Military Review

"Khrushchev" as the first restructuring. Part of 2

36
Industry


Khrushchev launched large-scale reforms in industry. In 1957, the course was set for the decentralization of the national economy. Branch ministries, allied and republican, were liquidated. Instead, they began to create economic councils (councils of the national economy) on a territorial basis. In one or another area, factories and plants, which often belonged to different departments and branches, began to be united under general management.

This led to chaos, disruption of supply and financing, severing of industry connections and other negative processes. As a result, economic councils began to be enlarged, republican, and then all-union, regional governments were created over regional ones. However, the situation is not straightened. After the resignation of Khrushchev, it was decided to abandon economic councils and return to the sectoral management system. Industrial ministries restored.

There were other "imbalances." Under Stalin, during industrialization and post-war reconstruction, priorities were given to heavy industry, the production of means of production. Then it was justified. However, under Khrushchev, the bias in favor of heavy industry even exceeded that of Stalin. If in 1954, heavy industry accounted for 70% of products, by the beginning of 1960-s, the list reached 75%. Consumer goods simply began to disappear from the shelves. And this while the destruction of agriculture.

Khrushchev's experiments in the sphere of national economy led to an outflow of gold from the country. By 1965, the government sold over 3 thousand tons of gold. Most of it was sold in 1963 — 1964, when the economic reform of 1957 of the year gained its full force. In 1964, there was a significant shortage of bread, the country was on the verge of starvation, and for the first time the Soviet leadership stories countries went to the purchase of grain abroad. In 1920-1940-ies the Soviet peasantry was very hard, but the bread was exported. Earned currency. Under Khrushchev, Soviet gold flowed to the West.

Administrative changes

Khrushchev laid a few "mines" and under the administrative-territorial division of the USSR. On his initiative, in 1954, the Crimea region from the RSFSR was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR. Crimea never belonged to Ukraine, but it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR. It remains unknown who from advisers suggested this idea to Khrushchev, but it turned out that this case was implemented with his hands. An interesting fact is that the idea of ​​transferring Crimea to Ukraine was advanced by American President Wilson and his advisor House in 1919 year. They promoted it at the Paris Peace Conference. Thus, Khrushchev, apparently unwittingly, realized the strategic plan of the Anglo-Saxons.

In addition, in 1957 — 1958. national autonomies of previously deported peoples — Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingushes, Karachays, and Balkars — were restored. These peoples have the right to return to their historical territories. As a result, the educational effect was disrupted. Moreover, the deported peoples received benefits, benefits. In January, the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was restored 1957. Moreover, in the republic, the Naursky and Shelkovsky districts with the predominant Russian population remained in 1944 from Stavropol Territory to the Grozny region. Previously, the republic included several Cossack districts of the Terek right bank; they had the status of “national autonomies”. Now they were returned to the CIASSR, but without autonomy.

Kizlyar district, inhabited by the Cossacks, was cut off from Stavropol and transferred to Dagestan. Chechens who were returning from exile were prevented from settling in their former places, in the highlands. Sent to the flat land, which had previously been mastered by the Cossacks. An increase in the number of Chechens began in Naursky and Shelkovsky districts. The return from the deportation of Karachai, Balkarians, Ingushs led to hidden moves of the Ossetian, Circassian and Kabardian peoples, who expanded their possessions in 1944 year. Now they were relocated, expelled. As a result, numerous “mines” of interethnic conflicts in the North Caucasus were laid, which will work during the collapse of the USSR.

The blow to the reproduction of the population and the church

As already noted, Khrushchev’s experiments in agriculture caused great harm to the Soviet countryside, leading to its bleeding. Another blow to the people was the decree that allowed abortion. In 1936, due to a difficult demographic situation, abortion operations were banned under the penalty of criminal responsibility. Decree of the CEC and SNK of the USSR on June 27 1936 "On the prohibition of abortion ..." The resolution also increased material assistance to women in childbirth, established state assistance for multi-families, expanded network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens, etc. At the same time, abortions could be carried out for medical reasons.NOVEMX November 23, by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council C SSR "On the abolition of the prohibition of abortion," the operation of the abortion was allowed to all women in the absence of medical contraindications.

