Military Review

Nikita Khrushchev and the "oil needle"

62
The children and grandchildren of the Khrushchev-Gorbachev “Sixties”, hung with loud academic degrees and titles, either do not know or consciously hide that the “oil needle” is the legacy of Nikita Khrushchev, revered in their circles, perhaps one of the most sinister figures of our country stories.




The coming 2016 year will be not only the year of the next parliamentary elections, which, according to a number of experts, can seriously reformat the lower house of the Russian parliament, but also the year of two “Khrushchev's” anniversaries. One of them, the 60 anniversary of the 20th CPSU Congress, is still to be celebrated in February of this year, and the second, the 55 anniversary, has already passed, though it went unnoticed because it coincided with the battle of the Kremlin chimes at the New Year's table.

Strangely enough, but the last anniversary has the most direct relation to the upcoming parliamentary elections of this year. And that's why. An insightful viewer, who is still having fun watching political talk shows, could notice one characteristic detail: all our notebook "oppositionists" had long ago saddled an old nag named "oil pipe" and any studio dispute immediately translated into heart-rending cries of its immortality. These cries were not born on their own, and it is more than obvious to any sensible person that this is a fully coordinated and precisely calculated course of the upcoming political struggle: it is on the country's economic problems and inevitable social conflicts that our fifth column will concentrate all the impact of its heavy artillery in the hope of getting how at least 3% of votes, and with them the state funding of party structures. After all, 2018 is not far away ...

Meanwhile, all these gentlemen - children and grandchildren of the Khrushchev-Gorbachev "sixties", hung with loud academic degrees and titles, either do not know, or consciously hide that "oil needle" is the legacy of Nikita Khrushchev, who is so revered in their circles, perhaps one of the most sinister figures of national history. They only, being in power all 90-s, and now remaining at the helm of the entire financial and economic bloc of our government, brought this dependence to complete absurdity, and now, as they say, from a sore head to a healthy ...

As you know, January 1 1961 in the country conducted a new monetary reform, which resulted in a simple exchange of old banknotes for new banknotes without any confiscation component. Although in reality it was not as simple as it seems at first glance. Traditionally, this reform is presented in the form of an ordinary denomination, since for the uninitiated ordinary people everything looked rather trivial: the old Stalinist “footcloths” were replaced by new Khrushchev's “candy wrappers”, which were significantly smaller, but more expensive by face value. The banknotes of the 1947 model of the year that were in circulation were exchanged without restrictions for new banknotes of the 1961 model of the year in the ratio of 10: 1, and the prices of all goods, wage rates, pensions, scholarships, allowances, payment obligations, contracts changed in the same ratio etc.



However, then almost no one paid attention to one important detail: before the reform, the dollar was worth 4 rubles, or 40 kopecks in the new calculation, and after it was held, the dollar rate was set to 90 kopecks. Many naively believed that now the ruble has become more expensive than the dollar, but in fact the dollar has risen in price significantly - 2,25 times, that is, from 40 to 90 kopecks in new terms. The same thing happened with the gold content of the ruble: instead of 2,22 g of gold, only 0,98 g of gold remained in it. Thus, the ruble was undervalued 2,25 times, and its purchasing power in relation to imported goods decreased by the same amount.

It is not for nothing that the permanent Minister of Finance of the USSR, the famous “Stalinist people's commissar” Arseny Zverev, who held his responsible post as early as 1938, learned that Khrushchev had signed the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR “On changing the scale of prices and replacing the currently circulating money in early May 1960” money, ”he immediately resigned, since he understood perfectly what this seemingly simple denomination of money would lead to.

Nikita Khrushchev and the "oil needle"


The fact is that immediately after the Stalinist monetary reform of 1947 of the year, the Central Statistical Office of the USSR (Vladimir Starovsky) recalculated the exchange rate of the new Soviet ruble, which had been pegged to the US dollar since 1937, according to the personal instructions of the leader. Initially, focusing on the purchasing power of the ruble and the US dollar, Soviet economists derived the ratio: 14 rubles per 1 dollar instead of the previous 53 rubles. But, according to the testimony of the then heads of the Gosplan and the USSR Ministry of Finance Maxim Saburov and Arseny Zverev, Stalin immediately dashed out this figure, indicated in the certificate of the CSB, and explicitly stated that the dollar to ruble ratio should be at the level of 1: 4, and no more.

The establishment of the gold content of the ruble and its isolation from the American currency were caused by three main reasons:

1) a significant reduction in retail prices, which significantly increased the exchange value of the new Soviet ruble;

2) the creation of a socialist camp, which prompted the Soviet leadership to give the ruble an international value level and replace the US dollar as the main clearing unit of account;

3) is an extremely aggressive policy of the US Federal Reserve, which, relying on the Bretton Woods agreement 1944 of the year, led the economies of many foreign countries to actual dollarization, to the output of the entire money supply from the real control of the national banking structures .

Therefore, in reality, the consequences of the Khrushchev reform turned out to be detrimental to our country both in the near and in the long term, because:

1) All imports and foreign goods, which for Soviet buyers have always been inaccessible, have sharply risen in price, have now generally moved into the category of luxury goods, and then speculation.

2) Prices in state commerce have changed exactly 10 times, but on the collective farm market they have changed only 4 – 5 times. As a result of this “imbalance”, a rapid outflow of products from state commerce to the highly collective collective farm market began, which rather painfully affected the well-being of almost all the people and, on the contrary, marked the beginning of total corruption in Soviet state commerce, as Agents began to massively sell all tradable goods, in particular, meat and sausages, to the collective farm market, at the same time fulfilling the sales plan and receiving from this simple radios essential fat in your own pocket.
3) During 1962 – 1963, hidden price increases in state commerce amounted to more than 60%. The situation is especially difficult in the regions, because if in Moscow and Leningrad the state trade was somehow controlled by local authorities, then in the regional, regional and district centers many types of food products completely disappeared from state trade and flowed into the collective farm market. As a result, the "Stalinist" store abundance, so characteristic of all 1950-s, was suddenly replaced by half-empty counters. Therefore, in order to somehow compensate for the outflow of basic products, primarily meat and sausages, to the collective farm market, it was decided to increase retail prices in state trade. And in May, the Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR “On the increase in prices for meat and dairy products” was issued on 1962.

