"Khrushchev" as the first restructuring

"Khrushchev" as the first restructuring120 years ago, 17 April 1894, was born Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev. During the years of Gorbachev's perestroika and 1990 reforms, the liberal-democratic circles tried to create an image of a reformer, almost a hero, who tried to get rid of the "bloody" Stalinist heritage. The epoch of Khrushchev was called the "thaw".


However, the facts suggest otherwise. “Perestroika”, organized by Mikhail S. Gorbachev, which led to enormous geopolitical, territorial, economic and demographic losses (they cannot be compared with the invasion of the Hitlerite hordes), was not the first. The first “perestroika” in the Soviet Union was headed by N. S. Khrushchev, who essentially implemented the strategic plans of the American and British intelligence services. It is enough to recall the 20 / 1 memorandum of the US National Security Council (“Tasks for Russia”) of 18 in August 1948 (sometimes referred to as the “Dulles Plan”). The first "perestroika" in the USSR was not completely completed. Khrushchev could neutralize. However, he brought a lot of evil with his business.

Khrushchev's poisonous trail stretches from his affairs in Ukraine. The organization of the assassination of Stalin and Beria allowed Khrushchev to lead the USSR and make a radical reversal of the country. The USSR abandoned the former civilization and state policy. No wonder that Lyndon LaRouche, an American economist and political activist who was a candidate in eight presidential elections in the United States, accused Khrushchev of a number of his speeches in the direct betrayal of the people of the USSR and the political line of his former leadership.

Often, modern publicists and researchers, including those of a socialist nature, shield Khrushchev, make him a fool, a jester with a “tyrant” who can only knock on the podium and promise to show the Americans “fucking mother”. Like, the jester pea, worked and did not give himself a report on what and why. However, this is a mistake or a conscious deception. The nearness and a certain simplicity were just an image, a kind of cover, behind which was the true nature of Khrushchev.

It must be said that Khrushchev even Stalin was able to convince that he was a kind of “shirt-guy”, a man from a plow, and many political subtleties are inaccessible to his understanding. Therefore, Stalin did not notice the threat from Khrushchev. He deceived Beria too. Lawrence Pavlovich did not understand Khrushchev, even for a long time considered him a friend. Beria comradely helped the “simple guy”. When Beria figured out the true essence of Khrushchev, it was already too late. "Jester" held all and reached the top of the Soviet Olympus, eliminating all competitors.

In this case, it is not necessary to consider Khrushchev and the "genius" who won all the court struggle. He was a cunning man, but he did not have the mind of Stalin or Beria. If you take his biography, it seems that he was "led" by others, much smarter and more powerful, forces and people. They needed such a person at the throne or on him. With the help of Khrushchev, it was possible to deliver a mortal blow to the Stalinist empire. It was a man-destroyer.

Khrushchev at the beginning of his career was a repentant Trotskyist. At the beginning of the 1920s, he was nearly wiped out of the party because he was “moved”, that is, he got carried away with personal enrichment. Khrushchev repented of his sins before Kaganovich, who became his first patron. Then his career was promoted by Stalin's wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva. The rise of Khrushchev took place against the backdrop of the purges of the Trotskyists and Zinovievists. In 1935, Khrushchev led the Moscow party organization and fully manifested his brutal nature in the campaigns of the “big terror” in Moscow, and then in Ukraine. In January 1938, Khrushchev was appointed first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine. Khrushchev was not a sadist or a pathological killer, like some members of the Leninist Guard, but he was a soulless careerist who was ready to go after their heads for personal gain. An interesting fact is that many of these figures, who in those years "bent the stick," paid for it and became the "victims" of Stalinist repression. However, Khrushchev passed this fate.

And in the future Khrushchev was distinguished by a strange "unsinkability." Thus, in the 1942 year, Khrushchev, being a member of the military council of the front, along with Marshal Tymoshenko, suggested attacking near Kharkov from the Barvenkovsky bulge. The General Staff objected, considering that the offensive from the ledge, an almost ready "boiler", was dangerous. However, Khrushchev insisted on his own, convinced Stalin. It all ended in a catastrophe of the entire southern strategic direction. The German armies were stopped only in Stalingrad and in the North Caucasus. Others paid for such mistakes with their heads, with their careers, at least with reductions in rank. Khrushchev did not suffer at all. In 1943, he even got the rank of lieutenant general.

In 1946-1947 Khrushchev again in Ukraine, led by the Communist Party of the Ukrainian SSR. By his ill-considered actions, he worsened the work of agriculture and seriously aggravated the situation. At the time, and so was a poor harvest. Hunger began. Khrushchev seemed to fall into disgrace, but immediately became the head of agriculture. Here, too, he screwed up his experiments and "reforms." However, Khrushchev is not only not punished, but also appointed the first secretary of the Moscow regional party committee and secretary of the Central Committee.

