Military Review

As Khrushchev, the Soviet armed forces and law enforcement bodies were trashers

169
As Khrushchev, the Soviet armed forces and law enforcement bodies were trashers



Khrushchev’s “de-Stalinization” (“Perestroika-1”) caused great damage to the Armed Forces of the USSR. So, on January 15, 1960, the Supreme Council of the USSR without discussion approved the Law "On a New Significant Reduction in the Armed Forces of the USSR." From the army and fleet up to 1 million 300 thousand soldiers and officers were to be fired. That is, more than a third of the total number of the USSR Armed Forces.

And it was not the first cut. During Stalin's lifetime, a reduction of 0,5 million was outlined, which was associated with bringing the Armed Forces to peacetime standards. According to a secret report sent to the CPSU Central Committee by the Minister of Defense G. K. Zhukov and the Chief of the General Staff V. D. Sokolovsky, on March 13, 1 the number of Soviet Armed Forces was 1953 5 396 people. It was planned to reduce it by 038 500 people for three years, which fit into the norm. However, Khrushchev intervened, and for the period from March 000 1 to January 1953 1 the 1956 989 soldiers were reduced. And by December 822 1 in the staffing table remained 1959 3 623 posts.

Announced by law from 15 on January 1960, the reduction would take the army to 2 430 000 people. Total: The Soviet Army was reduced by two and a half times! Khrushchev trashed the USSR Armed Forces without a fight and better than any external enemy!

Moreover, Khrushchev could deliver a near-fatal blow to the army and navy of the USSR. In February, 1963, at the retreat of the Defense Council in Fili, the first secretary of the Central Committee set out his view on the future armed forces of the Soviet Union. They should consist of two parts: a half-million grouping that serves and protects the 300 launchers of ballistic missiles, and the militia army, in essence, the militia. Thus, Khrushchev planned to implement the long-standing plans of the Trotskyists, who believed that the army should have a "militia" (militia) character. Thank God, Khrushchev was not given to do and removed from power. He could still break a lot of wood.

"Reforming" the army was associated with three main prerequisites. First, Khrushchev fulfilled the order of his masters in the West. It was necessary to reduce the enormous power of the USSR, to curtail a number of defense projects dangerous for the West. Secondly, as a hidden Trotskyite, Khrushchev did not understand the significance of the traditional, "imperial" army and navy. He believed that the "missiles" was enough, and the army could be of a militia nature. Thirdly, the case was connected with the struggle for power and Khrushchev’s suspicions that the military elite could shift him. First of all, with Khrushchev's fears that the “Stalinist shadow” and the influence of Zhukov in the army, even despite his resignation, could lead to the resignation of Nikita Khrushchev himself.

Thus, Khrushchev struck two blows to the army and its prestige. The damage of the Armed Forces was enormous, and not only material, when with "joy" they destroyed the new military equipment, but also moral. Newspapers, magazines and other Soviet media in those years - in 1955-1958. and 1960-1961 widely covered the mayhem of the army. For example, about how with smiles they destroy the newest military equipment, how soldiers and officers shouting "Hurray" reacted to reports of a reduction in the army, etc. It is clear that this had a negative effect on the personnel of the Armed Forces and the entire society as a whole. .

And the world situation, when smashing the army in the USSR, was very dangerous. Not a single country in the world, let alone other great powers, in those years, reduced its troops, either on its own territory or on foreign bases. On the contrary, the arms race was on, the number, equipment and financing of the Western armies increased rapidly. In the United States, a congressional resolution and the law “On enslaved peoples” (1958-1959) were adopted, stimulating the dismemberment of not only the USSR, but also the RSFSR. The United States increased its nuclear arsenal in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The United States sent troops to South Vietnam. Indonesian and Caribbean crises, collisions in the Taiwan Strait, “Berlin Wall”. All this spoke of the need to strengthen the defense of the USSR.