4) Another cause of monetary reform, however strange it may seem, was the notorious oil. The fact is that in the postwar period in our country there was a huge increase in its production - from 20 to 148 million tons, and it was then, in May 1960, N.S. Khrushchev, with the support of a number of members of the Presidium of the Central Committee, primarily Anastas Mikoyan, Frol Kozlov and Nikolai Podgorny, is breaking through the decision to start large-scale export of crude oil abroad. In the first post-war years, the export of oil and oil products from the USSR was extremely insignificant and amounted to less than 4% of its total foreign trade balance in the country's currency earnings. The reason for this was mainly that all 1950-s barrel of crude oil on the world market cost less than 3 dollars, that is, 12 Soviet rubles, and the cost of production and transportation of Soviet crude oil was more than 9,5 rubles, that is, its export abroad was simply unprofitable.



This export could become profitable only if the dollar will be given significantly more rubles than before. And since under Khrushchev, under conditions of a sharp increase in oil production, 7,5 began to grow and export abroad, it was necessary to change the dollar to ruble ratio to replenish the seriously emaciated budget, which became the “innocent victim” of all Khrushchev innovations in the industrial and agricultural sector of the Soviet economy. Now, with a change in the exchange rate of a barrel of oil in terms of Soviet banknotes, 2,7 new, or 27, old rubles began to cost, that is, 2,25 times more than under Stalin.

In this situation, with quite stable world prices for crude oil and preserving its previous cost, oil exports abroad turned out to be quite a profitable thing.

Thus, monetary reform was not a simple denomination. It brought irreparable harm to the country's economy and two chronic ills: dependence on oil exports and chronic food shortages, which later became one of the main economic factors that destroyed the Soviet Union.
Author:
Originator:
http://историк.рф/special_posts/никита-хрущёв-и-нефтяная-игла/
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. c3r
    c3r 6 February 2016 07: 15
    29
    Hrunya is the forerunner of Hunchback. Two freaks damn it, pros..rashat such a country!
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 6 February 2016 11: 45
      14
      What do you mean two freaks pros .... is it? Where were all the others? Why not interfere? In Russia, we have a problem that we love to pontificate history, transferring all failures to single individuals. But the problem is that many of Stalin's comrades-in-arms brought Khrushchev to power — that is a fact. At the 20th Congress, by and large, no one spoke against Khrushchev's report. And there were achievements too - both production growth, and housing construction, and space exploration. So it’s not so simple.
      1. Villon
        Villon 6 February 2016 15: 24
        +3
        Quote: Rastas
        Where were all the others? Why not interfere? In Russia, we have a problem that we love to pontificate history, transferring all failures to single individuals. But the problem is that many of Stalin's comrades-in-arms brought Khrushchev to power — that is a fact. At the 20th Congress, by and large, no one spoke against Khrushchev's report.

        Does the word "conspiracy" tell you anything?
      2. c3r
        c3r 6 February 2016 17: 38
        +2
        In general, you’re right. The statement is rather emotional, but in any country, with any system, the leader (and the people) blame all the failures, and not those who stand behind him, unless the puppeteers are obvious. the government, the Sumazbrod people, and Western puppeteers, whose activities are not even hidden.
      3. MrK
        MrK 6 February 2016 18: 01
        +7
        Maxom75 agree. I will add. V. Yu. Katasonov in his book "The Economy of Stalin" writes, "State capitalism began to take shape in the country, to which some foreign communists drew attention. A member of the Communist Party of Germany (FRG), Willy Dikhut, published a book entitled" The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union ”(“ Die festauration des Kapitalis-mus in der Sowjetunion ”); it came out in parts in 1971-1988, was later translated into Russian and published in the last decade in Russia.
        The verdict of V. Dikhut was very tough.
        He stated that Khrushchev did not just make a number of mistakes in the cause of socialist construction (some other communists abroad spoke about this). With him at the end of the 1950's - the beginning of the 1960's. There was a restoration of capitalism.
        The German Communist’s conclusion came from another conclusion shocking at that time: The party-state bureaucracy in the USSR began to turn into the bourgeoisie, i.e., state capitalism began to take shape in the USSR.
        The restoration of capitalism began at the XX Congress of the CPSU (1956), at which Khrushchev debunked the personality cult of I. Stalin.
        The German correctly assessed the performance of Nikita Sergeevich, saying that the blow was not delivered personally to Stalin, but against the model of the socio-economic development of the USSR, which was developed and practically implemented by Stalin. It was a verified model of real socialism.
        Note that the German communist dates the complete restoration of capitalism just at the time when NS Khrushchev at the XXII Congress of the CPSU (1961) proclaimed that by 1980 communism would be built in the USSR. The German turned out to be very perspicacious. Dikhut V. Restoration of capitalism in the USSR. - M. - SPb., 2004 // http://www.pickalov.narod.ru/RCSU.htm "
      4. Iskander69
        Iskander69 6 February 2016 20: 36
        +4
        “And there were also achievements - and the growth of production, and the construction of housing, and space exploration. So it’s not so simple.” This was laid down and planned under Stalin. And housing (by the way, Khrushch cut the footage of apartments), and space, and so on.
      5. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 6 February 2016 22: 00
        +2
        Quote: Rastas
        What do you mean two freaks pros .... is it? Where were all the others? Why not interfere? In Russia, we have a problem that we love to pontificate history, transferring all failures to single individuals. But the problem is that many of Stalin's comrades-in-arms brought Khrushchev to power — that is a fact. At the 20th Congress, by and large, no one spoke against Khrushchev's report. And there were achievements too - both production growth, and housing construction, and space exploration. So it’s not so simple.

        Let me explain to you once you have so many questions.
        1. In Russia, we have no problems with the personification of history.
        2. With us, the "king" was always responsible for everything, no matter what his name was.
        3. "passing all the failures onto single individuals" is something new. And, yes, yes, the Central Committee. I ask you to voice how many heads we should smear everything by 100 or, more correctly, by 1000.
        4. If you are a competent person, you should know that to take power is enough 5% of the mass, and then work among the masses. By the way, ask about the wave of suicides among middle managers after the 20th congress.
        5. Thank God that Khrushchev did not have Stalin brought to power. Well, Stalin needed him on certain roles.
        6. About achievement is not necessary. Stalin created a State with such an economy, and with such a margin of safety (it is still being dismantled, it cannot be dismantled) that it has been inertia for decades, yes, but inertia has moved forward.
        7. So everything is not simple, but very simple. Khrushchev - an opportunist in Stalin's times, overdid it and rushed to launder himself and again set off in all serious ways.
      6. Korsar4
        Korsar4 6 February 2016 23: 51
        0
        Oddly enough, in relation to these two remarks, the anecdote about the rabbi's wife fits. "And you're right too."