It should be noted that the USSR was an advanced country in this matter. In all developed Western countries, abortion was still banned. In 1920, the Soviet Republic became the first country in the world to legalize termination of pregnancy at the request of a woman. It should be noted that in the 1920 year, the Trotskyists prevailed in the Soviet government. In 1955, the course that led Russia-USSR to destruction again prevailed. For comparison, a similar law in Great Britain was adopted only in 1967, in the USA - in 1973, in France - in 1975, etc.

Khrushchev's “Thaw” was marked by a new wave of persecutions against the Russian church. The party was led by the main ideologist of the party, M. A. Suslov. Across the Soviet Union, churches began to close again. They were given as warehouses, warehouses, clubs, etc. If under Stalin, mutual understanding was established between the state and the church, and the number of active temples reached 20 thousand, and many churches were rediscovered, then under Khrushchev, just over 7500 remained. The arrests of priests and believers resumed.

A powerful blow was inflicted on the Old Believers. Old Believers who did without priests (besopovtsy), were declared "sectarians." They closed the prayer houses of the Old Believers, destroyed their communities. From the territory of the Old Believer settlements, the masses exported ancient icons of the XVII — XVIII centuries, ancient church books and manuscripts. Many of them were invaluable, as they contained information about the true history of Russia and the Russian people. A significant part of these artifacts was lost, died (as in the vaults of the Grozny Museum, the repository of the Grozny University), or disappeared in private collections, leaked abroad.

Foreign policy

Back in the period when Khrushchev did not have full power, he visited China in the fall of 1954 with Mikoyan and Bulganin. The outcome of the trip was the concession to China of all Soviet rights in Manchuria, the loss of Port Arthur and the Far. Stalin was also going to give Port Arthur to the Chinese, but in view of Beijing’s response. It was planned to create joint ventures. Now all the military bases, ports and railways built by Russian and Soviet hands were handed over immediately and unconditionally. Moreover, all previously created joint ventures were destroyed, their assets transferred to the exclusive ownership of China. In addition, Beijing has also received new large loans. The USSR continued to create the industrial and scientific-technical base of China.

In the 1955 year, almost simultaneously with the creation of the Warsaw bloc, the Soviet Union concluded an agreement with the Western powers on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Austria. This serious concession was also made without any reciprocal concessions from the Western powers, without an expression of readiness for compromise. On the contrary, during this period the West continued the course of confrontation. In 1954, the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) was established. At the initiative of the United States, a military-political bloc of countries in the Asia-Pacific region was created, which included Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand, the Philippines, and Western powers that have possessions in the APR — the United States, Great Britain, and France. In 1955, the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) was established. The military-political grouping in the Middle East includes: Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. In addition, West Germany joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1955. Not so long ago, defeated Germany was recognized as a full ally of the Western powers and quickly armed.

And at this time, when the West was actively arming and building military-political groups in various regions of the world against the USSR and its allies, Moscow unilaterally gave the most important strategic bridgehead in Central Europe - Austria. And the Austrians themselves were sympathetic to the Soviet people. Provocations and protests did not suit. There were no reasons for withdrawing troops from Austria - neither external nor internal.

We did not have time to digest these Khrushchev initiatives, as new ones appeared. In the spring of 1955, Khrushchev, Mikoyan and Bulganin visited Yugoslavia and restored "friendship." They unilaterally apologized, the blame for the gap was completely laid on Moscow. The Soviet delegation yielded to Tito on all issues and agreed to considerable economic assistance, in which Yugoslavia, which was then in international isolation, was in dire need. In exchange, the Soviet Union, as in China, received nothing. In addition to assurances of "deep friendship" and "cooperation". The Stalinist foreign policy course, when Moscow firmly defended its interests and knew how to take its own, was forgotten. Belgrade, however, retained its “special position”, not joining either the Warsaw Pact or the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. Yugoslavia preferred to conduct a “flexible policy”, benefiting both from cooperation with the Western powers and from the support of the Soviet Union.