Moreover, the Khrushchev, starting "de-Stalinization", ruined relations with former allies - huge China and Albania. And the relationship was spoiled so much that the Soviet-Chinese and Soviet-Albanian confrontations began. And the Chinese army, modernized with the help of the USSR, quickly re-equipped technically and increased its number, including several thousand kilometers along the entire border with the USSR! It was because of the treacherous policy of Khrushchev that the USSR was forced to maintain a powerful grouping on the border with China, in case of a war with China. And this imposed an additional burden on the so-upset economy of the Red Empire. Already in 1964, Beijing experienced an atomic bomb, while Soviet-Chinese relations quickly deteriorated, mainly due to Khrushchev personally. Besides, Khrushchev worsened the military-strategic position of the Soviet Union in the Asia-Pacific region. Back in the middle of 1950, on the initiative of Khrushchev, Moscow surrendered its military bases in northeastern China (Port Arthur).

In the midst of Khrushchev the USSR quarreled with Albania. The requirement of the then “pro-Stalinist” Albania to the USSR in 1960 - to return to it the naval base in the Albanian southern Adriatic port of Vlora (the Soviet Union used it from 1950) and the unsuccessful Khrushchev attempt to eliminate the then Albanian leadership - almost led to the Soviet-Albanian conflict in 1960-1962. As a result, Albania began to prepare for war "on two fronts" - against the USSR and NATO.

Almost simultaneously, the Ministry of Internal Affairs was subjected to pogrom. 13 January 1960 The USSR Ministry of the Interior was abolished, and its functions were transferred to the ministries of the interior of the Union republics. History The Union Republican Office (NKVD-MIA), which almost completely controlled the life of the Soviet state, was interrupted for six and a half years. Only 26 July 1966 g. By the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR "On the creation of the Union-Republican Ministry of Public Security of the USSR" was restored centralized police control throughout the country (MOOP USSR). And the Ministry of Internal Affairs was restored two years later: November 25 1968 The Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet adopted the Decree “On the renaming of the USSR Ministry of the Public Order Security to the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs.”

One of the reasons for the pogrom of the army and the Ministry of Internal Affairs was the strengthening of regional and ethnocratic elites. As the researcher of the Khrushchev era, Alexei Chichkin, “the rapid growth of the influence of the elites of most of the Union republics and their economically powerful“ clans ”in the top leadership of the USSR-CPSU, in fact, began to press down all-union structures. Moreover, the main, one might say, target of the impact of these elites was, above all, the all-Union law enforcement agencies. In order to "secure" in case of investigations of all sorts of economic frauds and, especially, anti-Soviet actions in the same republics.

The socio-economic and, therefore, the internal political situation in the Soviet Union at that time was worsening due to the “Khrushchev experiments” (“virgin”; “corn”; the beginning of the liquidation of “unpromising villages” in the RSFSR; the defeat of state machine-tractor stations; the rise in retail prices for goods and services from the end of 1950-x, etc.). Therefore, Khrushchev needed the support of the national-regional elites. Naturally, they understood the situation, and therefore demanded in return strategic concessions from the Kremlin. This concerned the redistribution of powers in favor of the republics and the dissolution of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs. The authorities of the Baltic, Transcaucasian and Central Asian republics were particularly active on this issue since the second half of the 1950s. The leaders of these regions (members of the Central Committee and the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU) directly or indirectly demanded “thanks” from the Kremlin for supporting the Khrushchev group in 1956-1958. And not only in her confrontation with the “Stalinist group” (Bulganin, Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich, Saburov, Shepilov), but also in the “victory” of the Khrushchevites over Defense Minister Georgy Zhukov.

A characteristic detail is that due to the abolition of the all-Union Ministry of Internal Affairs, almost all the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs files on many of the leaders and economic figures of the Union republics in January 1960 were transferred not to the all-Union KGB, but to the ministries of the interior or the KGB of the same national republics where them safely and forgotten.

At the same time, regional and ethnocratic elites did not stop there. At the beginning of the 1960s, they even demanded the liquidation of the KGB of the USSR. True, this is not the case. Last but not least, thanks to the removal of Khrushchev from all posts in October 1964.

Fleet

Immediately after the restoration of the national economy destroyed by the war, Stalin set out to create a powerful ocean fleet in the USSR. Such a fleet was necessary to resist the aggression of such traditionally strong sea powers as the United States and Great Britain. Soviet economists have calculated and concluded that the USSR has enough capacity to build a large fleet, and its construction will not affect the well-being of the people. Solved this important problem Commissar of the Navy NG Kuznetsov.