Khrushchev took part in the conspiracy against Stalin. It is clear that he himself could not invent this thing. But he took advantage of the general mood. During this period, the “old guard” (except Beria) feared a new “purge”. The USSR and the party was on the verge of a grandiose change. Stalin planned to “refresh the blood” of the party and state elite. The process of change of personnel was gaining momentum and threatened the “old guard” with the loss of warm places and feeding places.

In fact, the death of Stalin and then the murder of Beria were the first steps of the “first perestroika”. At the October 1952 Plenum, Joseph Vissarionovich expressed the opinion that tentatively in 1962-1965, if the economic growth rates in the Soviet Union remain the same, the transition from socialism to communism will become possible. And this transition will begin with the elimination of money. They will remain only for trade with other countries. Stalin challenged the entire "backstage of the world", so its Soviet periphery was activated and did everything to prevent it. The Stalinist course threatened the masters of the West with complete defeat. The very basis of their power was undermined - the monetary system with its loan (usurious) interest.

It was also necessary to get rid of Stalin because Joseph Vissarionovich put forward the idea of ​​a gradual reorganization of the Communist Party. She was the governing body was to become a kind of forge of management personnel ("the Soviet Order of the Sword"). The party was planned to be removed from real power, it had to focus on educating people and society. Management was to pass into the hands of elected Soviet bodies. This perspective greatly frightened most of the “old guard”. In its depths and was born a conspiracy that led to the elimination of Stalin and Beria.

The second terrible blow to the future of the USSR was Khrushchev's report on the personality cult of Stalin at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the USSR in February 1956 of the year. This report became a kind of reference point for the “restructuring” of the USSR, the abolition of the Stalinist course, which led to the construction of a qualitatively different society, a society of creation and service. Anti-socialist and anti-people reforms began, which ultimately destroyed the USSR in 1991. In addition, the anti-Stalinist campaign in the country undermined the credibility of Moscow by members of the socialist camp. So, relations with China were spoiled, where respect for Stalin was very great.

Khrushchev's “perestroika” dealt a powerful blow to the Soviet armed forces and security agencies. It should be noted that Khrushchev initially used the generals for their own purposes. First to eliminate Beria. In this case, he was greatly helped by Zhukov. Beria was dangerous because he planned to continue the Stalinist course and uncovered an anti-Stalinist conspiracy. True, I did not have time to do anything. He was simply killed, without trial. The appearance of the investigation and the court organized after the murder. At the same time, under the cover of the “Beria case”, a wave of terror swept among diplomats, intelligence officers and in the scientific institutions supervised by Beria.

Khrushchev and his masters struck at the Soviet security system. Dekanozov and Kobulov were shot as “executioners of Beria”. Although they had nothing to do with punitive bodies, they were engaged in diplomacy and intelligence. Cleaned up scientific institutions. The strategic intelligence system was deliberately crushed, which helped us win the Great Patriotic War and get ahead in the field of advanced technologies. The best specialists in this field — Reichman, Sudoplatov, Eitingon, Meshik, Zarubin, Korotkov, and others — fell under the roller of repression. Some were liquidated, others were planted, others were dismissed. Those who survived, then long bothered about rehabilitation.

Gradually removing the former allies, Khrushchev was able to get the full power. Malenkov was removed from his post as chairman of the Council of Ministers. He was also helped by the military. Minister of Defense Bulganin received the post of head of government, and Zhukov became Minister of Defense. Then the “anti-Party group” lost its posts - Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich and their supporters. Again Khrushchev supported Zhukov. However, he soon paid for his short-sightedness. Khrushchev feared a popular and strong-willed marshal, who could become an obstacle in the "optimization" of the armed forces. Just four months after the victory over the "anti-Party group," when the Minister of Defense went abroad, Khrushchev made a decree "on the cult of Zhukov’s personality and his penchant for adventurism, opening the way to Bonapartism." Marshall fired from all positions and dismissed. Then Khrushchev dismissed Bulganin, becoming the head of the government.

Having received the full power, Khrushchev showed himself in all its glory. The military was "optimized." Priority was given to ballistic missiles, nuclear arms. The remaining types and types of troops underwent a serious reduction. Moreover, they cut them alive, massively reduced the most experienced combat personnel. Destroyed the Stalinist program for the construction of the most powerful ocean naval fleet. Even the ships already ready or at various stages of construction were safely sent for scrap. The rest remained on paper.