        The question is what we have learned now. And the king, as at all times, plays a retinue.
    2. veteran66
      veteran66 6 February 2016 12: 06
      +2
      Quote: c3r
      Two freaks damn it, pros..rashat such a country!

      Maybe ... There was such a joke in the 60s "A boy at school asks a lecturer from the regional party committee: Uncle, is it true that Nikita Sergeevich launched our agriculture into space? Lecturer: boy, who told you this? Boy: dad Lecturer: so tell your dad that we can not only sow, but also plant. " I mean, you have to pay for everything, our primacy in space in those years was ensured in many ways, if not in everything, thanks to Khrushchev, but the price for this was also high. One rocket launch was then equated in cost to the construction and maintenance of a city of 60 (according to V.B. Chertok's recollections), and then we launched not many missiles, but a lot. I am not a fan of Khrushchev, like all our communist leaders, but these are facts. Another thing is that Khrushch even promoted space, and after Gorby we were left with only a collapsed army and empty counters
      1. Villon
        Villon 6 February 2016 15: 25
        +3
        Quote: veteran66
        "A boy at school asks a lecturer from the regional party committee: Uncle, is it true that Nikita Sergeevich launched our agriculture into space? Lecturer: boy, who told you that? Boy: dad. Lecturer: so tell dad what we can do not only sow, but plant. "

        A very relevant joke.
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. c3r
        c3r 6 February 2016 17: 49
        +6
        You mixed me up with someone? people. So hate yourself, and then the state is not surprising. And with the expressions more careful, if I have the dill flag, it doesn’t mean that I’m territorially located there. For some reason, the Crimea on our patriotic website only passes under dill symbols! do not like write in a personal oilman pancake ...
      2. Alf
        Alf 6 February 2016 21: 01
        +2
        Quote: itr
        reached

        Admins! Oooh! Where are you ?
      3. moskowit
        moskowit 6 February 2016 21: 07
        +2
        Did they not give you "mon ami" in the morning? You have to be tolerant, my dear, tolerant ...
  2. Amurets
    Amurets 6 February 2016 07: 15
    19
    As far as I remember, I was 10 years old in 1961 when exchanging money, food prices immediately rose and after about two to three years the counters were empty. The level of price increases can be judged by bread and butter. As far as I remember, a loaf of gray bread before denomination, it cost 1,5 rubles, it began to cost 18 kopecks. Butter cost 25 and 27 rubles, and it became 3,20 and 3,60 rubles. The prices for food rose sharply, I remember that well as a teenager, because we had been waiting in line for the evening with bread, and then at 9-10 o’clock in the evening, adults were pulled in, and in the morning they were replaced by teenagers. This was such a life. I quote the prices for March 1961. It’s a pity that my elder sister didn’t keep notes, she studied for a merchandiser at the Trade College during these years and price changes were in her notes.
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 6 February 2016 08: 55
      11
      Quote: Amurets
      As far as I remember, but I was ...


      In Kemerovo it was like this: first-grade wheat bread cost 1 kopecks, top-grade bread - 13 kopecks ... I don’t know how and where the products disappeared, but in our early sixties flour and some other goods were sold by coupons ... Vodka cost before the reform, 18 rubles 21 kopecks, it began to cost 20 rubles 2 kopecks ...
      And even at that time I remember long lines (for milk, eggs, etc. products), when each buyer bought from the calculation: a certain amount of goods in one hand ...

      With the coming to power of LIB, food supply returned to normal ...
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 6 February 2016 09: 44
        +3
        Quote: yuriy55
        I don’t know how and where the products disappeared, but in the early sixties flour and some other goods were sold by coupons ... Vodka cost 21 rubles 20 kopecks before the reform, 2 rubles 87 kopecks began to cost ...

        In the Amur Region, coupons were not introduced, but the rest was true. It was still that they brought to the enterprises according to the lists. So the regions are different, but the problems are common.
      2. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 6 February 2016 09: 50
        0
        But according to the author:

        2) Prices in state trade have changed exactly 10 times, but on the collective farm market they have changed only 4 – 5 times. As a result of this “imbalance”, a quick outflow of products from state trade to the greatly increased collective farm market began

        Apparently he believes that collective farmers in the markets traded exclusively for gold and raised prices while reducing the gold content of the ruble.
        In general, the article sets out a philistine view of the economy. Well, explain where it is seen, so that price increases lead to a deficit, and not vice versa? The author sees all the troubles in the economy in Khrushchev’s monetary reform, while denomination and price manipulation were only an attempt to correct the many mistakes and distortions of the Soviet economy. The shortage of products arose not because of the exchange of money, but because products PHYSICALLY began to produce less due to persecution of private production. Plus Khrushchev pursued a policy of raising salaries, but he had to show that the Soviet people live better and better.
        Plus, the traditional imbalance of the Soviet economy, when the priority was the production of means of production and weapons, and consumer goods were produced according to the residual principle. And most importantly, under Khrushchev the inefficiency of the socialist economy was clearly manifested, it did not have time to simultaneously produce the means of production and to ensure the level of consumption corresponding to the capitalist one. While Stalin was all tightened their belts and lived under wartime conditions, but industry developed. Khrushchev and Brezhnev decided to show the electorate that promises to live under socialism are better than under capitalism is not an empty phrase. And then it became clear that if we increase the production of consumer goods, then there is already not enough energy to develop industry. The Soviet economy was a Trishkin caftan, which eventually burst under Gorbachev.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 6 February 2016 10: 28
          +7
          Quote: Nikolai K
          Plus, the traditional imbalance of the Soviet economy, when the priority was the production of means of production and weapons, and consumer goods were produced according to the residual principle.

