Military Review

N. S. Khrushchev and execution lists

The death of Stalin deprived Russia (USSR) of a security guarantee. To preserve the security of the peoples of the country, a leader in the level of intelligence, scale of thinking, knowledge and will was equal to Stalin.

N. S. Khrushchev and execution lists

In the period from 1917 to 1953, a country that has become a dynamically developing superpower with such a leader would guarantee all the peoples of the USSR safety, greatness, prosperity and the highest standard of living — higher than any other country in the world.

But a person who didn’t have a state-minded state, who did not understand and did not love Russia, came to power - Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev. He took control of the blooming country restored after the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945.

Not a single head of the Russian state for all his thousand years history I did not get such a mighty and beautiful country which N. S. Khrushchev inherited.
5 March 1953, on the day of the death of Joseph Stalin, G. M. Malenkov was appointed Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers. But it was a temporary appointment, as it was necessary to appoint someone instead of the deceased I. V. Stalin, until the winner in the struggle for power is determined. G. M. Malenkov appointed L. P. Beria, V. M. Molotov, N. A. Bulganin and L. M. Kaganovich as his deputies. Nikita Khrushchev headed the secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

In fact, two candidates fought for power: N. S. Khrushchev and L. P. Beria. In this struggle, N. S. Khrushchev won. Why? After all, L. P. Beria possessed a large-scale state mentality, tremendous organizational skills, and comprehensive knowledge. How could a man of great intelligence and strong will lose to Nikita Khrushchev?

In my opinion, there was a third force that, on the day of the death of J. V. Stalin, emerged from the underground and brought N. S. Khrushchev to power. Contemporaries and earlier was not clear the rapid rise of N. S. Khrushchev in the higher echelons of power, which did not correspond to his personal abilities.
“In January, 1932, Khrushchev was elected second secretary of the CIM of the CPSU (b). Career, frankly, dizzying, as already then many gossiped. Here are the entries from the diary of party functionary A. G. Solovyov from 28 in January 1932: “I and some are surprised by Khrushchev's quick jump. He studied very badly in the Industrial Academy ... Now the second secretary together with Kaganovich. But surprisingly close and great toady. "

In January, 1934, Khrushchev became the first secretary of the Moscow City Committee, and in March, 1935 replaced Lazar Kaganovich himself as the first secretary of the MK party.

In February, 1938 Khrushchev was appointed First Secretary of the Communist Party of Ukraine, and then a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b). Some researchers rush through the career ladder to explain his cruelty, as there is evidence that Khrushchev in 1930-ies appealed to the government and asked permission for the death penalty for more criminals than the government allowed.
Incidentally, from this information, both the liberals and many communists came to the conclusion that there were "shooting lists" that supposedly determined the number of people to be shot.

Those who deliberately distribute hasty conclusions can be understood, since they are ill-wishers or haters of Russia, the Russian people, the Soviet government, Stalin. Some of them have no opinion at all, but slander our past, because the West pays them for it.

Surprise our honest citizens. How can they not understand that in the 1930-ies the country was sorely lacking people to work in factories and factories under construction, in agriculture, in scientific and cultural institutions, in the service sector, for service in the police and the army. Each person was "worth its weight in gold" and suddenly the assertions about the presence of "shooting lists". Should doubts fall into our hearts, how can this country, confident that it might be attacked by the enemy in the near future, can launch a plan to shoot people?

In fact, at that time, the USSR was a people's state with a current constitution, a prosecutor's office, exercising control over the implementation of the law in cities and villages of the country, in courts, prisons and other state institutions. We theoretically and now have the opportunity to raise the case for any convicted person in 1930-s precisely because at that time the requirements of the existing laws were respected. And if at present there are many citizens in the country who believe in the existence of the above lists, it means that our society is unhealthy and may die.

The USA allocates money to its agents to distort the essence of the people's socialist state. For decades, anti-Soviet propaganda has been financed, including today, when there is no USSR for more than twenty years. They finance and do not believe that money is spent in vain, because they know that by killing the greatness of our past, they are killing our future.

Russian truth begins with the definition of a socialist state. The socialist system is the only system in the world in which man is the highest value. In a liberal capitalist state, money is the highest value. And if in a socialist state a person is the highest value, then the care of a person, of the people was his main function. But at that time, not only in the Soviet Union, but also in other countries of the world, they were not ready to abolish the death penalty. The United States, China and many other countries are currently applying the death penalty - the death penalty.

