Kravchuk "And ... take away" when signing in Viskuli?
  11. uzer 13
    uzer 13 4 March 2014 11: 27
    It was something like this.
  12. AVIATOR36662
    AVIATOR36662 4 March 2014 11: 59
    Quote: Renat
    Yeah. He did the business a bald maize.

    In addition to "gift" business and participation in political repression, he coped well with killing the aircraft and artillery of our Soviet Army. With such authorities and leaders and enemies are not necessary. Maybe Russia will hold a referendum on the abolition of such gifts? It seems that the inhabitants of the South, East and Crimea in Ukraine will also bring such a point to the discussion at their referendums. We will wait, as they say.
    1. I think so
      I think so 9 March 2014 00: 02
      Yes, you are probably delusional? Khrushchev is a "killer of aviation" ... This has never happened in the modern liberal history of Russia ... Instead of saying bluntly that the drunk Yeltsin and his henchman thief were signing papers of the PROS in Viskuli. l Crimea myths about Khrushchev are exaggerated here ... There is no shame or conscience ...
  13. dmb
    dmb 4 March 2014 12: 00
    Well, what to do with our ignoramuses. Why do you need to advertise your own stupidity like that? "There were more regional committees in Ukraine than in any other republic." Due to his youth, the author apparently does not know the administrative-territorial division of the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR and the presence of a regional committee in each "subject". It is not surprising that after that Starikov is credited as a "historian". Among more or less educated people, it is generally considered bad form to refer to the "historian" - Kolya. And no wonder. Admirers of his "historical" talent, I ask you to answer how this pundit justifies his claim that Khrushchev is a "traitor." Only Kolya and others like him can equate the transfer of Crimea with the latter. Let me remind you for a second that we lived in one great country, and suppose that Nikita wanted to lose it, in return acquiring only the Crimea with the Bandera. can only be round ...
  14. Gagarin
    Gagarin 4 March 2014 12: 02
    Khrushchev, with apparent simplicity, was an experienced and elegant intriguer (the system grew), a trick with the Crimea is another confirmation of this.
    There was an interview with Kravchuk himself about the moment with the Crimea during the division of the USSR, so he carefully asked Yeltsin what to do? (being ready to return), and Yeltsin waved him off and said "Ah, ..... GET IT!"
  15. Pancreas
    Pancreas 4 March 2014 12: 33
    I believe that we now have enough strength and political will to return Crimea, to preserve our military bases in Sevastopol. And let the Eurogeys impose "sanctions". We survived hunger, we will survive abundance. Let our liberal artists and elites lose their mino abroad, or let them knock them abroad wassat they are waiting there with open arms.
    “A TV interviewer once asked Lev Gumilyov:
    - Lev Nikolaevich, are you an intellectual?
    And Gumilyov soared:
    - God save me! The present intelligentsia is such a spiritual sect. What is characteristic: they don’t know anything, they don’t know anything, but they judge everything and completely disagree with dissent ... ”
    “I don’t believe in our intelligentsia, hypocritical, false, hysterical, ill-bred, lying, I don’t even believe when she is suffering and complaining, because her oppressors come out of her bowels.” (A.P. Chekhov)
  16. RoTTor
    RoTTor 4 March 2014 12: 59
    The transfer of the Crimean region from one Union Republic of the USSR to another - from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR, was made with gross violations of applicable law. There have been precedents before - part of the Chernihiv region, the Kursk region, the Belgorod region were transferred to the RSFSR. Part of the Donbass - moved from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in order to strengthen the proletarian layer
    Then the collapse of the USSR and the growth of nationalism in a truly unified Soviet people could not even dream of in a drunken nightmare.
    The great and fatal mistake of Stalin, as the people's commissar of nationalities, and the leadership of the USSR was a departure from the provinces and the transition to national entities - union and autonomous republics, territories ...