They planned to build a large fleet before the war, but they did not have time, but the priorities were different. And during the war all the possibilities of the shipbuilding industry were mobilized to build destroyers, submarines, submarine hunters, minesweepers, torpedo boats and armored boats. Shortly after the end of World War II, the People's Commissar of the Navy, Admiral of the Fleet Kuznetsov submitted for approval by the government a draft ten-year shipbuilding plan for the 1946-1955 years. True, Kuznetsov’s advanced views on the role of aircraft carriers were not understood by Stalin and met with decisive resistance from the leadership of the People’s Commissariat of the shipbuilding industry, which constantly referred to the “unwillingness” to build ships that were fundamentally new for the domestic fleet. Work on aircraft carriers were curtailed. Only in 1953, the Kuznetsov was able to continue work on the creation of a light aircraft carrier.

Khrushchev, on the other hand, simply cut down almost the entire program. He rejected the concept of building a surface navy proposed by Admiral Kuznetsov in a memorandum dated March 31, 1954, which generally continued the Stalinist shipbuilding program. Kuznetsov himself was removed from his post in December 1955, and on February 17, 1956, he was demoted to vice admiral and dismissed so as not to interfere with the destruction of the fleet. From that moment, Moscow decided to create a "nuclear missile nuclear fleet." The main branches of the forces were identified nuclear submarines and marine missile aviation coast-based. Large surface ships were assigned an auxiliary role, and aircraft carriers were generally declared "weapons aggression. The construction of surface ships was suspended, practically ready-made cruisers began to be cut on the stocks. Khrushchev categorically argued that "submarines can solve all tasks, large surface ships are not needed, and aircraft carriers are" dead "."

At the same time white began to gloss over black. 13 February 1956, on the initiative of Khrushchev, adopted another resolution “On the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the Navy”, condemning the low combat readiness of the fleets and blaming the situation for N.G. Kuznetsova.

Khrushchev dealt a blow to the military-strategic positions of the USSR in the north-west. In January, 1956 ceased to exist Porkkala-Udd naval base - “a gun at the temple of Finland”. 100 sq. kilometers of Finnish territory, leased to 1944 in the year to the Soviet Union voluntarily-compulsory for a period of 50 years. The unique position from which the whole Gulf of Finland was sweeping was surrendered to the recent enemies who had besieged Leningrad, stupidly, under the pretext of “improving relations with Helsinki”.

In addition, on the initiative of Khrushchev, the Marine Corps were disbanded. The only Vyborg Naval School in the country, which trained officers for the Marines, was closed. In 1957, seven cruisers, which had a high degree of readiness (Scherbakov, Admiral Kornilov, Kronstadt, Tallinn, Varyag, Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok) were sent for scrap at once. Infected by the “rocket euphoria”, the Soviet leadership considered the 68-bis artillery cruisers to be a hopelessly outdated weapon. Although the same Kuznetsov showed that cruisers can be upgraded. In November, 1954, by the Commander-in-Chief of the Naval Forces, approved the assignment for the development of the re-equipment of cruisers of the 68-bis Ave.

The 82 cruisers, also known as the heavy cruisers of the Stalingrad type (the ship's 3), in fact, the real battleships, were also destroyed. Just a month after the death of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, three of the hulk were removed from the stocks and cut into metal. In addition, Khrushchev stopped all work on the long-range, as well as in general on heavy artillery.

Khrushchev showed great generosity, at the expense of the people, with regard to Indonesia. Before World War II, it was a colony of the Netherlands and was called the Netherlands East Indies. During the war, the country was occupied by the Japanese. Independence of the Republic of Indonesia was proclaimed 17 August 1945. A. Sukarno became its president. The conflict with Holland almost immediately began, which from the beginning even refused to recognize the independence of Indonesia. Indonesia also claimed all former Dutch colonies in the region. Hostility was also with England and the United States. Therefore, with the 1950-ies, Sukarno began to lean toward an alliance with the USSR. Khrushchev decided to provide large-scale military support to Indonesia.