In the USSR in the 1930-ies the abolition of the death penalty was also impossible, since this would lead to a sharp increase in serious criminal offenses and the revitalization of the fifth column. This is confirmed by today's Russia, in which the death penalty was virtually abolished and have a lot more murders than would have had to execute criminals to prevent such crimes. It turns out that in today's Russia, the state is primarily concerned with the preservation of life for murderers, and not for peaceful law-abiding citizens. Such a decision in a large non-Western European country cannot be called relevant to the interests of its peoples.

The USSR government did not abolish the death penalty, but for a number of reasons indicated earlier it sought to limit the number of death sentences handed down by the courts. The region, the region, the republic was forbidden to pass the number of death sentences more than was determined by the government of the USSR. That is, the government of the Soviet Union sought to ensure that death sentences were imposed by the courts only as a last resort. By the way, lists for dispossession were also restrictive, not installation.

And the haters of the Soviet state present this humane action as evil. And it always surprises not that they slander in the end account not only on the Soviet power, but also on the Soviet, Russian people, but it is surprising that they are believed. After all, if a person thinks, loves his Homeland, he cannot believe in such slander. Not only the mind, but also the heart should tell him the truth. Only a morally unhealthy society can reach such a degree of disrespect for the history of their homeland and trust every talking nonentity.

Since its foundation many centuries ago, the Russian state before 1991 was the traditional, most humane state in the world. Even cursed in the West, our Tsar Ivan the Terrible allowed the imposition of everything (together with the perpetrators of criminal offenses) of less than 4's thousands of death sentences for 30 years of government. Kings of Western countries allowed the imposition of such a number of sentences in one year. They hate Ivan the Terrible because Russia attached Siberia to him, because he did not allow the West to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia either militarily or peacefully and raised the country to a level beyond the reach of the Western Empire.

But back to the question, what did NS Khrushchev asked the USSR government in the 1930s? Khrushchev asked the USSR government to allow the courts of Ukraine to impose more death sentences than was established, allowed by the USSR government, which sought to limit the number of death sentences handed down by the courts. This fact characterizes him as a person who is ready to achieve certain goals for the most extreme measures. To not talk about the opponents of Khrushchev, but in the 1950-s they lacked this quality.

In my opinion, this quality cannot provide significant advantages in the fight against highly intelligent people. I believe that Khrushchev was supported and promoted to the pinnacle of power by all opponents of Russian communism, that is, the Soviet Union. They expected that not Khrushchev would rule them, but they would manage Khrushchev and sought to put him in the place of the deceased I.V. Stalin.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. dmi.pris1
    dmi.pris1 23 October 2015 15: 29
    The villainy of their own people, I consider the current situation, when people in power are looking into the mouth of everybody PACE, ECHR, and the like
    1. Vend
      Vend 23 October 2015 15: 34
      Khrushchev is not the most prominent leader of the Soviet era. If not for the desire to become at the helm, the world would have recognized the magnificent photographer Nikita Khrushchev. And who knows, maybe he would go down in history with great achievements.
      1. Yars
        Yars 23 October 2015 16: 13
        Khrushchev was a Trotskyist and the Trotskyists were ruled from outside, that is why Khrushchev gave Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR with the expectation of the future, when the USSR is destroyed so that Crimea remains Ukrainian and Ukraine is controlled by the West, then we now have. And in the future, Crimea would have been taken away from Ukraine, so Vladimir Vladimirovich reacted in time to a deliberate split and "set fire" to Ukraine. Western elites are building a strategy on our land for 100 years ahead, Vladimir Putin perfectly understands this and acts accordingly!
        1. Babr
          Babr 23 October 2015 16: 53
          Quote: YARS
          Khrushchev was a Trotskyist and the Trotskyists were controlled from outside, which is why Khrushchev gave the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR with a view to the future, when the USSR is destroyed so that Crimea remains Ukrainian and Ukraine is controlled by the West, we now have

          I totally agree.
          Quote: YARS
          Therefore, Vladimir Vladimirovich reacted to the deliberate split and “set fire” on Ukraine. Western elites are building a strategy on our land for 100 years ahead, Vladimir Putin perfectly understands this and acts accordingly!