In the summer of 1955, in Geneva, for the first time after Potsdam, a conference of great powers was held. It ended in complete failure. All proposals of the Moscow delegation on collective security, on the "German issue", the Western powers together and unequivocally shoals. However, in the USSR and abroad, the Geneva Conference was presented as the greatest success. They spoke about the possibility of peaceful coexistence, the cooperation of the spirit of systems, the continuation of negotiations, etc. Khrushchev, who represented Moscow, also received his share of fame. It should be noted that he, despite a number of his quirks, created in the world an image of a great statesman, a man fighting for peace and progress. Later, the same methodology will be applied to Gorbachev. The more Khrushchev and Gorbachev "broke firewood" inside the USSR and surrendered to the position of the Soviet state abroad, the more brilliance and attention they fell in the West.

Khrushchev continued to take the position of Moscow. In September, West German Chancellor Adenauer visited Moscow 1955. During this visit, Moscow recognized and established diplomatic relations with Germany. And again, unilaterally, without concessions from the Western powers. The Western world did not even think of recognizing the German Democratic Republic (GDR), which was under the influence of the USSR. The Western powers did not want to consider the Soviet proposals on West Berlin either. So, among the Soviet proposals, the idea was to give West Berlin the status of a free city. However, in favor of the "friend" Adenauer Khrushchev made concessions. A broad gesture of “good will” was made - the German prisoners still remaining in the Union were released and returned to Germany. At the same time, they conducted a broad amnesty among collaborators (“Vlasovites”).

In October 1955, Khrushchev made visits to India, Burma and Afghanistan. These states did not join the USSR, but they did not support the West, remaining neutral. However, they also received large loans for economic development. Only for one construction of a metallurgical complex in India 135 million dollars were allocated. A similar system will be installed with many other neutral or “friendly” states. It will develop after Khrushchev. As a result, it turned out that even neutrality was rewarded at the expense of the USSR. It is clear that Moscow has received versatile contacts in these countries and certain benefits. However, often huge amounts of money and the efforts of Soviet specialists were wasted. The resources that needed to be directed to internal development were simply thrown to the wind. Moscow produced parasites that believed that the USSR was obliged to support and help them.

In 1950-1960-ies. the old colonial system was falling apart. The Western powers began to build a new system of control - through finance, economics, education, access to new technologies, culture, etc. The era of neo-colonialism began. Moscow tried to pull new states to its side. Here Khrushchev launched unprecedented in its scale financing, support for regimes that were declared "friendly." It is clear that various African and Asian regimes willingly expressed "friendship" in order to get help from the USSR in the development of the economy, infrastructure, science, education and culture. However, future events have shown that in most cases, huge folk remedies flowed abroad in vain. For example, Egypt was assisted against the aggression of England, France and Israel, allocated a huge loan in the construction of the Aswan hydroelectric station. However, Egyptian President Nasser continued the "flexible" policy. A similar picture could be seen in Iraq.

Nikita Sergeevich continued his activities to "defuse tensions". Summit meetings were held with the heads of the Western powers. In 1959, the first visit of the Soviet leader to the United States took place. Shine of American cities made a tremendous impression on the tradesman of Khrushchev. The Secretary General visited Washington and Camp David, as well as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Des Moines and Ames. Khrushchev met with the president and vice-president of the United States - D. D. Eisenhower and R. M. Nixon, with the UN Secretary-General D. Hammarskjold, with the American governors and senators, with many journalists and trade union leaders. Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Khrushchev called for disarmament. Then the Paris Conference was convened, a meeting was held with the American President Kennedy in Vienna (4 June 1961 of the year). All these activities ended in nothing. The West did not compromise, trying to impose its will on the USSR.