          Under Stalin, it was harshly, very harshly asked not for the plan for the shaft, but for the plan for the product range. If you had at least seven spans in the forehead, but if you did not fulfill the plan for the nomenclature of at least one product, you won’t get any bonuses. at the request of the heads of enterprises in the Central Committee, under Nikitka, they transferred the economy to a plan according to the shaft, transferring resources to unnecessary products to nobody, just to release more, but whether it was necessary or not to anyone was interested. It was supposed to release products to 100 million rubles and they released it. Plus under Khrushchev, the economic councils dealt a severe blow to the economy. When localism began, duplication of production, waste of resources by economic councils began. This is where it is necessary to look for the inefficiency of the socialist economy.
          1. Nikolay K
            Nikolay K 6 February 2016 12: 54
            -16 qualifying.
            Under Brezhnev, the economic councils canceled, but the lag in the economy has not gone away. It is not a matter of private managerial mistakes by specific Soviet leaders. The most important thing that the capitalist socialist economy lost in is the motivation to work. No socialist competition, let alone coercion, could be compared with personal material interest in the results of labor. In the same way, the work of a free and motivated person turned out to be much more effective than the work of a enslaved serf under feudalism. Socialism is a dead end. This is proved by the collapse of the USSR and the actual return of China to capitalist methods of management. Even V.I. Lenin realized this and introduced the New Economic Policy in the country, in fact abandoning the basic idea of ​​socialism: the monopoly of state ownership of the means of production. It is a pity that Stalin returned the country back to a dead end.
            1. Amurets
              Amurets 6 February 2016 16: 25
              +4
              Quote: Nikolai K
              Under Brezhnev, the economic councils canceled, but the lag in the economy has not gone away. It is not a matter of private managerial mistakes by specific Soviet leaders.

              Quote: Nikolai K
              It is a pity that Stalin returned the country back to a dead end.

              When the economic councils were abolished, it was already too late. The economy was completely unbalanced. The first place was taken by his greatness "VAL". Under such conditions, modernization of production is affordable.
              Now another thing. Stalin did not leave the NEP, paradoxically. Under Stalin, the NEP was brought into a civilized channel. That is, there were industrial martels, industrial cooperation, which produced what was not profitable for large enterprises. During their reorganization of the country, Khrushchev and his dependents destroyed subsidiary farms , industrial consumer cooperation and transferred to large enterprises all this trifle, from which heavy industry was discouraged as best it could. In 1968, the production of lids for glass jars was transferred to a small plant where I worked from a closed production facility. a reprimand, but there were no caps and there are still no caps. And the artel supplied the whole region with these. So it is not necessary to say that the system is to blame, the leaders are to blame. Also in the 80s and 90s of the last century, those who did not have an ear came, did not understand any snouts in production and began to introduce an "efficient economy." The result is obvious. And do not cite the PRC as an example. In the PRC, the idea of ​​large th Jump ". And take and carefully read the book by V. Ovchinnikov "Sakura Branch." It clearly and clearly written about the Japanese industry, which developed on the basis of socialist ideas and socialist competition, by the way.
            2. Alf
              Alf 6 February 2016 16: 30
              +5
              Quote: Nikolai K
              It is a pity that Stalin returned the country back to a dead end.
              1. Nikolay K
                Nikolay K 7 February 2016 10: 26
                -1
                The opinion of the Japanese billionaire is, of course, a weighty argument, especially when you consider that this is a fake and there has never been such a person. Try to get his name in Yandex. Anyway, look at how Japan is developing allegedly under the slogans of the Stalin era during the last 20 years. I've been to this Japan. The country of universal depressive.
                As for the tales that Stalin was a loyal follower of Lenin’s cause and didn’t cancel the NEP, and socialism is generally great, but the bad rulers Khrushchev, Brezhnev and all the others who ruined everything got into the USSR, you would first read what NEP was like . In agriculture, this is a tax in kind and the ban on harvesting in industry is freedom of trade and private ownership of the means of production, including large enterprises. Not for nothing that in the days of the NEP, numerous tests and syndicates began to grow by leaps and bounds. In essence, this is a return to capitalism under the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks. Exactly at this stage is China.
                So to the question of whether Stalin stopped the NEP. The immediate reason for the complete collapse of NEP was the disruption of state grain procurements at the end of 1927. At the end of December, for the first time after the end of "war communism", measures were taken against the kulaks for the forced confiscation of grain reserves. In the summer of 1928, they were temporarily suspended, but then resumed in the fall of 1928. In October 1928, the implementation of the first five-year plan for the development of the national economy began, the country's leadership embarked on a course of forced industrialization and collectivization. Legally, the NEP was terminated only on October 11, 1931, when a resolution was adopted on total ban on private trade in USSR.
    2. My address
      My address 6 February 2016 09: 10
      14
      hi Nikolay!

      I am older than you and I confirm your words. I remember that even before the denomination there was a poem: "Volodya, wake up, deal with Nikita. Oil costs twenty-seven, there is no meat at all." And after the denomination, oil quickly cost 3-60. In the Middle Urals, the queues were as you write.

      Concerning collective farmers.
      Relatives near Tyumen said that life became harder a few years after Stalin’s death. That it was in vain that the large collective farms were shredded into small ones, that they limited the part-time farm, that the rye harvests had fallen, but there was nothing to say about wheat. By the way, earlier the wheat in the Urals sowed little, the climate and land was not for her, but rye grew normally. So it was under Khrushchev that they began to increase the area for wheat and commanded from above when plowing, sowing and so on. It was under Khrushchev, at least I heard from relatives. And about the products on the collective farm markets the author is right. A lot of it came from shops, not from villages.

      Has made this svollt-ta am the thing is.

      Post Scriptum. The above comment is yuriy55. So I confirm his words too. I have a friend 51, born out of Kemerovo. It was so. It looks like it was all over the country.
    3. GAF
      GAF 6 February 2016 16: 14
      +5
      Quote: Amurets
      food prices immediately rose and after about two to three years the shelves were empty.