          Let me disagree here.
          If he acted accordingly, the Donbass (and not only) would have long been a part of Russia.
        2. sigdoc
          sigdoc 23 October 2015 22: 18
          In my opinion, it is a mistake to consider the Trotskyists as simple puppets of the West, rather, quite the contrary, the Trotskyist groups were at the head of the destruction of the USSR and the restoration of capitalism in Russia, and the West was more likely an ally providing informational, financial, ideological support, which was paid for at the expense of Ukraine, Belarus and the Asian republics.
      2. Babr
        Babr 23 October 2015 16: 26
        "In my opinion, there was a third force that, on the day of Stalin's death, came out of the underground and brought NS Khrushchev to power."
        Stalin raised the country, won the Great War. But he also made a great mistake.
        He did not finish off the Trotskyists. And now we are paying for it.

        "We have people like Khrushchev sleeping next to us ... Khrushchev began his betrayal with Stalin, and he or his successors will complete this business with the Soviet Union ... His reign will not last long, but the consequences of his rule will affect for decades."
        Mao Zedong
      3. sherp2015
        sherp2015 23 October 2015 17: 35
        Quote: Wend
        Khrushchev is not the most prominent leader of the Soviet era. If it were not for the desire to become at the helm, the world would have recognized the magnificent photographer Nikita Khrushchev.

        Um ...
        And Hitler could become an artist, and not a Fuhrer, who brought so much misfortune to the people if the sales director had not expelled him from the art school
  2. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 23 October 2015 15: 37
    What a torn piece piece.
    There were lists, they weren’t ... that’s the problem.
    Of course there were. There was the State Planning Committee, there was a five-year plan, etc. So why not plans to identify "enemies of the people." Of course there were.
    Well, of course, there were winners of socialist competition, there were advanced workers. There were bonuses.
    Here Pupkin grinded three files on the teeth of enemies, well done. But Vasechkin knocked off four, and another broke on his head - this is work. For wear, one might say. Therefore, we will give him "red revolutionary trousers".
    By the way, Bystroletov's "Feast of the Immortals" is quite worthy about this. I recommend everyone to read it.
    And by the way, the presence of such lists does not bother me at all. For it was a PLANNED installation.
    That's when the "bald maize" came up with the initiative to raise the bar, then Stalin wrote a resolution - "Calm down, man-thinking-inadequately-situation (in the letter -D-)".
    Now, unplanned production. But, the gayts are rigorously rigged for a small number of AP, especially part 4 of article 12.15 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
    It comes to the point that in the reports on the AP precisely this part (4-12.15) was impressed in the TYPOGRAPHIC way.
    The rest of the poor guy writes by hand, and "oncoming" - PRINTED.
    Well ..... and who's the better?
    Khrushchev .. or Nurgaliyev, in which they started such forms.
    The mind cannot understand Russia.
    It is necessary to live in it.
    1. smershxnumx
      smershxnumx 23 October 2015 20: 38
      The mind cannot understand Russia.
      It is necessary to live in it.

      We live! Needed where was born! I'm not going to "shed" anywhere! This is my homeland! Nobody and nothing will stop me from loving her!
      And our story is OUR HISTORY!
  3. Engineer
    Engineer 23 October 2015 15: 37
    Without Khrushchev, we would not be the first in space, but what kind of space is there, Sputnik scared the United States not with its fact of flying in space, but with the fact that the Union could now launch a missile strike against the United States. Nikita spared no money on missiles, yes, to the detriment of strategic aviation and the surface fleet, but with missiles he forever crossed out plans for nuclear attacks on the Union, and we did not plan such strategic aircraft as the United States under Stalin. Well, then the economic councils then many with tears in their eyes recalled under Brezhnev. There is no need to talk about the fact that he fed livestock with his corn. And where does the opinion about not love for Russia come from? The first time I hear such a point of view.
    1. Babr
      Babr 23 October 2015 16: 37
      It seems to be an engineer. And the thoughts of the first-grader. The maize slipped by inertia, according to all of Stalin's mortgages. Yes, and now we exist (I emphasize) only due to his accomplishments.
    2. ImPerts
      ImPerts 23 October 2015 16: 53
      Quote: Engineer
      Without Khrushchev, we would not be the first in space,