"Khrushchev" as the first restructuring. Part of 2


However, Khrushchev continued to unilaterally take steps that were supposed to show the peacefulness of Moscow. Khrushchev agreed to the point that he proposed to carry out complete disarmament in the future, to disband the national armed forces, retaining only the police formations. In the future, Gorbachev will act in the same spirit. Only for some reason only the USSR will disarm. Western "partners" will pat on the shoulder, praise, while they themselves will continue the policy of covering their bases with the USSR-Russia.

Khrushchev imposed a moratorium on nuclear testing weapons and made a large-scale reduction of the Soviet armed forces - from 5,8 million to 2,5 million. And everything was done in a big way, for several years. The most experienced officers who went through the Great Patriotic War and the war with Japan were reduced by tens of thousands. Disbanded the compound schools. Under the knife, a number of important military technical developments were launched that could give the USSR the opportunity to be ahead of the whole world by 20-30 years. Cut new ships and aircraft. However, the West was in no hurry to support the initiative of Khrushchev. The North Atlantic Alliance did not reduce its armed forces, and the Western powers continued their nuclear tests.

Moscow under Khrushchev radically dispersed with Beijing. Mao Zedong was displeased with criticism of Stalin. In addition, he immediately felt the weakness of Khrushchev. The system “elder brother (USSR) - younger brother (China)” collapsed. The USSR and China have become competitors. Including the struggle for liberated countries from colonial oppression. As a result, the socialist system began to disintegrate.

These and many other failures did not discourage Khrushchev. He was ready to continue the reforms. But his "perestroika" activity was coming to an end. Discontent matured not only among the people, who began to respond to Khrushchev's experiments with spontaneous speeches, but also among the Soviet elite. Even the party nomenklatura, which had recently been its main support, rallied against him. Khrushchev did a lot for her. He strengthened the position of the nomenclature, its right to a privileged position. However, with his constant reforms, continuous changes and breaks in the already established order, he did not let the nomenclature live in peace. And the popular uprisings, while continuing the destruction of the national economy, threatened with a large-scale popular uprising.

The plot was organized by his own comrades, Mikoyan, Suslov and Brezhnev. To prepare a plot was not difficult. Khrushchev was constantly traveling around the country and around the world. The October plenum of the Central Committee 1964, which was organized in the absence of Khrushchev, freed him from party and government posts "for health reasons."
Author:
Articles from this series:
"Khrushchev" as the first restructuring
"Khrushchev" as the first restructuring. Part of 2
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. parus2nik
    parus2nik April 18 2014 07: 52
    +3
    An interesting fact is that the idea of ​​transferring Crimea to Ukraine was put forward as far back as 1919 by the American president Wilson and his adviser House.
    What Ukraine in 1919? Which Ukraine? Soviet? Petlyurovskaya ..?
    1. starshina78
      starshina78 April 18 2014 18: 47
      +4
      I personally remember "Khrushchevschina" with bursts of bread (sometimes it was corn - yellow when the loaf was broken, and green from peas), coupons for cereals and pasta, but for how tasty the raw smoked loin and brisket were, and the Tambov ham was lovely ( behind the counter hung a smoked pig leg and cut it straight off). It was funny for us, the natsans, that the bread was either yellow or green, and the parents were burning this "cornman" up and down, and we ran out of line to get the coupons by the time our parents came home from work.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet April 18 2014 21: 29
        +1
        It was such a thing, also stood in lines!
  2. Interface
    Interface April 18 2014 09: 19
    +6
    Some of Khrushchev's actions as 1 secretary of the CPSU: 1. Stopped the program to create a surface fleet. As a result, we changed from steel to the United States until the end of the 70s, when under Brezhnev this gap was eliminated. 2. Reoriented the development of industry from group A to B. As a result, we did not complete industrialization, putting ourselves in the position of catching up and producing quality goods did not become any more or better. 3. He closed the artels, they say, "remnants of capitalism", where 70% of consumer goods were produced. Then he wondered why the deficit?
    4. Abolished line ministries; as a result, the system of managing the national economy nearly developed like a house of cards.
    5. About his miscarriages like brandishing a boot, I am silent. He also threw himself at journalists on a farm with corn. He covered the anti-Soviet, like Solzhenitsyn; offended artists;
    6. Disgraced Stalin, although when the question of repression was raised in the Politburo in 1953, together with Suslov he vehemently defended Stalin. Because they wanted to throw Khrushchev out of power just with an indication of his participation. It is not for nothing that the leader wrote to him: "Quit the fool!"
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet April 18 2014 12: 54
      +1
      And he also launched a large-scale housing construction, millions of people moved to separate apartments with all the amenities. Veterans, invalids of war, began to give free cars "Zaporozhets". Much more can be remembered. It was not for nothing that Ernst Neizvestny sculpted a monument to Khrushchev in two colors - black and white.
      1. bubalik
        bubalik April 18 2014 15: 30
        +3
         Bayonet SU  Today,
        He also launched large-scale housing construction,