      Here - here, this is the main "merit" of Khrushch. Ruined agriculture. Under the "good" pretext of caring for the village workers - to free them from the need to dig in the manure of a personal backyard in anticipation of the imminent arrival of the communist future, he actually hacked down the subsidiary farm. Himself from the village. Was drafted into the Army from Novosibirsk in 1959. I remember store shelves crammed with groceries at an affordable price relative to my salary. During the service I received a letter from my brother. We think that leaving a lamb or a piglet on the farm, both of which are NOT. Have you built a large canteen on the farm? They promise that you will acquire everything you need in it. I remembered for its absurdity for a villager the message in Pravda about the awarding of the "Golden Star" for the hard work of the secretary of the Tula Regional Committee for 3-fold overfulfillment of the plan for meat. During the army service, out of three fat herds in our state farm, we managed to get enough personal livestock for one grazing. The people reached out to nearby Biysk for butter and not for their own, but out of nowhere that came from French. An important detail of the agricultural defeat. The blessed savior cow is a factory for the production of many useful things, including manure, and in such quantities that the surplus in the form of cottage cheese went ("laughing chickens" in modern times) to the chickens themselves, and yogurt to the pigs. The factory required attention all year round. She was gone, there was a reason in the increased free time for self-preparation for the promised bright future to once again attach herself to the fiery water. The previously impossible in the village - the appearance of a drunk on weekdays on the street, everyone would point their fingers at this shameful act, has become an everyday event. Etc.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 7 February 2016 07: 15
        +2
        Why didn't Khrushchev kill? Shipbuilding (no need for aircraft carriers, battleships, etc.), aircraft construction, agriculture ... A mentally ill person with "Napoleon's disease".
  3. Bator
    Bator 6 February 2016 07: 18
    +8
    Khrushchev gnida. I sent the Leader. I wanted to make a perestroika but Suslov removed it. It’s a pity they couldn’t remove the other nibble-Gorbach. By the way, Gorbach began his activity precisely under Khrushchev. 2 nits-Khrushch and Gorbach.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 6 February 2016 07: 35
    14
    and there was still a dependence on foreign technologies .. Baibakov, insisted, for example, that equipment and stuff in the oil industry was developed and produced in the USSR, to which the answer was received .. why the extra costs, it’s better to buy over a hill .. it's identity under Khrushchev ..
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 6 February 2016 08: 18
      +4
      Quote: parusnik
      Dependence on foreign technologies appeared.

      Quote: parusnik
      why the extra costs, it’s better to buy over the hill .. this is identity under Khrushchev ..

      I didn’t spare money on abstruse ideas. I looked at old magazines of my youth, especially TM. At that time, there were developed: an underground boat like an underwater boat, a flying submarine and other nonsense. That's where the money was invested, as well as in corn at the North and South poles , the elimination of industrial cooperation and private farms. In general, the collapse of the country. So I completely agree with you.
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 6 February 2016 10: 07
        +2
        Remember the funny film of our childhood "Welcome or no unauthorized entry is allowed!" How they praised corn - the queen of the fields. But they managed to laugh at this "fake" too!
      2. veteran66
        veteran66 6 February 2016 12: 29
        0
        Quote: Amurets
        At that time, the following was developed: an underground submarine, a flying submarine, and other nonsense.

        Well, here you are wrong. Science is trial and error, a lot of things were conceived and not embodied in the world, there were sound thoughts, and there was nonsense, but this, I repeat, is the normal development of science. I remember that in our country cybernetics was recognized as a bourgeois unnecessary science.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 6 February 2016 16: 37
          +1
          Quote: veteran66
          Well, here you are wrong. Science is trial and error, a lot of things were conceived and not embodied in the world,

          If these machines were developed for peaceful purposes, yes, I agree, but a weapon carrier that can be heard from tens of kilometers away, by seismic devices, is nonsense. Yes, for laying mines, tunnels, such machines and ideas are needed to solve these problems. But excuse me, who needs a carrier. weapons that can be heard from dozens of kilometers away. But some of the ideas included in these projects are relevant for modern mechanical engineering, but the developments have either been destroyed or are still classified as "Sov Secret".
          1. veteran66
            veteran66 6 February 2016 22: 04
            0
            Quote: Amurets
            who needs a weapon carrier that can be heard for tens of kilometers.

            in any case, peaceful targets are better than murder weapons, but the first Soviet atomic submarines were heard hundreds of kilometers away and what, were they canceled?
  5. NKVD
    NKVD 6 February 2016 08: 14
    +1
    A lot of interesting things about the Stalin era is here http://www.great-country.ru/
  6. Egoza
    Egoza 6 February 2016 08: 18
    +7
    The bald maize in his coffin turns like a propeller! How much harm he brought! So much for the "role of personality in history". Great Stalin also made the country GREAT, and as small as a typhoid louse began to kill it.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 6 February 2016 10: 09
      +1
      Well, I wouldn't have kept him near me! Or did you not see what kind of person he was? Himself said to him "Calm down, Nikita!" when he scolded the execution lists beyond all likelihood. But he kept it, didn't kick it out!
  7. yuriy55
    yuriy55 6 February 2016 08: 59
    +5
    The most powerful argument in favor of someone (or to the detriment): yes
  8. midshipman
    midshipman 6 February 2016 09: 01
    27
    I had to work as the head of the State Institution of the Ministry of Radio Industry of the USSR from 1979 to 1990. Prior to this, from 1963 he had gone from technician to deputy head of NII-33. He created combat systems, ensured their adoption, and participated in 1972 in a local conflict in the Middle East. Already the head of the State Institution (17 factories and 13 research institutes subordinate to me, where more than 120 thousand specialists worked), we created the National Program (on the instructions of the Government, of course, and under the control of the Defense Department of the CPSU Central Committee). In this program, together with the enterprises of France, the GDR and the FRG, samples of all household appliances for the population of the USSR, which were of the highest quality, were prepared. Repeatedly had to visit the United States at that time and compare what should have been manufactured with US products. We had better, you can believe me.
    But Gorbachev and Yeltsin all eliminated. Apparently, they were prepared by US representatives and were able to process it in such a way that there was not even a country that our grandfathers and fathers created. I do not presume to judge agriculture. Although the enterprises under my jurisdiction on the collective farms attached to them had a good harvest. Specialists of the enterprises were provided with products. They didn’t sit on an oil needle. Could export household appliances, as we are supplying military hardware, including those that I have also created. I have the honor.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 6 February 2016 10: 02
      +4
      Quote: midshipman
      We had better, you can believe me.