      That is, the first flight completed in 1957 year was organized from scratch and worked out in 4 year? The fact that Korolev was appointed chief designer of OKB-1946 in 1 was also inconsequential. Is the P-7 research started at 1950 also a trifle?
      Quote: Engineer
      and we didn’t plan such strategic aviation as in the USA under Stalin

      If you did not please the Pe-8, which was no worse than the B-17, then the Tu-4, which began to be mass-produced with 1947, is also not worth mentioning.
      Well, about the economic councils. who remembered with crying ... I never heard from my parents. Although they worked under Brezhnev on state farms of 8 years. I heard more about personal plots.
      Something like this:
      "Myth No. 163. Stalin was categorically against collective farmers' personal household plots (LPH)
      The stupidest myth. It was not Stalin who opposed this, but Khrushchev, who cut off the size of the personal household plots of the villagers almost to the doors and windows of their houses. Stalin, on the contrary, was in favor of an increase in private households. True, objectivity requires a direct indication that in the years of the first five-year plan, when there was an intense struggle for collectivization, it was not without the direct influence of Stalin that the compiled Charter of the agricultural cooperative 1930 allowed the collective farmers to have only a small household farm. However, it is equally important that the 1930 Charter of the year did not determine the size of private household plots and did not guarantee against encroachments by local leaders.
      At the beginning of the second five-year plan, it was widely believed that after the collectivization of the collective farms, the collective farmers would lose their significance, it should be reduced, and the collective farmer’s family would receive everything they needed from the public sector. It was Stalin who categorically sharply opposed this.
      In the process of discussing the new Model Statute of the Agricultural Artel at the Second Congress of Collective Farmers-Drummers held in February 1935 in February, the idea was expressed that no more than 0,25 hectares of household land should be allocated to the yard, and even better - 0,1-0,2 hectares.
      Taking the floor, Stalin sharply criticized this idea, saying to the members of the commission that was developing proposals for private farms the following: “You really care about the collective farm system, about the collective farm. But you are a minority on collective farms. Most people think differently. This must be reckoned with. ” And he proposed to establish the land sizes of personal farms of collective farmers from 0,2 to 0,5 ha, and in some areas to 1 ha, depending on local conditions (we immediately note that the size of private farms subsequently, but even under Stalin, often reached even 2 ha). And he stated bluntly: “That part of the personal land on which there are residential buildings should not count.” That is, the proposed size of land allotments for private farms of collective farmers were of purely agricultural importance.
      The number of livestock for personal use Stalin recommended increasing to 2 – 3 cows, 2 – 3 sows (by the way, the litter from one sow, depending on the breed, can reach 6 – 11 piglets), from 20 to 25 the heads of sheep and goats, etc. D., supported the proposal to have an unlimited number of birds and rabbits, up to 20 bee hives.
      Expressing these suggestions, Stalin said that "there should not be a single yard that does not have personal land."
      From then until the death of Stalin, the Soviet collective farmers had very large land plots of private farms, which accounted for a significant portion of agricultural products sold on collective farm markets. And only under Khrushchev, these sections were cut right under the walls of the houses of the villagers. Which, of course, immediately affected the amount of agricultural products, and accordingly its price.
      So now evaluate the approaches of Stalin and Khrushchev viciously criticizing him to one of the most important problems of our country
      1. Babr
        Babr 23 October 2015 17: 08
        The war against the USSR under the leadership of Khrushchev began immediately after the death of Stalin - in 1953 - with the liquidation of the Gossnab. Khrushchev handed over the management of material and technical supply to the Union republics, already then - in the 50s, laying the ground for the collapse of the USSR on a national basis.

        Tore production ties Khrushchev competently. Likewise, his faithful followers will do this during the re-disaster. In general, the identity of the acts of Khrushchev and Gorbachev-Yakovlev in the 80s and 90s on the destruction of the state suggests the existence of uniform methodologies for all Marxist-Leninists, no matter what time they create their revolutions, where their main result is always the same - ruins and devastation.

        The promotion of the nationalism of the titular peoples in the republics of the USSR was transferred to the industrial level by Khrushchev in the literal sense of the word - instead of branch ministries, economic councils were formed and the whole vast country was transferred to the territorial principle of support.