        ,,, all this was laid under Stalin, on 23 of May 1944 of the year, the State Defense Committee adopted Decree No.5948 “On the Creation of an Industrial Base for Mass Housing”. This decree is devoted to the factory production of houses at the rate of 3,6 million square meters per year. It also provided for the creation of enterprises for the production of houses from gypsum and slag concrete at the rate of one million square meters per year.
        The initial plan included, as you know, the following parameters for such housing: ceiling height - 3-3,5 meters, the minimum area of ​​a one-room apartment - 40-45 square meters, a two-room apartment - at least 70-75, and a three-room apartment - about 100 square meters. Moreover, the bathroom was foreseen separately.

        But two years after Stalin’s death, a joint decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers “On eliminating excesses in design and construction” was issued. As a result, the “Stalinist” apartments, which became “Khrushchevs,” were cut down quite significantly: the ceilings in them were lowered to 2,5 meters, the one-room apartment became 22 “squares,” “dvushka” did not exceed “squares” in area 40, and “treshka” - 55 “Squares”. And the toilet combined with the bathroom,

        and you say Khrushchev ,,,,
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet April 18 2014 17: 45
          +2
          "Khrushchevs" were intended to temporarily solve the housing problem and were designed for 25 years, but some of them are still used for their intended purpose. Yes, these were not mansions, but they solved the housing problem for millions of people. When in 1965 my friend's parents got an apartment in Khrushchev (before that they lived in something like a barrack), they were crazy about happiness. To understand this, one had to live at that time. It was only later, with the growth of prosperity, that the "Khrushchevs" became "Khrushchebs". The execution of the same decree №5948 and the construction of houses for those projects, would require incomparably more time and money. As a result, much fewer people could improve their living conditions.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Jipo
        Jipo April 18 2014 15: 32
        +1
        Housing construction was not invented by him, it was still planned under Stalin, he simply took advantage of the projects of the past, made before him from Space to construction, in which he participated by lowering the height of the ceilings and removing balconies and various "decorations".
        1. bubalik
          bubalik April 18 2014 15: 34
          +1
          JIPO KZ  Today, 15: 32

          ,,,,, at least someone knows hi
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Bayonet
          Bayonet April 18 2014 17: 53
          +1
          In the USSR, MASS housing construction was not conducted, in other periods they simply did not build housing. The war deprived millions of families of shelter; people lived in dugouts, in huts, in communal apartments. To get a separate comfortable apartment for many was almost an unrealizable dream. The pace of housing construction in the first half of the 60s, our country did not know, either before or after this period.
        4. Bayonet
          Bayonet April 18 2014 21: 26
          -2
          Quote: JIPO
          He did not come up with housing

          Of course not him! Houses were built by the ancient Sumerians - 5 thousand years ago.
          1. Bayonet
            Bayonet April 18 2014 22: 10
            0
            Quote: Bayonet
            Houses were built by the ancient Sumerians - 5 thousand years ago.