      I believe! A question, not a joke? I read in "Arguments of the Week" about radio equipment produced under the Phillips, Toshiba brands, and a number of other brands at our factories. Foreign companies began to sue for unauthorized use of trademarks, but when they opened and analyzed the circuitry solutions, then all questions disappeared and the claims were dropped. Foreign designers were amazed at the gracefulness of the unexpected solution of the problems. Is it really true that even in this way they tried to save our radio-electronic industry from collapse? Or is it a fake?
      1. midshipman
        midshipman 6 February 2016 11: 50
        +9
        This was after 1990, before the collapse of the USSR, everything was produced only according to our documentation. And joint developments with Thomson (France) and German firms never saw the light of day. It has become more profitable to import from abroad. The PRC took something from us and then itself organized the production of consumer goods in the full range. I have the honor.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 6 February 2016 12: 09
          +3
          Quote: midshipman
          This is after 1990

          That's what I asked about these times. Because it was not profitable to produce. For the ruble of the output, there were 1,5 rubles of direct and indirect taxes. Although for screwdriver products they paid penny taxes.
      2. veteran66
        veteran66 6 February 2016 12: 34
        +4
        I read the memoirs of one of our radio engineer from the defense industry, as he described that when the next directive on "further improvement ..." came, they began to develop and prepare domestic cassette recorders for release. This was especially strict to ensure that patent rights were not infringed. We were looking for ways to do in the likeness, but in other ways. So yes, it was.
    2. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 6 February 2016 10: 04
      -2
      But Gorbachev and Yeltsin all eliminated.

      Eliminated sorry what? Where is all your vaunted home appliances? I, except for Vyatka-machine, did not hear anything like that. Under Gorbachev, they began to release someone as part of the conversion, but this was often the case. . . which in no way corresponded to the quality of modern goods, as soon as the borders were opened, the comparison became obviously not in favor of domestic goods.
      1. King, just king
        King, just king 6 February 2016 21: 05
        +1
        OOOOOOOOO! Vyatka-machine gun, mat-mat-mat ... In 1993, in the company of 2 more rather well-intentioned fellows, I dragged this unit from 4 to 1 then from 1 to 3. Eper ballet, everyone was out of breath (everyone was sober for 24 years) I tore my pants. This is a fool !!!
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 6 February 2016 21: 09
          0
          Quote: King, just king
          OOOOOOOOO! Vyatka-machine gun, mat-mat-mat ... In 1993, in the company of 2 more rather well-intentioned fellows, I dragged this unit from 4 to 1 then from 1 to 3. Eper ballet, everyone was out of breath (everyone was sober for 24 years) I tore my pants. This is a fool !!!

          "You just don't know how to cook them."

          85 kilos (with a dead weight of 84) - easily carried away on the luggage belt .. if there is another sherp (partner) - yes they just fly away .. torn pants go with the forest laughing

          I said .. I just did that .. and not that way - there was a lot more fun laughing
          1. King, just king
            King, just king 6 February 2016 21: 25
            0
            Yeah, on the belt - there were no gadgets. Stair flights - Khrushchev and there and there. And to undertake what? !!!! There were no protrusions and niches - for the bottom - the edge cuts, I still remember !!!

            The next post of "kalibra" is for the post of "Nikolai K" - WE DO NOT need someone else's glory!
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 6 February 2016 21: 33
              0
              Quote: King, just king
              Yeah, on the belt - there were no gadgets

              Exactly. At the same time, unfortunately, there was one belt, and mine.

              Quote: King, just king
              Stair flights - Khrushchev and there and there

              Exactly.

              Quote: King, just king
              And to undertake what?

              The one with the strap holds from below. Others who got there - up the steps, one at a time, raise the "leading" edge.

              Quote: King, just king
              edge cuts, still remember

              My wife then asked me - Rum, and with whom did you fight so interestingly? The face is clean, and the right shoulder - well, just in the trash laughing

              I had a funny wife .. still love, yeah ..

              And so we dragged it - the piano of Zarya, from the fifth five-story building to the eighth .. nine-story building ... it did not fit into the elevator.

              Therefore, he said:
              Quote: Cat Man Null
              I just did it .. and not - it was a lot more fun there

              repeat
              1. King, just king
                King, just king 7 February 2016 00: 52
                0
                I have a spine, in this situation with the piano (the daughter grew up) only from the 5th (the house is naturally without an elevator, for it is a 5-storey, worker-peasant) downstairs, said: "I raped him in the mouth" and actually sawed it off with a grinder.
    3. kalibr
      kalibr 6 February 2016 10: 10
      +1
      What a fellow you are!
    4. sgg
      sgg 6 February 2016 11: 10
      +5
      Apparently, we are close in age and life experience. Therefore, I will argue with you a little. In vain you attribute disregard for the production of high-quality "consumer goods" only to Gorbachev and Yeltsin. This is how all our past leaders were distinguished. And this, along with the collapse of food production, became one of the main reasons for the collapse of the USSR. The main mistake of Gorbachev and Yeltsin is that they began to mindlessly integrate with the West, instilling in everyone that everything can be bought over the hill.
    5. GAF
      GAF 6 February 2016 14: 33
      +6
      Quote: midshipman
      Could export household appliances,

      Exactly. In the late 70s he worked in Algeria. I brought an Electronics TV with me. A wonderful device for p / n, bought for about 250 rubles. When he left, he sold it to a local peddler for an amount in dinars equivalent to 1200 checks. rubles, one and a half to two times more "heavy" to the usual ruble. Any electrical engineering from the iron and above was in demand. I will give a fact about the degree of its relevance. The peddler "put the arrow" on the TV and paid for it six months before my departure. To my question, what if the apparatus of that ...? In response: "who does not take risks, he has no fat." The same was true according to friends who worked at universities in different African countries. A gold mine for exporting everything and everything without competition. Asians in those days still spent the night. What did our representatives of GKES in Algeria do - the growth of personal well-being.
  9. Igor39
    Igor39 6 February 2016 09: 37
    -2
    Heh, it’s strange to hear from some, Stalin is good, the rest is shit! It’s ridiculous simply because of this nonsense! Stalin and everyone else in the Communist Party consisted and led the country to communism according to the precepts of Ilyich, so do not la la, they were all the same, the result of the reign of all 91 years.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 6 February 2016 10: 08
      +5
      Quote: Igor39
      Heh, it’s strange to hear from some, Stalin is good, the rest is shit! It’s ridiculous simply because of this nonsense! Stalin and everyone else in the Communist Party consisted and led the country to communism according to the precepts of Ilyich, so do not la la, they were all the same, the result of the reign of all 91 years.

      Not a single leader said that in 20 years the USSR would live under Communism, and Khrushchev said this and did everything to ruin the country.
    2. veteran66
      veteran66 6 February 2016 12: 36
      +1
      Quote: Igor39
      all were the same, the result of the reign of all 91 years.