        The cherry on the cake of nationalist separatism was a particularly reverent attitude to the national cadres of the Union republics, which were accepted into the most prestigious Russian universities out of competition and subsequently took priority in the distribution and promotion of the service.

        Add to this the privileged supply of non-Russian republics - and the picture of cave Russophobia of Khrushchev and his fellow Bolsheviks will appear before you in all its glory.

        Guys, the words are not mine. I could not write like that. Cost of age.
        If anyone is interested. It's here.
        1. MrK
          MrK 24 October 2015 00: 48
          Article +. I read the link Babra: I agree with everything.
          But there is one thing. Everyone is interested in one question: how did the bald man become the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee? There are many versions. They are outlined. But there is one more.
          It was studied in detail by Alexander Kurlyandchik in the book “Damned Soviet Power” and reforms in Russia. On
          The essence of this version. Stalin I.V. as far back as 1937 at the plenary session of the Central Committee he said that the party should be excluded from economic activity. And at the 19 Congress of the CPSU achieved this. The congress made such a decision. And the top of the CPSU did not want to implement these decisions.
          She wanted to continue to lead everything, not answering for anything. The author believes that this is the reason for the murder of Stalin, and then Beria, who agreed with Stalin.
          But what about Nikita? Nikita perverted the decisions of the 19 congress and returned the party to the management of the economic activity of the state. This is the first.
          The second one. Khrushchev and people like him, wanted not only to rule the country, but also to have guarantees that they would never be dragged on the rack, no matter what they did while in leadership positions.
          Khrushchev at the XX Congress gave them such guarantees in the form of an indulgence for the release of all sins, both past and future, dumping all the blood on Stalin.
          Therefore, the top of the CPSU and supported Khrushchev.
          Quote from Courlandchik: “The whole mystery of Khrushchev and his associates is not worth a damn: this is an indefatigable animal fear sitting in their souls for their deed and painful thirst for power».
    3. unsinkable
      unsinkable 23 October 2015 19: 18
      And to hell with me, a six-year-old kid standing in line from midnight for a loaf of bread with bran and peas, for the whole family, his rockets. T..V..A..R..b corn. My peers will not let me lie. now 62. At the moment, I understand that rockets are needed. But somehow a little more human. Now many have white bread and butter, and I am ready to give part of the bread so that there is no war. But this is now, when there is bread and butter. Not then.
      Quote: Engineer
      About what he fed

      Yes, he didn’t feed anyone. Even to Stalin, a cruel tyrant, I have a softer attitude, sometimes respectful. He created a power !!!
      1. MrK
        MrK 24 October 2015 00: 58
        Unsinkable. I agree with you. And further. You seemed to be reading the book of Courlandchik that I recommended. Here is a quote from the introduction: "...But I remember my mother’s tears, when in 1959, according to the decision of Nikita Sergeyevich, our cow “Zorka” was taken away. I remember the long lines and the crush for bread in the store, in which a six-year-old boy almost crushed me."
  4. Basil50
    Basil50 23 October 2015 15: 38
    Khrushchev has so many heirs that for a long time they will crawl out and gnaw off * living space *, and spit on everyone else. The harm from such parasites is not immediately visible, but a pity. Otherwise they would be crushed without pity. But the shooting must be entered, even if they hide from the owners.
  5. Kilo-11
    Kilo-11 23 October 2015 15: 46
    Citizen Khrushchev / Khrushchev / the traitor who began the process of the collapse of the USSR / Empire /, and citizen Gorbachev successfully completed this process. I agree with the author, it is simply amazing and mysterious as such a not-so-distant and uneducated person like Khrushchev could become the head of the USSR. Our story countries still that secret behind seven seals.
  6. pts-m
    pts-m 23 October 2015 15: 55
    probably it’s in the blood of the Russian state. while the nobleman is in favor, then honors and diframbs. as well, he left the post, there’s a lot of dirt. There’s a saying ... you don’t understand Russia wisely ...
    1. unsinkable
      unsinkable 23 October 2015 19: 31
      Quote: PTS-m
      while the nobleman is in favor, there are honors and diferembes. as l-l left the post, so a lot of dirt.