            Someone does not believe in it?
      4. Bayonet
        Bayonet April 19 2014 09: 47
        0
        Quote: Bayonet
        Ernst Unknown, sculpted a monument to Khrushchev in two colors - black and white.
    2. 225chay
      225chay April 18 2014 14: 31
      +1
      Quote: Interface
      Some actions of Khrushchev as 1 Secretary of the CPSU: 1. He stopped the program for creating a surface fleet. As a result, we from steel from the USA to the end of the 70s, when under Brezhnev we eliminated this gap.


      In general, this "Kukuruzina" Khrushchev-Perlmutter was still that foe, no worse than the humpbacked-EBN-a
      although he did something useful
  3. sv68
    sv68 April 18 2014 10: 21
    +4
    it would be better if I worked as an agronomist on a collective farm and didn’t climb to control the country. Yes, Mother Russia, you saw a terrible invasion in the twentieth century — the country's control by bald fools
  4. user
    user April 18 2014 10: 34
    +2
    All the merits of this FAG have not yet been consecrated, many do not understand that the collapse of the 90s was laid down by this particular person, and they represent him as the author of the warming of the 60s. Although in the history of the USSR it is difficult to find a greater villain than Khrushchev, even against the backdrop of Gorbachev.
  5. creak
    creak April 18 2014 10: 38
    +2
    Yes, under Khrushchev, grain purchases began abroad and the USSR provided assistance to the so-called "friendly regimes", incl. Egypt ... According to the author, these are the erroneous steps of Khrushchev and they are worthy of condemnation ... Of course, in this regard, far from everything was done correctly. But what can be said about the fact that after the resignation of Khrushchev, this line was not only not curtailed, but was further developed. For example, under Brezhnev, the import of not only grain, but also other types of food was carried out on an even larger scale. For successful purchases of grain in the United States and Canada, two heads of foreign trade associations even received the title of Hero of Socialist Labor ... As for assistance to friendly regimes, these regimes have grown even more and, accordingly, the volume of this assistance has increased. If under Khrushchev we built the Aswan Dam in Egypt and supplied equipment to the same Nasser, then after Khrushchev even our troops were sent to Egypt ... Soviet servicemen began to take part in hostilities in a number of other developing countries, which was not the case under Khrushchev (not to mention Afghanistan) Therefore, characterizing Khrushchev should be guided by facts, and not juggle them, using only those that fit conveniently into the author's concept and omitting those that contradict it. The article is very tendentious and one-sided, and in a number of provisions, instead of an objective analysis of mistakes and achievements, the author replaces the historical truth with his fantasies ... I had to point out this in my commentary to the 1st part of the article. The author should remember that not everyone gets information from the Internet. they know something from personal experience ...
    1. dmb
      dmb April 18 2014 12: 10
      +2
      Do you believe that the author wrote an analytical article? A. Samsonov in his repertoire. That this, that the previous article - a set of common cliches, redrawn from the same "analysts" on the Internet. No matter how much I try to get an answer from him and those like him to the question of what Khrushchev's “Trotskyism” was, except: “He did not like Stalin,” they cannot say anything. However, what is there to take from Samsonov. D. Granin: A front-line soldier and certainly a respected person, speaking of Zhukov, said that Zhukov beat the generals in the face. Perhaps he beat him for the cause, but this is not good, not our, they say, method, and therefore Zhukov is bad. Only now the respected writer and man Granin forgot that sometimes even people of a humane profession, doctors beat the patient in the face to get him out of the stupor, and Zhukov beat him in the face (if he beat him) not in a drunken stupor, but when people died and a decision had to be made, to save the rest. It may be cruel, but a decision.