      It’s a pity you can’t put two pluses))
  10. kare
    kare 6 February 2016 10: 01
    +1
    Nikita Khrushchev (Perlmuter) began the genocide of the Russians immediately after the assassination of Stalin
    The betrayal of his country by the Khrushchev did not wait for a condemnation from his party comrades, from which we can conclude that everything he did was precisely the real goal of the Bolsheviks after the Maidan of 1917 ...
    1. Avantageur
      Avantageur 6 February 2016 11: 03
      +2
      this is the legacy of Nikita Khrushchev, so revered in their circles, perhaps one of the most sinister figures in Russian history.

      Quote: kare
      Nikita Khrushchev (Perlmuter) began the genocide of the Russians immediately after the assassination of Stalin

      What else do you want from a Jewish Jew.
    2. Captain nemo
      Captain nemo 6 February 2016 17: 41
      +2
      Quote: kare
      The betrayal of their country by the Khrushchev did not wait for condemnation from party comrades

      Yes, it seems that in 1964 his party comrades condemned him in the Kremlin offices, and they removed him from his post. It's just that his party comrades did not much publicize this.
      1. MrK
        MrK 6 February 2016 18: 10
        +2
        Quote: Captain Nemo
        Yes, it seems that in 1964 his party comrades condemned him in the Kremlin offices, and removed him from his post.


        They then displaced him, but the anti-Stalinist policy remained almost unchanged. Why? This is well written by Alexander Kurlandchik, on Prose. RU.
  11. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 6 February 2016 10: 33
    +2
    In Bulgaria, a similar monetary reform occurred in 1962. From childhood I remember coupons for bread and lines too.
  12. Boris55
    Boris55 6 February 2016 11: 55
    +1
    Top secret
    21.03.1953 G., N 149

    Considering that the construction of a number of hydraulic structures, railways, highways, and enterprises, envisaged by earlier resolutions of the Government, is not caused by the urgent needs of the national economy, the USSR Council of Ministers resolves:

    1. Stop the construction of the following objects:

    a) hydraulic structures - the Main Turkmen Canal; gravity channel Volga — Ural; Volgobalty waterway (second line); waterworks on the Lower Don; Ust-Donetsk port;

    b) railways and highways - Chum-Salekhard-Igarka railway (“Polar Trans-Siberian Railway”. - A.Ch.), incl. ship repair shops, a port and a village in the Igarka region; Komsomolsk — Pobedino railway; tunnel under the Tatar Strait; Apatity — Cave — Ponoy railway; railway Varfolomevka — Chuguevka - Olga bay; Chuguevka — Sergeevka railway; Arkhangelsk — Ruchi — Mezen railway; Krasnoyarsk-Yeniseisk railway; the railway Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky — Ust-Bolsheretsk; motorway Ust-Bolsheretsk — Ozerovsky fish factory; highways on the Kola Peninsula, in the Arkhangelsk and Murmansk regions and on the coast of the Baltic Sea;

    c) industrial enterprises - Kirov Chemical Plant; Montenegrin artificial liquid fuel plant; Aralichevsk artificial liquid fuel plant; shipyard metal shipbuilding in Osetrovo.

    2. To oblige the ministries: means of communication (t. Beshcheva), power plants and electric industries (t. Pervukhina), agriculture and billets of the USSR (t. Kozlov), sea and river fleet (t. Shashkov), metallurgical industry (t. Tevosyan), oil industry (t. Baybakova), chemical industry (t. Tikhomirov):

    a) within two weeks to work out and submit to the USSR Council of Ministers measures for the conservation or liquidation of the construction and cost estimates indicated in paragraph 1 for this purpose;

    b) take measures for the complete safety of unfinished construction objects, bring them to a condition suitable for conservation, and ensure the use of the utility enterprises, equipment and materials for other economic purposes that are terminated at construction.

    3. Oblige Gosplan USSR:

    a) make the necessary changes arising from this decree in the plans of the relevant ministries for 1953 year;

    b) withdraw funds for metal, fuel, building materials, equipment and other funds allocated for the 1953 year for objects terminated by construction.

    4. Oblige the Ministry of Defense of the USSR (t. Vasilevsky):

    a) to stop the acquisition of two road-building divisions, stipulated by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated 30 in January 1953, No. 273-126-с, which are entrusted with the construction of the railway Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky — Ust-Bolsheretsk and the Ust-Bolsheretsk highway —Ozerkovsky fish factory;

    b) to disband the road military construction units formed on the basis of the Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 3865-1767ss from 8 of October 1951 of the year to perform work on the construction of roads on the Kola Peninsula, in the Arkhangelsk Region and on the Baltic Sea coast.

    5. To oblige the USSR Ministry of Finance to make changes in the balance of income and expenditure for 1953 for the ministries in accordance with this decree. ”
  13. Chtononibrator
    Chtononibrator 6 February 2016 11: 56
    -9
    Khrushchev's personality is highly controversial. A bunch of pros and cons of his reign. But he was not someone, but an enemy of the people.
    1. Ivan Tartugai
      Ivan Tartugai 6 February 2016 13: 52
      +8
      Quote: Chtononibrator
      Khrushchev's personality is highly controversial.

      On the contrary, Khrushchev was very consistent. Step by step, without deviating from his general line, Khrushchev destroyed the Soviet Union. His only mistake was that he took it up very zealously and the tension in the country was growing sharply. Novocherkassk and Temir-tau appeared, where the troops were already shooting protesters in the streets. Therefore, his comrades-in-arms Brezhnev, Mikoyan, Suslov and others, got together and removed the four-time hero from their posts, sent him to a "well-deserved" rest.
      A bunch of pros and cons of his reign.

      It is more correct to write that the total activity is negative, i.e., Khrushchev's minuses more than blocked the pluses.
      As, for example, with agriculture, namely, for example, with the rise of virgin lands. Here Kazakhstan gained a plus, there was a big step in the development of the republic, new state farms, new roads, a transport network, supply of equipment were built, and the whole country lost from the rise of virgin lands. The virgin lands were supposed to provide the country with grain, and after its rise, on the contrary, in the USSR, the situation with grain became even worse and the country began to buy grain from the states, Canada, Argentina, that is, it began to invest in agriculture, but already from the states, Canada, Argentina. And their agriculture all over the country turned into a "black hole", of course, somewhere a little better, somewhere a millionaire state farm, somewhere medals, hero stars, and in general, the country's agriculture is a failure.
      And the same for each industry, where Khrushchev managed to get into. Everywhere ruined, everywhere worsened.
      1. Chtononibrator
        Chtononibrator 6 February 2016 14: 58
        0
        Quote: Ivan Tartugay
        very zealously took it

        At all times they demand a reformer, not a king resting on their laurels.
        Quote: Ivan Tartugay
        As, for example, with agriculture

        All the same, agricultural causes are strongly influenced by natural causes. Khrushchev at least tried.
        Quote: Ivan Tartugay
        Everywhere ruined, everywhere worsened.