      This is you, my friend, now so brave. I repeat, I’m 62 and I remember well what they said about this tvv ..a..r..and corn in those years. It’s very unpleasant (in modern language)
  7. iury.vorgul
    iury.vorgul 23 October 2015 15: 56
    Khrushchev was a Trotskyist, and he remained so in the future. Hence his zealous advancement of the "world revolution", rejection of the ground army and navy, sowing corn everywhere, in general "voluntarism".
    1. tor11121
      tor11121 23 October 2015 16: 18
      Corn does not give you all peace. In the days of the USSR, all collective farms and state farms worked, and this is millions of cattle, so corn became the main feed of this cattle, Unpretentious when cultivating and harvesting, processing and storage. , a bump in the swamps and that one was cut in order to feed the cattle in the winter, do not judge what you have no idea about.
      1. iury.vorgul
        iury.vorgul 23 October 2015 17: 18
        Dear Sergey. I was born in the USSR and I can imagine how the collective and state farms worked, if only because my grandmother's sister lived on the collective farm until 1986, and from 1968 to 1980 I spent 1-2 months in her village every summer. And also in our area there was a breeding farm-state farm famous for the whole Union. Lenin, where the chairman was Vasily Starodubtsev, a future member of the State Emergency Committee, and we, schoolchildren, went there to harvest sugar beets. So, neither my grandmother, nor her sister-kolkhoz woman, nor her neighbors-kolkhozniks, called Khrushchev anything other than "the bald 3,14 doras". And Khrushchev is scolded for corn not because he began to sow it, the crop is profitable and very useful for animal husbandry, but because with him they began to sow it where necessary and where it is not necessary, in grandma's village, for example, a cherry orchard was uprooted and there it was sown for three or four years, then it was abandoned and the area was overgrown with grass.
        1. Babr
          Babr 23 October 2015 17: 26
          After Khrushchev banned the private farms of collective farmers, imposed taxes on fruit trees, every head of cattle, collective farm markets were closed, peasants cut their livestock due to taxes over the year, cut vegetable production several times, cut down orchards.

          It is impossible to prove now, but a simple analysis of the propagation speed of the Colorado potato beetle in the USSR in 1958, its lightning-fast appearance at the same time in Belarus, the Non-Chernozemye and Vladivostok, suggests either the presence of Colorado beetles with jet thrust, or sabotage, the scale of which is such that it would be impossible to carry out without the approval of the highest party leadership of the USSR.

          Exactly the same thoughts arise with a superficial acquaintance with the history of the spread of agro-killers in Russia - the hogweed Sosnowski, who quietly and quietly replaced Khrushchev during the reign of the absolutely harmless Siberian hogweed, which Stalin insisted on breeding.

          But this “terrible tyrant” Stalin suggested investing in the Russian hinterland and planting healing plants, and in the mid-50s a completely different song began - the Bolshevik-democratic (more precisely, it didn’t start, but continued, starting with the victories of the “ingenious” Tukhachevsky and Latvian shooters over Russian peasants).

          Wanting to finish off the Russian agrarian sector as quickly and as quickly as possible, under the leadership of Khrushchev, the defeat of MTS, a unique organization for the mechanization of agriculture, was launched.

          At the same time, production cooperatives were destroyed, that is, in full accordance with the academic definition, the genocide of the Russians was carried out by “deliberate creation of living conditions designed for the complete or partial physical destruction of this group”.

          In cities, as expected, interruptions in the supply of meat, bread, flour, cereals, and oil to the population began. Many food products, such as honey, have completely disappeared from commodity circulation.

          When the interruptions in bread began, and in the 63rd, when only about 70 million tons (of which less than 50 million tons of wheat) were poured into the elevators, it became very bad. And on January 28, 1964 (my birthday, by the way), the first bulk carriers with grain sailed from the USA to the USSR. Khrushchev completed the Anglo-Saxon homework.
        2. tor11121
          tor11121 23 October 2015 18: 07
          Where it is necessary and where it is not necessary, they sowed both under Khrushchev and Brezhnev. This is if you want the costs of the Soviet planned economy. Five-year plans, etc., in general, the race. Every year a plan was needed more and more. And why, what was there to give? Went to a trick. Let’s also say the grain harvest, the plan was carried out at the expense of unaccounted for areas, that is, gardens, ruts, mowing and other things were open. Now, too, things are not more fun. I live in the village, I say as it is. From nature. Small private courtyards are now dying out. Private meat can’t get to meat markets with its own meat, outbid everywhere. Five years ago, milk was eliminated in villages. no one accepts now. Nobody needs natural milk now. Yes, a lot of things .. Remember and write sickly. Import substitution, a talking room alone.
      2. unsinkable
        unsinkable 23 October 2015 19: 36
        Quote: tor11121
        , do not judge what you have no idea about.