      1. Mareman Vasilich
        Mareman Vasilich April 18 2014 12: 52
        0
        Correct comrade, everything is facilitated by its premises. There is a consequence, but there are reasons, and everything has its time.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. creak
        creak April 18 2014 12: 56
        +2
        DMB: I agree, but I can’t understand what is the point of posting such a gag on the site and not only Samson’s spill? Why duplication of frank lies and violent imagination of the authors - perhaps this is the pluralism of opinions ...
        PS As for the scuffle, in the war this phenomenon was quite common, however, as far as I know, Eremenko belongs to the palm in terms of assault, Zhukov did not go down to the scuffle, he had other methods ... Unfortunately, military commanders of level K. Rokossovsky (who as a rule did not resort to extreme measures to achieve victory in the operation) was less than those like Eremenko.
        1. dmb
          dmb April 18 2014 14: 00
          +1
          On the one hand, it’s not bad that such articles are published. Otherwise, it would be boring to live. And counter-opinions will make those who are interested rummage not only on balabol sites, but also in serious literature, and make their judgment the most objectively.
  6. Free wind
    Free wind April 18 2014 11: 58
    +3
    The author accuses Khrushchev of all sins. Very one-sided. I do not consider Khrushchev a great leader, but at the same time, our mmmm ... opponents, the leaders were very extraordinary personalities. well, at least the same Kennedy. Accusing Khrushchev of selling himself to the Americans and making concessions to them is generally crazy. Remember the Caribbean crisis. The Americans deployed their missiles in Turkey, thereby the entire European part of the USSR was in the zone of destruction of these missiles. In response, the USSR deployed its missiles in Cuba. Kipish was certainly indescribable. But the USSR won in that confrontation. Do you remember a downed American reconnaissance aircraft? Do you remember the first person in space? When the whole world admired Gagarin, the USSR, Russian !!!! Well, the reduction of the army from 6 million to 3, it seems to me a completely justified step. True, Khrushchev was a fan of rocket weapons, well, the Strategic Missile Forces steers !!! The West was primarily afraid of our missiles! There is such a saying, I don’t remember whose, put the devil on the divine throne, and the devil will be forced to accept the image of God. Perhaps this applies to Khrushchev. Sorry for the personal opinion.
    1. Mareman Vasilich
      Mareman Vasilich April 18 2014 12: 50
      +2
      All achievements under Khrushchev touched Stalin. It would be better if he didn’t climb in the industry at all. His meanness in relation to Stalin is generally immeasurable. He did little good, very little.
  7. Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich April 18 2014 12: 36
    +1
    For "Cybernetics is a pseudoscience" he, too, must be thanked.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet April 18 2014 13: 09
      +2
      Here you are at the wrong address. April 5, 1952 Literaturnaya Gazeta published a devastating article "Cybernetics -" Science of "Obscurantists". So it was under the rule of Comrade Stalin. Genetics, by the way, is also a "pseudoscience". And at the head of the Academy of Sciences was a semi-literate, but one of his own, People's Academician Comrade Lysenko.
      1. creak
        creak April 18 2014 13: 22
        0
        The second no less devastating article was published in the journal Tekhnika Molodoi N 8 in 1952. But we will still assume that Khrushchev is to blame for this as a hidden Trotskyist ...
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet April 18 2014 14: 09
          -2
          Well, of course ... Putin.
          1. Bayonet
            Bayonet April 18 2014 17: 21
            -1
            Yes, we are not friends with humor - we are not friends!
  8. Takashi
    Takashi April 18 2014 13: 23
    0
    It's strange. Right now we are all scolding Khrushchev - "gave Crimea" to Ukraine. I acted shortsightedly. "I gave ours."