During a visit to Khrushchev in Indonesia in February 1960, an agreement was signed on the supply of ships, aircraft, helicopters, tanks and other weapons. The most expensive acquisition was the cruiser Ordzhonikidze, renamed the Irian (it was later turned into a floating prison). In total, the Soviet Union supplied Indonesia with arms and military equipment worth more than $ 1 billion (in prices of that time). The Indonesian Navy alone received about 100 combat and auxiliary ships and vessels, including the Ordzhonikidze cruiser, 6 destroyers, 4 patrol ships, 12 submarines, 12 missile and 12 torpedo boats and 10 base minesweepers (a whole squadron!). The Marines received 100 amphibious tanks, artillery, several divisions of air defense missiles, small arms, ammunition and equipment for two divisions of the marine corps.

Being obsessed with rockets and realizing someone else's plan to undermine the defenses of the USSR, the secretary general expected to reduce the composition of the Navy even more, but the Soviet fleet was “saved” by the Americans. In the autumn of 1960, the underwater bomber George Washington entered the combat patrol. The latest submarine ("killer cities") equipped with 16 SLBM "Polaris A-1". Therefore, the USSR began to look for an "antidote." An ambitious program to build large anti-submarine ships (BOD) of the 61 project was urgently initiated. They built 20 units. In addition to the BOD, a draft anti-submarine cruiser (1123 code Condor) was developed - the first step towards the creation of aircraft-carrying cruisers. Between 1962 and 1969 Two such ships were built - “Moscow” and “Leningrad”.

The Caribbean crisis also showed the need for a strong surface fleet and the revival of the marines. In the Soviet Union began the revival of the Marines. In 1963, the Marine Guards Regiment was formed in the Baltic. In the same year, the regiments of the marines appeared in the Pacific Fleet, and after Khrushchev, the marine corps were restored in the Northern and Black Sea fleets. In addition, the 1964 of the year began the mass construction of large amphibious assault ships of the Xnumx Avenue Tapir.

Thus, Khrushchev inflicted enormous damage on the Soviet fleet and on the defenses of the USSR. Some of the potential was later restored. So, already from the middle of the 1960-x begins to increase the number of Soviet Armed Forces, eventually reaching nearly five million people. However, a lot of time was wasted and money and resources were spent.

The success of the fleet during the reign of Khrushchev did not appear due to, but in spite of his efforts. Under the pressure of circumstances, thanks to the enthusiasm of the representatives of the fleet, science and industry, some programs developed according to a previously set course. Only three years after Khrushchev’s dismissal and the appointment of A. A. Grechko as Minister of Defense, under the direction of S. G. Gorshkov, the creation of a balanced type of forces and classes of ships of the fleet, proposed by N. G. Kuznetsov, began, which was reflected in the plans of military shipbuilding on 1971 -1980 and on 1981-1990.

In general, the policy of Khrushchev, taking into account the disastrous socio-economic policy and their consequences, meant one thing: the acceleration of the destruction of Soviet civilization and statehood.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Khrushchev "perestroika"

Enemy blow to the Soviet civilization
169 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. itr
    itr 16 February 2016 06: 12 New
    -37 qualifying.
    Dear author, you are paranoid !!!!
    1. siberalt
      siberalt 16 February 2016 10: 34 New
      -4
      Muddy little article. Hm winked Under Khrushchev, aviation was reduced by missiles, this is a fact. If he was "destroying the military commissar," then why were all Americans forced to build personal bomb shelters, and go to work with a gas mask? And space exploration began under Khrushchev. The Americans quietly flew over the USSR on scouts until Paulus landed. So it's not worth chopping hot.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. siberalt
        siberalt 16 February 2016 10: 54 New
        +1
        I apologize. Paulus Khrushchev "landed" in Stalingrad. And over the Urals - Powers.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 16 February 2016 11: 30 New
          28
          You wrote down Khrushchev as a major military leader, agree to the point that you will probably call him the Marshal of Victory.
          And Khrushchev didn’t reduce aviation, as you put it, but he committed a real pogrom.
          1. V.ic
            V.ic 16 February 2016 12: 07 New
            +6
            Quote: bober1982
            and made a real pogrom.