A powerful blow was delivered to the Air Force. Khrushchev believed that a certain number of ballistic missiles was enough. Under Stalin, a lot of work was done on the creation of aircraft. The most important industry, without which the full sovereignty of the country is impossible, was created practically from scratch. More than a dozen different design bureaus appeared in which excellent domestic fighters, attack aircraft and front-line bombers were constructed. The best scientists and engineers of the country worked in these design bureaus. After the war, began to create strategic bombers. Dozens of aircraft factories, engine-building enterprises and factories for the smelting of aircraft alloys worked in the Union. On this magnificent heritage Khrushchev and hit. Many pilots then, with tears in their eyes, recalled how excellent cars were sent by hundreds for scrapping. A number of promising programs have closed. Thus, the “military reform” of Khrushchev well resembles the “reforms” of Gorbachev and Yeltsin when they reduced the “excess power” of the Soviet superpower.

Khrushchev's “reforms” were chaotic and disorderly, and at the same time they were systematic. The essence of this system is destruction. With all their apparent confusion and irregularity, with all the broadest spectrum of Khrushchev inventions, one can always single out one common pattern. All reforms led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Khrushchev's transformations shook the Soviet system, weakened the USSR. In order for the Soviet people to disbelieve and become disillusioned with socialism, in the government's course, Khrushchev at once destroyed the basic socialist principle: "To each according to his work." Everywhere in the USSR introduced equalization. No matter how hard you work, you won’t get more of your bet. Labor devalued. Under Stalin, a professor or designer could receive more than a minister. Under Khrushchev, a high-class specialist could receive less than an ordinary worker. At the same time, labor standards were raised, and wage growth was frozen. In fact, Khrushchev ended Stalinist socialism. Under Stalin, how much you earned, and received so much. The output standards did not increase monthly. The output standards increased depending on the introduction of new capacities, technologies and equipment in production.

The violation of the basic socialist principle unleashed the party and the state from the people. The party-bureaucratic nomenklatura began to degenerate rapidly, to separate from the common people. The top of the nomenklatura began to turn into a new class of exploiters. It is clear that it was a long process, invisible to most people. But by the 1980 years, the process of decay became irreversible and led to the death of the USSR. New "masters of life" wanted to become official "boyars." For this, Gorbachev's “perestroika” was launched. Khrushchev socialism gradually turned into a form of capitalism - state capitalism. And the constant rise in prices for essential goods, which began under Khrushchev, was the main feature of a capitalist society.

Blow to agriculture

Khrushchev, considering himself a great specialist in the field of agriculture, launched several destructive projects at once. At the end of the Stalin era and in the first years after his death, agriculture developed successfully. However, the successful rise of agriculture quickly came to an end. Khrushchev suddenly ordered the liquidation of state machine-tractor stations (MTS). These state-owned enterprises on a contractual basis with agricultural collective farms carried out their production and technical services. Most of the collective and state farms did not have enough money to independently buy complex agricultural machines, tractors and ensure their uninterrupted work, to train the corresponding personnel. In addition, the technology in the first stages was not enough, and there was a need for its concentration and centralized distribution. The concentration of large-scale agricultural equipment in the MTS gave in such conditions a great economic gain. In addition, the MTS played a significant role in the general rise in the cultural and technical level of the peasantry. In the USSR, a large stratum of rural technically literate population appeared - skilled tractor drivers, drivers, combiners, repairmen, etc. In total, there were about 1958 million people by the 2 year.

Khrushchev also liquidated the MTS and ordered the collective farms to buy out tractors, combines and other equipment. And the prices were set high. Collective farms had to spend all the savings that were left over for 1954-1956 for the purchase of equipment. Collective farms could not immediately create an appropriate base for the storage and maintenance of equipment. In addition, they did not have relevant specialists. They could not massively attract former employees of MTS. The state could afford to pay MTS workers a bigger salary than collective farms. Most workers found a different use. As a result, many cars turned into scrap metal. Continuous losses. This greatly undermined the economic potential of the Soviet countryside.

Nikita Khrushchev launched a campaign to consolidate collective farms. Their number was reduced from 83 thousand to 45 thousand. It was believed that they would unite into powerful "collective farm unions". As a result, Khrushchev hoped to implement his old project on the creation of "agro-cities". However, this project required large investments, which the collective farms did not have. Collective farms and so have spent the last funds for the purchase of equipment. As a result, the enlargement campaign failed.

At the same time, Khrushchev struck another blow to the Russian countryside. Moscow took course on the elimination of "unpromising villages." The “experts” who came from where they began to evaluate which villages could be left and which had no prospects. Top descended instructions to search for "unpromising" villages. Residents of "unpromising" villages were resettled, villages and farms were empty throughout the Soviet Union. This campaign has caused terrible harm to the Russian countryside. First of all, the indigenous Russian regions suffered. The damage was multifaceted - from damage to agriculture to a demographic attack on the Russian people. After all, it was the Russian village that gave the main increase to the superethnos of the Rus.