    Crimea is not yet an island, but the peninsula is geographically tied to Ukraine's criminal code. Water, electricity, gas, railways, highways - all through Ukraine. The borders between the union republics were rather conditional. But the economic, energy, transport services of the Crimea were tied to Ukraine. Therefore, the "gift" in the form of Crimea for the 300th anniversary of the reunification of Ukraine and Russia is a theatrical gesture.
    Because now a bridge across the Kerch Strait is really needed - otherwise the Crimea will have problems: with water, electricity and so on. There has already been such a bridge, so there is experience.
  17. Pancreas
    Pancreas 4 March 2014 13: 00
    I read yesterday on Facebook the statement of one lady and was stunned.
    lya Tykhonova Khrushchev transferred the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in exchange for the Voronezh, Kursk and Belgorod regions, where Ukrainians still live, where there are still no Ukrainian schools, where no one has been allowed to proclaim an autonomous republic, and so on.

    How much Ukraine learned to interpret history. How many citizens of this country actively hate Russia ... and firmly believe that Russia is an aggressor.

    In 1877, speak beautifully and correctly about this to F.M. Dostoevsky, the truth about another "fraternal" people. -
    html - F.M. Dostoevsky about the Slavs of Europe.
  18. iulai
    iulai 4 March 2014 14: 55
    I read somewhere that Khrushchev gave Crimea in exchange for documents that bore his signatures for execution. Even Stalin put his resolution on one of the lists to be shot: "Calm down!"
    1. I think so
      I think so 8 March 2014 23: 55
      Do not grind rubbish ... The Secretary General could do anything with ANY DOCUMENTS ... This myth with the loss of Crimea due to Khrushchev was invented by the thieves' team of drunk Yeltsin, when, after signing in Viskuly, he sobered up and regained consciousness and realized that ..s.r.a.l.a Crimea ... And here you are making a lot of rubbish in all seriousness ... The brain would be turned on at least sometimes ...
  19. valokordin
    valokordin 4 March 2014 16: 06
    Here I was again expelled when I proposed to compare the party of regions and the party of United Russia. Both ruling parties, which were frightened, probably because of a common denominator. Then the Military Review also has a common denominator. As for the Crimea, the bridge needs to be built faster, and the most important thing is to transfer the energy bridge from the Taman to the Crimea, as on the bottom of the Ladoga. Ukraine needs to be helped selectively, and Crimea will join itself, after a while. Special forces must be sent to Kiev to fight terrorism and fascism.
  20. zinander
    zinander 4 March 2014 16: 59
    Well, Khrushchev’s tyranny, why should a drunk return Crimea? Now there would be a completely different scenario.
    1. I think so
      I think so 8 March 2014 23: 50
      Well, the wino and Crimea ... Under Khrushchev, both Crimea and Ukraine were part of the Russian Empire and were only lost under the wino ...
  21. Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 4 March 2014 23: 47
    I would like to add from my recollections: in 1964 it was planned to create the Steppe Region from the steppe regions of the Kazakh SSR, that is, in fact 3/4 of Kazakhstan, in favor of the RSFSR. There was a leak of information, people anxiously waited for what would happen. As far as I know, everything was ready in the document, but Khrushchev was removed in October 1964 and the issue was removed from the agenda. Now imagine what is the steppe for the Kazakhs, which we call Sary-Arka? After all, without exception, the Kazakhs consider Sary-Ark the center of their civilization. I think, when separating the Steppe Land, the Kazakhs would raise a butch. By the way, in such a climate of -60C - + 60C, it is difficult to survive, but if you are Kazakh, you can. hi
  22. I think so
    I think so 8 March 2014 23: 35
    The article is purely "liberal" ... They try to pass off black as white, hide the REAL culprits and make the innocent guilty ...
    In Russia, it has already become a commonplace to blame Khrushchev for the "loss" of Crimea ... And NOBODY will ask himself, but where does the respected Nikita Sergeevich have to do with it? Under Khrushchev, both Crimea and Ukraine were part of the Russian Empire ... and only after Yeltsin, Crimea and Ukraine were LOST for Russia ... So who is to blame the drunkard Yeltsin or the Khrushchev kukruzovod? It is clear to an unclouded mind that "p.r.os.s.r.a.l" is Crimea Yeltsin for Russia ... Why did he sign the Viskulevsky papers without any conditions? And when Yeltsin's thieves' team woke up ... and the myth was born about Khrushchev's "guilt" in the loss of Crimea by Russia ... Oh, Russians, Russians, well, NOBODY wants to turn on the brain, and then they are offended that they were deceived ...