            Comrade "sibiralt" did not serve in the aviation, therefore he declares about "reduced". The blow was a match for the fascist. In December 1985 I arrived in Swidnitsa, for the direction to the unit and to me "REOshnik", the personnel officer-lieutenant colonel ("rails" in red) issues an order as "AOshnik". To my timid objections that the VUSs do not correspond, and the experience is different, the underground famously objected that the pier itself was produced as a pilot, and after two months' reduction, "made launches." A small touch, but how much it highlighted! I will continue: A military aviation director took me out of the station, reissued everything as it should, and I went to Shprotava NGO REO.
            1. Fitter65
              Fitter65 17 February 2016 08: 24 New
              0
              Svidnitsa, Spratava-I really later served in Klyuchev ...
          2. iouris
            iouris 16 February 2016 13: 13 New
            10
            It happened like this.
            During the construction of an aviation regiment, before the start of flights, the command read out an order to disband before the personnel. All.
            Many novels have been written on this subject. They should be read.
          3. siberalt
            siberalt 16 February 2016 13: 22 New
            -13 qualifying.
            Again, a debate on the topic, and yesterday there were five cancers, but sooo big.
            It doesn’t matter whether Khrushchev was a major boss during the Battle of Stalingrad (but he was there and commanded in his competence), but more importantly, the article came out just to match the date of this battle. The transfer of some actions of state leaders in time is children's fun or ideology of enemies. May spit enough on your story. Khay Khrushchev for corn. But it was on it that livestock raising in America rose. Maybe Peter was wrong to bring American potatoes to Russia? They would eat steamed turnips.
            I lived under Khrushchev already a conscious life. Already for one rehabilitation of the innocently convicted, he deserves a monument from our people. Or haven't you got tired of liberal chimes yet?
            1. derik1970
              derik1970 16 February 2016 14: 41 New
              12
              The date of the Battle of Stalingrad has nothing to do with it. In the Battle of Stalingrad, Khrushchev led the rear and was not a great commander; he did not lead a single military operation; he was not present at the front line. Kukruzu, in the USSR and without Khrushchev, was successfully grown for agriculture, and it was precisely where it grows well in the south of the country and where it is profitable to grow it and not beyond the Arctic Circle as Khrushchev and the hedgehog with him wanted. And it was in America that animal husbandry rose thanks to competent leadership and because in the USA they received 500-600 centners per hectare against our 70 because every vegetable has its own place of growth. hi
              1. Bayonet
                Bayonet 1 March 2016 16: 23 New
                0
                Quote: derik1970
                and not beyond the Arctic Circle as the Khrushchev and the hedgehog wished with him.

                Why invent? Khrushchev was not so bad as to demand this! And the bastards are always ready to break their foreheads, just to please them, that’s all perverted.
            2. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 18: 58 New
              +8
              Quote: siberalt
              But it was on it that livestock raising in America rose. Maybe Peter was wrong to bring American potatoes to Russia? They would eat steamed turnips.

              Apparently you were poorly taught botany at school, seen! otherwise you would know that if you bring the seeds of cereals from the American continent, which Khrushch did, then in the first year it will give a good harvest, but if the seeds of this good harvest are planted in the soil of Europe, then you will get "henen with poppy seeds", since culture begins to degenerate! First, it must be planted in experimental plots, select single ones! cobs of the second harvest that survived in the European soil and then seven ten years from these surviving cobs to create a seed crop specifically for this soil, but if you transport this "curriculum" from the central regions to the soil of Karelia or the Kola Peninsula, you will get "hen with poppy seeds ", as now it needs to be adapted for Karelia. And they sowed corn near Monchegorsk - they sowed it ... and it grew twenty centimeters high and was used as silage for cows. This I tell you .. who has lived in Monchegorsk for 24 years. Tropical corn was sown beyond the Arctic Circle!
            3. Villon
              Villon 16 February 2016 21: 06 New
              -1
              Quote: siberalt
              Maybe Peter was wrong to bring American potatoes to Russia? They would eat steamed turnips.

              In this, Peter was wrong. There was no need to import potatoes at all. And even more so, it was not necessary to squeeze turnips out of the diet of Russian people. By ALL indicators, potato loses turnips.
            4. Fitter65
              Fitter65 17 February 2016 08: 26 New
              -1
              Khay Khrushchev for corn. But it was on it that livestock raising in America rose.
              So in otm and delr that in America, and not us ...
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 16 February 2016 12: 07 New
          19
          Quote: siberalt
          I apologize. Paulus Khrushchev "landed" in Stalingrad. And over the Urals - Powers.