All this took place against the backdrop of investing huge amounts of money and effort on development of virgin and fallow lands of the Volga region, South Siberia, Kazakhstan and the Far East. The idea was correct, but it was necessary to conduct the case rationally, gradually, without a constant race and work in hand. The program was supposed to be long-term. However, everything was done in a hurry. The development of virgin soil gave rise to several misfortunes. On the one hand, this hasty and ill-considered project has invested a lot of money, money and effort. This money could be used more profitably. Thousands of specialists, volunteers and equipment threw themselves on the “virgin front”. According to the Komsomol assignments, young people were driven into the Kazakh steppes, they sent technical specialists, sent whole issues to teachers, doctors and agronomists. They also sent young collective farmers from "unpromising" places. In fact, it was a massive deportation of Russians from their indigenous lands, which at that time were deserted. On the other hand, after a few years, vast areas of developed lands began to turn into desert and salt marshes. There was an environmental problem. Again, we had to invest a lot of money and effort, now for rescue activities, such as forest plantations.

Added "corn fever", "meat campaign" and "dairy records", which finally knocked down agriculture. In the Soviet Union, there was the problem of forage crops, and Khrushchev declared corn a panacea for all ills. In many ways, it was influenced by a trip to the United States, where corn was one of the main crops. In 1955 — 1962 The area under corn has doubled. Had to reduce the crops of other cultures. Moreover, corn was sown even in those regions that did not fit this agricultural crop due to its natural and climatic conditions. So, there are even jokes on this subject: “Well, Koryak brothers, we sow corn?” “We sow,” answered the Koryaks, putting on fur coats. About crop failure Khrushchev did not want to hear. Those managers who could not ensure the corn harvest were removed from their posts. Therefore, many executives, in order to maintain their posts, wrote about high yields, went for fraud, registry.

In 1957, the “meat campaign” began. Khrushchev called for three years to triple the production of meat. The first secretary of the Ryazan regional committee Larionov promised to triple the production in a year. The idea was supported by some other areas. Larionov received for this the promise of the Hero of Socialist Labor. In the region, in order to fulfill this promise, they began to slaughter all the young stock and buy meat from the population and outside the Ryazan region. The purchases had to spend funds that were allocated for construction, health care and education. Plan fulfilled. However, next year the region was obliged to raise the bar even more. The region was unable to give almost anything, the funds were spent, and all the cattle were beaten. Larionov committed suicide.

Began and so-called. "Second collectivization". In 1959, all personal livestock were ordered to be redeemed from the population, and household plots and household plots were prohibited. They say that household farms prevent collective farmers from giving up all their labor for the benefit of the Motherland. Household farms gave the collective farmers considerable support, supplied products to the markets. Now the already living poor peasants were ruined. The flight from the Soviet villages began: many left for the cities, others to the virgin lands, where there were decent earnings and it was possible to "break out into people."

To be continued ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aldo April 17 2014 09: 37 New
    • -12
    • 0
    -12
    now looking for enemies among the rulers further and Yeltsin agent and Khrushchev agent and Gorbachev agent. In short, insanity grows stronger ...
    Do not judge and will not be judged. Only the Russians have somehow forgotten this principle, while the Chinese atheists apply it. For example, they do not criticize the MAO, although he encouraged his mother not to grieve. In short, the old rotten system, all past rulers are bad, I'm handsome. Instead of Putin, another will come, he will say that Putin is a traitor and the vicious circle will continue.
    1. Energet1k_
      Energet1k_ April 17 2014 10: 40 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Yes, maybe some facts were “drawn” to the negative picture of Khrushchev for the big picture, but one cannot but admit that the person (Khrushchev) who came to power began to zealously change everything that was created before him, and to change it consciously and systematically, this there is some sort of logic. But for what he did this, we probably will not know. Maybe he had some kind of his vision of the future, maybe he was someone else’s agent, maybe the person who knows him is just not a distant mind ..
      Vissarionovich at the October Plenum of 1952 expressed the opinion that approximately in 1962-1965, if the pace of economic growth in the Soviet Union remains the same, it will be possible to switch from socialism to communism

      If anyone knows where to get literature to read about this, I will be very grateful.
      1. alleksSalut4507 April 20 2014 22: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        read- "Stalin-ice throne", "Red Monarch".
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. goose April 17 2014 11: 35 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      They do not judge him, but they study errors. It seems to me that he was most mistaken in introducing devastating taxes on private household plots, which contributed to the decomposition of the peasantry.
      True, no one recalls that at that time collective farmers bought 20 rolls of bread every day — feed pigs and cows, because bread was cheaper than feed. So without the background on which decisions were made, their assessment, to put it mildly, will be ambiguous.
      1. RUSS April 17 2014 13: 55 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: goose
        that at that time collective farmers bought 20 rolls of bread every day - feed pigs and cows


        I have a grandmother and in the 80s fed pigs bread.
      2. Wheel April 18 2014 01: 14 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: goose
        True, no one recalls that at that time collective farmers bought 20 rolls of bread every day — feed pigs and cows, because bread was cheaper than feed. So without the background on which decisions were made, their assessment, to put it mildly, will be ambiguous.