    And on the other hand, let's think.
    1. 50-60s of the USSR in crisis. The economy is oversubscribed.
    2. No one even thought that 1993 would come and the USSR would fall apart. Everyone was sure - the Land of Soviets is building socialism \ communism. Forever.
    3. From the point of view of transport \ economic relations, resources - Khrushchev simply shifted this responsibility to the Ukrainian SSR.

    Look, we have now received Crimea: the railway connection goes through Ukraine, (now it goes through the Ker Strait), water supply (irrigation) - again in Ukraine. Reserves of drinking water in Ukraine are very few. That is, it is economically beneficial to connect the region with a Ukrainian.
    What will the Russians do now? - That's right - Build a bridge, a tunnel, pull branches of tap water, build desalination, or lay artificial lakes. A couple more ferries.

    so that it is not necessary to scold Khrushchev. He tried as best he could. He could only not much.
    1. creak
      creak April 18 2014 14: 32
      0
      It seems so, this decision had its own logic ...
    2. atos_kin
      atos_kin April 18 2014 15: 06
      0
      Quote: Takashi
      so that it is not necessary to scold Khrushchev.


      That's right, we must not scold, but study the historical experience of incompetent leadership, so that the "last ones" are discouraged. In addition, it is necessary to make statements about the results of his (and the environment) activities in history textbooks, and not to sculpt primitive labels like "maize" or "Khrushchev's thaw".
  9. mithridate
    mithridate April 18 2014 14: 33
    +1
    Khrushchev is a very controversial figure. In addition, many archives are still closed.
  10. nnz226
    nnz226 April 18 2014 17: 59
    +1
    In short - a bald goat! Deserves spitting on the grave. And why are liberalists rushing with him like that ?! Ah sixties, ah the first generation of free-thinking people! You might think that under Stalin there were some blinded slow-witted people, who built the economy then, won the war, made the atomic bomb (showing the USA their insignificance), paved the way into space. The flight of Gagarin during the reign of Khrushchev is only a historical incident ...
  11. corn
    corn April 18 2014 20: 40
    0
    I read the article, and again I had vague doubts about the personal subsidiary plots of the collective farmers: it looks too much like corvee under a serfdom (for those who are ignorant of Wikipedia: Barschina (Latin angaria, middle Corvea, German Frone or Frondienst, fr. corvée, Polish pańszczyzna) - this is labor, work by serfs and temporarily liable peasants in favor of the feudal lord, mainly for providing for their use part of the land of the latter, consisting in gratuitous mandatory (mainly agricultural) labor ..)
  12. siberalt
    siberalt April 18 2014 22: 24
    +2
    Where did "perestroika" come from in Russia - the eternal bread for publicists.
    After the war, the USSR needed restructuring, at least from the transition of the war economy to a peaceful track. Either the author does not know this, or he is silent about it for some reason. I lived under Khrushchev and stood in line for bread. And the father was rehabilitated (repressed in 37) with the provision of his previous position and housing in Stalingrad. Received and lost wages. In 1964 they moved from the barracks to a separate "kopeck piece" with all the amenities. We were proud of Cuba, the first satellite and the first cosmonaut. Rejoiced at the TVs, refrigerators and washing machines that appeared on sale, sweet corn in jars and crispy cereals, not like the present. The annual decline in prices for household appliances, watches, clothes and shoes, and believed in the wisdom of the government. And who yuha in this now poking around?
  13. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro April 18 2014 23: 45
    0
    <<< in 1964 there was a noticeable shortage of grain, the country was on the verge of starvation, and the Soviet leadership, for the first time in the history of the country, started buying grain abroad. >>>
    Churchill even proposed, probably in jest, to award Khrushchev the Nobel Prize! NOBODY before him could not leave WITHOUT BREAD Russia, always providing itself with bread and exporting considerable surpluses (all industry in the 30s was paid for by the export of Russian bread!
  14. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro April 19 2014 00: 04
    0
    <<< Discontent ripened not only among the people, who began to respond to Khrushchev's experiments with spontaneous performances, >>>
    For only one shooting of workers in Novocherkassk this "faithful Leninist" had to be put against the wall!
  15. beifall
    beifall April 19 2014 16: 47
    -1
    In 1959, he promised to build communism ...................... by 1980 and even bury America, and in 1991 - in the year of Belovezhskaya Pushcha, children accepted American citizenship !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOOT !!!!!!!!!!

    Let's see what will happen after 2024 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  16. Delmano
    Delmano April 29 2014 12: 15
    0
    They took off late, but there were no new leaders ...