          I always believed that under Stalingrad Rokossovsky, Vatutin and Eremenko commanded. Because of you, it even got to know what Khrushchev was doing there. It turns out that the rear reinforcements approach coordinated. The comment below does not apply to me. hi
      3. Ivan Tartugai
        Ivan Tartugai 16 February 2016 12: 37 New
        10
        Quote: Sybiralt (7)
        The Americans quietly flew over the USSR on scouts, until Paulus landed.

        Already in 1959, the Chinese shot down American reconnaissance aircraft with the help of our S-75 systems, so the states were forced to stop flying over China. And over the Soviet Union, the Yankees continued to fly quietly until May 1960, thanks to the connivance of Khrushchev. It’s just that Khrushchev already had no choice but to allow our air defense to shoot down this already insolent flight of U-2, which defiantly defiantly flew on May 1, and also intended to fly over Moscow.
        1. veteran66
          veteran66 16 February 2016 19: 57 New
          +4
          Quote: Ivan Tartugay
          Already in 1959, the Chinese shot down American reconnaissance aircraft using our S-75 systems,

          You at least learn the materiel before writing. A plane (one! RB-47) was shot down in the skies of China, but this does not mean that the Chinese. The calculation was ours, one of the participants in this event lives in our city. And Khrushchev sent the missiles with the calculations there. U-2 flew much higher and was inaccessible for the S-75 complex with those missiles, but as soon as the performance characteristics of the missiles were improved, Powers landed. Powers reported directly to the Central Committee about intentions to fly over Moscow? Where does infa come from?
          1. Ivan Tartugai
            Ivan Tartugai 17 February 2016 05: 28 New
            +1
            Quote: veteran66
            A plane (one! RB-47) was shot down in the skies of China, but this does not mean that the Chinese.


            You know that it’s enough for a bully once to get in the face and all his fervor disappears. So in this case, a plane was shot down (one! RB-47) in the sky of China in 1959 and the Yankees were blown away, calmed down, stopped flying. Then the truth resumed flights to U-2, but this was later on and on a different scale, and at a different frequency.
            Quote: veteran66
            U-2 flew much higher and was out of reach for the S-75 complex with those missiles

            Initially, the S-75 could shoot down targets at an altitude of up to 22 km, after modernization in 1959 it was already up to 24 km. U-2 flew at an altitude of 20 km. So they could have shot down before May 1, 1960.
            S-75 was specially created for such purposes. A special design bureau was created for the S-75 missiles under the direction of Grushin PD, at the direction of IV Stalin. Stalin IV personally invited Grushin PD, who was then Lavochkin’s deputy, explained to him the situation with U-2 flights and set the task. It was in a TV broadcast in which Grushin PD himself spoke about this. So the merit of Khrushchev in the landing of Powers is zero. There was no where to go. Everything was ready, both equipment and people, and there was already even a little experience in combat use, you yourself write that in China there was a Soviet calculation.
          2. Ivan Tartugai
            Ivan Tartugai 17 February 2016 09: 43 New
            +3
            Quote: veteran66
            And Khrushchev sent the missiles with the calculations there.

            Khrushchev abroad only gave up the position of the USSR. Rokossovsky KK called from Poland, surrendered base in Finland, Port Arthur. And he could not send air defense missiles to China. Khrushchev only spoiled relations with China. All the more, on his own initiative, he could not do anything that could harm the states. Khrushchev always helped the states to the detriment of the USSR. Even during the Caribbean crisis, Khrushchev allowed the states to use the U-2 to take the position of Soviet missiles in Cuba. According to the recollections of our military, the U-2 reconnaissance plane literally crawled along the positions of Soviet missiles, but our air defense did not receive commands.
            An agreement on helping China with military equipment was signed under Stalin IV and Khrushchev was forced to simply fulfill. Again there was no where to go.
      4. iouris
        iouris 16 February 2016 13: 08 New
        17
        "Under Khrushchev" does not mean "thanks to Khrushchev." The Stalinist system had colossal inertia.
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 19: 04 New
          +1
          Quote: iouris
          Stalin's energy had tremendous inertia.