        You and Brezhnev’s times have beguiled it.
        Quote: goose
        It seems to me that he was most mistaken in introducing devastating taxes on private household plots, which contributed to the decomposition of the peasantry.

        Again beguiled.
        Under Khrushchev, taxes on PX just reduced.
        And the peasantry was decomposed by the liquidation of the MTS, the enlargement of collective farms, unpromising villages and the liquidation of farms.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. IS-80 April 17 2014 12: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Aldo, and maybe enough of us to teach and carry all nonsense?
      1. Aldo April 17 2014 12: 28 New
        • -9
        • 0
        -9
        it’s you raving, in the midst of cheers-patriotism, where there is only Putin, the tsar-father and Stalin!
        1. IS-80 April 17 2014 12: 48 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          I watch the disease right before my eyes progressing. Let's continue in the same spirit soon you will reach "who does not ride, that yorys". Fortunately, not all Kazakhs are so inadequate.
          1. Aldo April 17 2014 13: 05 New
            • -6
            • 0
            -6
            fortunately, not all Russians are such chauvinists! All the best!
            1. saber1357
              saber1357 April 17 2014 23: 08 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              - In Russia they say the worst environment for ... p.

              “You say something is wrong with us, in Russia?”

              - Well, then you - ... p is.
        2. saber1357
          saber1357 April 17 2014 23: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          transhomo-liberal alcoholic delirium in the frenzy of corrupt liberbodelianism
        3. Wheel April 18 2014 01: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Aldo
          it’s you raving, in the midst of cheers-patriotism, where there is only Putin, the tsar-father and Stalin!

          No, there is Nazarbayev! hi
    6. RUSS April 17 2014 13: 54 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Aldo
      now looking for enemies among the rulers further and Yeltsin agent and Khrushchev agent and Gorbachev agent. In short, insanity grows stronger ...


      And we always have ...


      Quote: Aldo
      Instead of Putin, another will come, he will say that Putin is a traitor and the vicious circle will continue.


      It will certainly be so.
    7. EvilLion April 17 2014 14: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And in Kazakhstan you just would be silent.
    8. crbvbyjr
      crbvbyjr April 17 2014 22: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      judge and be ready to answer for your words and deeds. and the fact that the humpback with ebn traitors does not see it is only the same
    9. saber1357
      saber1357 April 17 2014 23: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You know, there is such a rule - to speak with people in their native language. And now I’ll tell this to our Amer Aldo - Dear Aldo, go f..ck yourself as you usually do in that dark corner of your mindless mind, if you dont mind. if you stilla do, go do that again and stop messing with our brains, you half idiot bastard of three transsexuals.
    10. Wheel April 18 2014 00: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Aldo
      now looking for enemies among the rulers further and Yeltsin agent and Khrushchev agent and Gorbachev agent. In short, insanity grows stronger ... Do not judge and you will not be judged.

      No, my friend, no one is looking for enemies, they are all known.
      By the way, they annoyed not only Russia, but also your native Kazakhstan.
      You quickly forgot that you were in a single family of peoples.

      You just need to know your story. Without embellishment and the influence of the political moment.
    11. 225chay
      225chay April 18 2014 05: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Aldo
      now looking for enemies among the rulers further and Yeltsin agent and Khrushchev agent and Gorbachev agent. In short, insanity grows stronger ...


      What can I say. Khrushchev (Perlmutter) is a hybrid of a humpbacked one with a Benny Eltsin, something that was useful to him and there was but a lot of harm! Mason probably as always happens ...
      1. Aldo April 18 2014 05: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I look here a gracious chauvinist environment gathered and sing in unison. Spit, spit, look do not suffocate in your spitting!
    12. dvortsov1984 29 November 2014 16: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The fact is that in the history of Russia it has always been so. After a sensible, and in some cases even a great leader, came ... a nerd who let all achievements down the line, declaring them false and wrong, trying to hide his worthlessness and incompetence. I really would not want such a person to come after Putin.
  2. Wolland
    Wolland April 17 2014 10: 17 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Yes, do not get excited so that no matter what the ruler, there are always his supporters and opponents .... this is a pattern.
  3. parusnik April 17 2014 10: 38 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    So look, Khrushchev and Gorbachev, twin brothers .. Bear, identity with de-Stalinization, Operation "Perestroika" began ..
  4. Good cat April 17 2014 11: 27 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Here is stsuka corn, a traitor or not, just stsuka
    1. Rasputin
      Rasputin April 17 2014 17: 34 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Cat with castrated brains.
      If not for corn, there was no way to feed the entire livestock in the 60s and 70s. In the USA and in the EU, about 200 types of products are produced! And what's wrong with her?
      Thanks to him, since 56g. people began to eat their fill! As a student, we went to the railway canteen and bought tea, and the bread was free.
      It was with him that the commandant’s office was canceled for second-class citizens, or rather non-citizens.
      That then in the cities they introduced the norm for bread - it was a hidden sabotage of part-households. tops, as the day after its removal, the bread became in bulk.
      He also naguradil not bad, and the cult of personality ..., well, as under Stalin. Or maybe it's such a people that without soap in ...., and then from heartburn and a hedgehog in his pants like he is about the Cuban crisis.
      1. Wheel April 18 2014 01: 29 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Rasputin
        If not for corn, there was no way to feed the entire livestock in the 60s and 70s.