        And all the same, housing, missiles to defend the homeland and even near at hand in America, the first in space ...
        1. Ivan Tartugai
          Ivan Tartugai 6 February 2016 16: 27
          +3
          Quote: Chtononibrator
          At all times they demand a reformer, not a king resting on their laurels.

          And what reforms he wanted to carry out, for example, in Temir-tau, so as not to rest on the king’s laurels. What kind of reforms are these, that the Soviet people took to the streets in protest, and the Soviet soldiers shot at him.
          All the same, agricultural causes are strongly influenced by natural causes.

          Russia is a country with a thousand-year-old farming culture.
          And for a thousand years the Russian peasant had enough skill, ability and strength, given the existing "natural reasons", to support himself, and to feed a huge, even huge crowd of parasites with bread. And after the reformer Khrushchev, who did not want to rest "on the laurels of the tsar," could not even grow bread for himself, he went to the states to bow, they began to buy from the states. But this is bread, it is needed every day. Bread should be your own, so that no one does not bow, no one asks: "Please sell, I will pay."
          Khrushchev at least tried.

          Yes, do not try so. After all, all Soviet agricultural science was told, written, persuaded, it is impossible to raise virgin soil in this way, it is impossible to rush with corn in the northern latitudes. But Khrushchev broke everyone knee-deep, where, not by washing, so by skating, he insisted on his own and on the virgin lands, and on corn in the northern latitudes, and they themselves saw the result of the attempt and feel it on themselves.
          And all the same, housing ...

          Such a "housing", the people called the Khrushchev.
          At the cost of building a hruschech is more expensive than old stalinok In terms of labor, taking into account factory manufacturing, they also do not win. And in quality, in the comfort of the apartment building environment, in the ecology of the home, in the cost of heat energy for heating, in the improvement of the local area, it is much worse. Therefore, they live in the khrushchahs from despair, well, a person has no other possibility, that’s why he lives in a khrushcheb, and if he would have moved out right away.
          The people did not call it in vain - not a house, not housing, but a slum.
    2. Ivan Tartugai
      Ivan Tartugai 6 February 2016 17: 58
      +3
      Quote: Chtononibrator
      ... but he was not an enemy of the people.

      When Ben Gurion got acquainted with the materials of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the Congress of Khrushchev's triumph, he said that there would be no Soviet Union in 30 years. True, he was a little mistaken; after the 20th Congress of the USSR, he officially existed for 35 years, but 5 years for such a global event, the mistake is small.
      The collapse of the USSR was laid by the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Khrushchev.
      In the Gospel of Matthew it is written that “beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inside they are ravening wolves: you will know them by their fruits.”
      So Khrushchev, as the false prophet promised "communism in 20 years", and the country led like a predatory wolf to collapse.
      It’s by the fruits and judge for yourself the enemy of the USSR-Russia or its benefactor with virgin soil, corn, and Khrushchev.
  14. iouris
    iouris 6 February 2016 13: 57
    +7
    This in marketing I think the pros and cons.
    In general, Khrushchev is a criminal. Children are his US citizens.
    1. moskowit
      moskowit 6 February 2016 21: 18
      +2
      And upon obtaining citizenship, they sang the American anthem holding their hand to their hearts ... "worthy" children of their parent ...
      1. Ivan Tartugai
        Ivan Tartugai 6 February 2016 21: 50
        0
        Quote: moskowit
        ... sang the American anthem holding a hand at the heart ...

        Sang with a hand at the heart somehow still understandable. But the state citizen, son of Khrushchev, Sergei, who at the age of 28 in the USSR was already a doctor of sciences, a professor, and a Lenin Prize Laureate and even a Hero of Socialist Labor, so he did not want to speak Russian with a TV correspondent from the Russian Federation, answered him only in English.
        Fully pereobulsya in the Yankees.
        Completely disowned.
  15. Amper
    Amper 6 February 2016 23: 29
    +1
    Recently, before the election, the rulers simply do not give rest to predecessors. And I really want to find the main culprit in my own failures among the long dead. (I’m not guilty of anything. You see! It's all him! A word of honor, uncles!))
    Of course it is possible, and necessary !, to sort through and evaluate the mistakes of the previous powers that be, so as not to step on the same rake.
    Just why the current government in the face of GDP with accomplices 25 years with tenacity id .. then hammering the country with this rake, while not offending yourself !?
    Of course, the People got more cones than laurels for their sacrifices and heroic work! But! Until the 90 years it was a Great and self-sufficient country! (Damn, of course, chewing gum, gin, layers were vitally lacking! ...). But life was fun, carefree and confidence in the future was! Which ruined, I wanted the forbidden!
    With Khrushchev, they went into space, and with EBNe and GDP, where did they end up !? In jo..e! And where will we find ourselves in 2-3 of the year? In the annals of history!
    They don’t need the people, they’ll attach their loot, but they wouldn’t be taken away .. And there will be the Puttin and Еbcin dynasties in the geyrop ... Once betrayed, he is doomed to betrayal forever!
    Although not a fact, Judas are labeled .. and there are those who will share theirs ... am
  16. podgornovea
    podgornovea 26 October 2016 07: 12
    0
    The idiocy is complete and absolute! It is a pity that the cons removed. Soon, the war in Syria will also be hanged on Khrushchev. Illiteracy and complete incompetence. Export gave a currency that could not be obtained in other ways. And for the currency purchased goods that were not produced or lacked in the country. And primarily food, machinery and equipment. Accordingly, not only export has risen in price but also IMPORT! Oh, how awesome the profitability has become!
    And on clothes, prices were set regardless of the gold content in the ruble or the exchange rate to the dollar.
    This "historian", in addition to the oil export data, would be nice to look at the import data for a start.
  17. gladcu2
    gladcu2 1 December 2016 23: 03
    0
    Thanks to the author


    The only intelligible attempt to explain the dependence of the USSR on the cost of oil.

    But in fact, I still don’t understand how a country with a closed economic system could respond to some external influence.

    I remember those days. No import "made the weather".