        In order to have an idea, it was necessary to live in those times. I lived. And I know what the name of Khrushchev was: t.v..a..r..b corn. Because he fed cattle well, and people sour bread with bran and peas . And then not ad libitum.
    2. parusnik
      parusnik 23 October 2015 16: 33
      Khrushchev was a Trotskyist, and he remained so in the future. Hence his zealous advancement of the "world revolution", rejection of the ground army and navy, sowing corn everywhere, in general "voluntarism"... He was not a Trotskyist .. he was a voluntarist .. One agreement with Japan is worth it, the USSR gives two islands of the Southern Kuril Islands for nothing .. Well, they did not ratify, but now it comes around .. Why did "Khrushchev's face" squander state lands? He was endowed, and suddenly Japan would abandon American bases, the Japanese promised in words ... As for the advancement of the world revolution ... he was afraid of it like fire ... supported all kinds of left-wing nationalists with a socialist bias ... who cracked down on their rivals, the communists ... the revolution in Cuba, it turned out to be a shock for Khrushchev .. If it were not for Mikoyan .. it would be unknown to recognize Cuba .. Khrushchev, considered himself a communist .. but he never was .. And here is the paradox .. An uneducated person, a populist in his views and a voluntarist .. builds there is a communist society in the country ... it's like a cook starts sewing boots ..
  8. ivan bogomolov
    ivan bogomolov 23 October 2015 16: 08
    Moscow is also lucky to have such a leader as two drops of water, now the bees are breeding wassat Yes, we need to pray for GDP, after those who were at the helm, one another is more beautiful.
  9. erased
    erased 23 October 2015 16: 31
    The article is neutered, the essence of the issue is not disclosed, except for the title, there is essentially nothing. However, the message is true, and the essence of the ghoul Khrushchev is shown, though not all, but for sure.
    For those who are interested - I refer to the books by E. Prudnikova "The Double Conspiracy in the Red Army" and others. Here all the links to the documents are chewed in detail and given.
  10. andrew42
    andrew42 23 October 2015 16: 51
    Something recalled how in the late 80s, under Gorby, glasnost went hand in hand with sighs about the "Khrushchev thaw", demonization of Stalin and spitting on Brezhnev. This is no accident. I distinctly remember the unexpected and abrupt pulling out from under the tablecloth of such an image of "Khrushchev - a communist with a human face" (worse only "grandfather Lenin"), combined with Gorbachev's talking shop. "Khrushchevism" was penned in all discussion clubs, coupled with the theme of Stalinist repressions. Information weapons are a formidable thing.
  11. NordUral
    NordUral 23 October 2015 17: 42
    Oh, no luck to our people with worthy stewards. The last of the few was Stalin. Can it really be that our Motherland cannot offer a worthy successor to the Soviet state from the time of Stalin among the people? I do not believe in it.
    1. Babr
      Babr 23 October 2015 18: 10
      Quote: NordUral
      Oh, no luck to our people with worthy stewards. The last of the few was Stalin. Can it really be that our Motherland cannot offer a worthy successor to the Soviet state from the time of Stalin among the people? I do not believe in it.

      Luck, this aunt is moody.
      The enemy learns from his mistakes, unlike us.
      And will not allow the arrival of a new Stalin.
      At first, I saw Stalin in Putin. Who doesn’t believe in a good king?
      I get it. This is not a king, a demon.

      \ b
  12. moskowit
    moskowit 23 October 2015 19: 40
    "Food for thought ..."

  13. nail
    nail 23 October 2015 22: 18
    Stalin I.V. the conspirators poisoned. Beria L.P. already had investigative material on them. Why he was quickly eliminated. And in this the main role was played by Khrushchev. Now draw your conclusions.