        Yah???
        I am giving you a great revelation that it was precisely thanks to his innovations in the agricultural sector that the Union was forced to purchase feed grain in the USA and Canada.
        Quote: Rasputin
        In the USA and in the EU, about 200 types of products are produced! And what's wrong with her?
        In her?
        There is nothing bad, except that in the climatic conditions of most regions of the USSR it does not ripen.
        Quote: Rasputin
        Thanks to him, since 56g. people began to eat their fill! As a student, we went to the railway canteen and bought tea, and the bread was free.

        Uh, let me ask how old you are if you are a 56-year-old student who has eaten enough, hmm, some free tea and bread.
        Quote: Rasputin
        That then in the cities they introduced the norm for bread - it was a hidden sabotage of part-households. tops, as the day after its removal, the bread became in bulk.

        Right the next day?
  5. RoTTor April 17 2014 11: 32 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    the most cunning intriguer, who managed to get into confidence in STALIN, push aside the old guard, and even beat Beria.
    - an unprincipled scum that dealt not only with opponents and competitors, but also with those who saved him and brought him to power, starting with Kaganovich and ending with Zhukov And Furtseva.
    - poorly educated and arrogant with irrepressible initiative, several times putting the world on the brink of the Third World Nuclear War.
    - a sneak, who became the absolute leader in mass repressions and managed to “turn the arrows” on others, remaining himself as he was not at his innumerable black deeds.

    Enumerate his guilt indefinitely. Those who are interested know themselves who are not, and that is not necessary.

    Those who have hooked his time even a little, remember how he weary everyone with his stupid innovations, which were brought to complete insanity by his lackeys-sneakers in the republics and below.

    Whoever remembers this will confirm that the news of his withdrawal in October 1964 was received by ALL and with the WELCOME OF DEEP AND SINCERE SATISFACTION.
    1. Rasputin
      Rasputin April 17 2014 17: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      you in vain about the "old guard" he has nothing to do with it. Under Stalin, she did not have time to grow old, as she was allowed into consumption. Particularly close LIZUDS were able to survive it and even survived, to a very old age, Molotov for example. Sneaks were EVERYTHING! Try not to wave it, in the morning there will already be a prison breakfast and this is at best.
      Yes, he is tired of the order and even schoolchildren. Initially, Lenya was nothing, but then he got up on the rails and ended with the Great War on Small Earth and Afghanistan.
      1. crbvbyjr
        crbvbyjr April 17 2014 22: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        hear well you and the cockroaches just go nuts which in your head.
      2. Wheel April 18 2014 01: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Rasputin
        Particularly close LIZUDS were able to survive it and even survived, to a very old age, Molotov for example.

        Lizuns, you say?
        Only for some reason, the same Molotov categorically refused to lick Khrushchev, and Kaganovich too.
        Maybe the point is not at all the desire to lick, but a certain ideology (although you don’t understand)?
    2. Wheel April 18 2014 01: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: RoTTor
      Anyone who has hooked his time even a little, remember how he weary everyone with his stupid innovations, which brought him to complete insanity in republics and below, who remembers this and confirms that the news of his withdrawal in October 1964 was received ALL AND WITH THE DEEP AND SINCERFUL SATISFACTION.

      Verily!
      I remember how my father and friends celebrated.
  6. sv68 April 17 2014 12: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    an interesting fact from history - in the sixties, in Rostov-on-Don, in the city center, flower beds were planted in which only corn grew, there was nothing else to plant there
  7. inkass_98 April 17 2014 12: 21 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Khrushchev is also a product of his time and it is not worth demonizing him by hanging all the dogs. Be that as it may, after Stalin the decisions made by the party and government leaders were mostly collective - figures not of the scale to take something serious personally, and even then bear responsibility for this. Yes, there was a horse guide Nikita, and the rest followed him, but then again they threw him again collectively. So the article is quite controversial, with the attraction of many points over the ears.
    1. atos_kin April 17 2014 13: 05 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The article shows only the tip of the iceberg of all the troubles brought by the horsetail people. The situation in Ukraine is also a consequence of his filthy hands.
    2. creak April 17 2014 15: 04 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Exactly so, convicting Khrushchev of all conceivable and unimaginable sins, for example, the author does not mention such a “trifle” in his opinion - an attempt made by Khrushchev to solve the housing problem on a countrywide scale. in droves massed from communal apartments to their own, albeit small by modern standards, but separate apartments. This step does not fit into the diligently written out image of the enemy. And in some places, the author simply goes for forgiveness - given that many do not know how things really were - for example, Eitingon was arrested while Stalin was still alive in 1951, and Dekanozov managed to register for the post of chief of the Main NKVD State Security Directorate (he was only a diplomat by author), etc. The list of such “revelations” can be continued ... So there is no need to sculpt the image of the enemy from Khrushchev, he was a product of his era and there is no need to hang other people's sins on him, he and his own have enough ...
      1. RUSS April 17 2014 15: 58 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: ranger
        ..Therefore, it is not necessary to sculpt the image of the enemy from Khrushchev, he was a product of his era and there is no need to hang other people's sins on him, he and his own have enough ...


        I want to remind you that space exploration and the first manned space flight were under Khrushchev, but I personally remember his time also with new persecutions of the church.
      2. Wheel April 18 2014 01: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: ranger
        Exactly so, convicting Khrushchev of all conceivable and unimaginable sins, for example, the author does not mention such a “trifle” in his opinion - an attempt made by Khrushchev to solve the housing problem on a countrywide scale. in droves massed from communal apartments to their own, albeit small by modern standards, but separate apartments.

        Are you sure that with the continuation of the "Stalinist line" the housing problem would not be solved? And something tells me that is much more effective.
        Dekanozov, before being appointed to diplomatic work, managed to check in as the head of the Main Directorate of State Security of the NKVD

        So what?
        If Beria was set up to stop the wave of repression, and Dekanozov was a member of his team, does this change anything?
        for example, Eitingon was arrested during the lifetime of Stalin in 1951.
        For example, after the death of Stalin he was released.
        And?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. creak April 18 2014 11: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And the fact that these comrades, according to the author, fell under the rink of repression under Khrushchev - if Eitingon, Zarubin and others were repressed and dismissed during the lifetime of Stalin, then what does Khrushchev have to do with it? And what about the assertion that Dekanozov was only a diplomat, why deny the obvious and why he was denied rehabilitation in 2000 ... Probably for his services in the diplomatic field ...
      3. alleksSalut4507 April 20 2014 23: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Projects of prefabricated houses were considered under IVS.Xp, it simply “arrived in time.” It could have been a product, but it wasn’t enough for something else, it was too hard, or knowingly, but there was no flight. Hand over meat, milk, butter, eggs. no, buy and hand over.
    3. creak April 17 2014 15: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Exactly so, convicting Khrushchev of all conceivable and unimaginable sins, for example, the author does not mention such a “trifle” in his opinion - an attempt made by Khrushchev to solve the housing problem on a countrywide scale. These, as they are called today, were once a real gift for people in droves massed from communal apartments to their own, albeit small by modern standards, but separate apartments. This step does not fit into the diligently written out image of the enemy. And in some places, the author simply goes for forgiveness - in view of the fact that many do not know how things really were - for example, Eitingon was arrested while Stalin was still alive in 1951, and Dekanozov managed to register for the post of chief chief The NKVD State Security Directorate (he was only a diplomat by author), etc. And the author probably "forgot" that the intelligence agencies (and those of the NDVD and the GRU) thoroughly cleared even before the Second World War in the late 30s .... List such "revelations" can be continued ... So do not sculpt from Khrushchev, the image of the enemy, he was a product of his era and there is no need to hang other people's sins on him, he has enough of his own, as well as any leader ...
      1. IS-80 April 17 2014 17: 41 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: ranger
        Exactly so, convicting Khrushchev of all conceivable and inconceivable sins, for example, the author does not mention such “trifles” in his opinion — an attempt made by Khrushchev to solve the housing problem nationwide.


        Stalin began to solve it, and Khrushchev only continued, and not in the most successful way. Decree of GKO No. 5948 “On the creation of an industrial base for mass housing construction” dated 23.05.1944.
  8. RUSS April 17 2014 14: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Khrushchev is now in trend, this is now a kind of “Stalin 2”, I mean that it is now fashionable, correct and “historically true” to scold and blame Khrushch.
  9. Igor39 April 17 2014 14: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Chastushka of times of Khrushchev
    Do not go girls to marry Ivan Kuzin
    Ivan Kuzin has big corn! laughing
  10. sledge April 17 2014 15: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    What is history, if not a fable in which everyone agreed to believe. Napoleon
  11. qwert April 17 2014 15: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In my opinion, the author clearly wrote what Khrushchev did. And how everyone’s business relates to this. It would be foolish for a resident of Nevada to consider Khrushchev bad; to all Abramovichs, he also probably seems to be the only good general secretary. And it's silly to argue with them.
    As I grew up in the USSR and Russia, it is clear to me that his reforms took away a lot of manpower and resources from the state and slowed down the economy. The author really made me wonder if it was not so much heaped up consciously. It seems that each decision individually is stupidity or naivety, and if everything is examined at once .... Maybe a conscious destruction of the foundations and the economy laid down by the predecessor? And why he acted so, now and do not know. Not an acceptance of socialism? Resentment against Stalin? Just old but lively hobbies of Trotskyism? Or the desire to create your own world, so that later you can speak here it is a country created by Khrushchev, because everything in it is on the basis that was not before it. Here he is the great reformer and Leader. Vanity ... I think the matter is in it ...
  12. atos_kin April 17 2014 16: 23 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I’ll add to the “blessed” memory of this activist: 11.04.63/92/XNUMX a resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On measures to improve the activities of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the academies of the Union republics" was issued. Over the course of two years, half of the institutes in the Academy of Engineering were mainly reduced in engineering (XNUMX), in which a third of all Academy employees worked.
  13. cerbuk6155 April 17 2014 16: 23 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Read a book who is interested in the fleet that destroyed the Khrushchev. Some facts. soldier
  14. Logos April 17 2014 16: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    By the way, it was Beria who began the process of de-Stalinization. For example, it was with his decree that the first amnesty occurred, which freed a considerable number of Gulag prisoners.
    And here's what is interesting: to listen to the Stalinists, so practically all the nominees of Stalin - Yagoda, Yezhov, Malenkov, Khrushchev and others - are enemies of the people. In this connection, a logical question arises: who then was Stalin himself, who had put forward them at one time, or is he also an enemy of the people?
    1. Rasputin
      Rasputin April 17 2014 17: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I absolutely agree with you! As Talkov said in the song: "And he went to fight, for the influence of the people, with his own people!"
      1. alleksSalut4507 April 20 2014 23: 31 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        no matter how you say, but the IVS is the Emperor. ruled tightly. even Father Sakhalin took
  15. Logos April 17 2014 16: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: cerbuk6155
    Read a book who is interested in the fleet that destroyed the Khrushchev. Some facts. soldier

    The facts are that it was under Khrushchev that the program for building battleships that were outdated by the time the class was curtailed, and resources were redirected to the construction of missile cruisers and submarines. And it was the right decision, I think
  16. Gomunkul April 17 2014 16: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The first “perestroika” in the Soviet Union was led by N. S. Khrushchev, who, in fact, realized the strategic plans of the American and British special services.
    It is not entirely correct to consider Khrushchev as an ideological fighter with the Soviet regime, the clans in power were always and not always their interests coincided, hence the coups d'etat and conspiracies. With the death of Stalin, the clan led by Khrushchev seized power, the Beria clan was defeated. And his denial of all Stalin’s recalls the time from history when, after the death of Catherine II, her son Paul I ascended to the throne changed a lot in his own way, as a result of his actions they led to a conspiracy of the nobles and the coming to power of Alexander I, with the expectation that everything will be as with his "grandmother". Once again, I’m not defending Khrushchev, but blaming all the blame only on him during his reign will not be entirely right, he also had like-minded associates, without whom you cannot hold power. hi
  17. siberalt April 17 2014 18: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Call at least how long the history of Russia without “perestroika”? If you dig Khrushchev, then the reference point is taken from 1917. Leninism - yes. Stalin - re * visionist. Stop, stop. But wasn’t Lenin the first “perestroika” from tsarism to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and then from it to the NEP. For 5 years to build the USSR and back into private property. But didn’t Stalin rebuild the entire economy of the USSR with Beria? Didn’t they create the corresponding system of state administration? What is the difference with the subsequent perestroika (Khrushchev, Gorbachev, and Yeltsin, which is there). Any sweep and correspondence of the legislative field is material evidence of this.
    The point here is the struggle within the elite for their "cookies." And the criterion of his chosen leader - from personal corruption to the West. If someone believes that the post-Stalinist legacy from Khrushchev to Andropov was corrupt, they are deeply mistaken. You just need to realize the realities when this happened. To look not at the position of a visitor to the zoo, but from nature, when you are in it without a gun.
    History is always progressive. Jumps to the side are corrected by time. Nobody has yet repealed the laws of nature, as well as their integral part - the law of social development. We will not spit in our past. But it’s useful to draw conclusions in order to avoid runs on the staff circle. Something like this.
    1. alleksSalut4507 April 20 2014 23: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      it’s just that everyone has different brains. For some, the system works ..
  18. Delmano
    Delmano April 29 2014 11: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You can read more in the books of Mukhin Yu.I.
  19. Grach-25sm 8 September 2017 02: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I hate Khrushchev !!! It was he who screwed up so that he undermined the power of the USSR! And - in everything that concerned. am