          I would write that.
        2. veteran66
          veteran66 16 February 2016 20: 01 New
          -5
          Quote: iouris
          The Stalinist system had tremendous inertia.

          the article says that Stalin, it was Stalin who refused the aircraft carriers, according to the recollections of our rocket launchers, he reacted to the idea of ​​missiles with distrust. And outer space, the very peaceful outer space, is precisely the merit of Khrushchev, who squeezed the lobby of the military, who insisted only on nuclear weapons delivery vehicles. I am not a supporter of Khrushchev, however, like other communist leaders, but this is a fact.
          1. Ivan Tartugai
            Ivan Tartugai 17 February 2016 12: 38 New
            +1
            Quote: veteran66
            according to the recollections of our missile launchers, he (Stalin IV) and reacted to the idea of ​​missiles with distrust.

            You know that according to the recollections of our missilemen under Stalin IV in the USSR, there were two design bureaus that were involved in translating the ideas of missiles into reality. This is the bureau of Lavochkin SA and Korolev. KB Lavochkina SA has achieved greater and better results than KB Koroleva. But as Khrushchev made his way to power, he immediately closed the work in the more successful Lavochkin SA bureau, despite requests, explanations, clarifications, evidence of rocket and military personnel. Khrushchev made the Queen a monopolist. But you know that in such particularly costly cases there must be competition. It is better to spend money on paper, ink, ink, paper, drawing paper, tracing paper, and finally on the wages of designers for two KB, than to lose in products.
            Quote: veteran66
            I am not a supporter of Khrushchev, however, like other communist leaders, but this is a fact.

            However, the facts, i.e. The comments you wrote show that you are a staunch supporter of Khrushchev.
            1. veteran66
              veteran66 17 February 2016 19: 40 New
              +1
              Quote: Ivan Tartugay
              that you are a staunch supporter of Khrushchev.

              I repeat again, for those who are on an armored train, I am not a supporter of the totalitarian communist leaders, all
        3. veteran66
          veteran66 17 February 2016 06: 52 New
          +1
          Quote: iouris
          in this case, a plane was shot down (one! RB-47) in the sky of China in 1959 and the Yankees were blown away,

          how were they blown away if they were later shot down over the territory of China before the age of 65? As for the USSR, air battles between air defense fighters and U.S. spies have repeatedly occurred on the western, southern, and eastern borders. There were dead on both sides and this lasted from 1947 to the mid-60s (my father repeatedly flew to intercept violators in the Kuril Islands). And the fact that they could not get the S-75 complex, only because the missile has a limit not only in height but also in range. They could just close the sky then.
          1. Ivan Tartugai
            Ivan Tartugai 17 February 2016 11: 43 New
            -3
            Quote: veteran66
            how were they blown away if they were later shot down over the territory of China before the age of 65?

            After each reconnaissance aircraft shot down, the intensity of flights decreases, but they will always try, but with caution. And if you don’t shoot down, they will literally brazenly crawl over objects, which they did.
            Quote: veteran66
            And the fact that they could not get the S-75 complex, only because the missile has a limit not only in height but also in range. They could just close the sky then.

            All sky is not necessary to close. Why, for example, close the sky on the steppe, where cows and lambs graze. Let U-2 fly to itself, take a picture of the sheep, count the population, but the Yankees do not want to fly to photograph the sheep, count the population. Give them strategically important objects, they want to fly over them.
            S-75 complexes were supposed to cover the sky over strategically important objects, and there are not so many of them. Yes, for this, both the S-75 and the range and height are enough to shoot down the U-2.
            1. veteran66
              veteran66 17 February 2016 19: 46 New
              0
              Quote: Ivan Tartugay
              the sky over strategically important objects, and there are not so many of them.

              we had a lot of them and nobody knew which one they would fly over, besides capture, a photo lens allowed the plane not to be directly above the subject. Adopting the S-75 in service in 1957, count how many missiles and launchers are needed for them, build positions and train crews for them. Do not grind rubbish, learn better materiel, and then turn around like in a frying pan.
      5. python2a
        python2a 16 February 2016 14: 23 New
        +3
        You have a jumble in your head.
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 19: 07 New
          +1
          Quote: python2a
          You

          It’s better to quote first, the one to whom the comm refers ... otherwise it is somehow vague ... Move the cursor over the phrase, select it with a blue bar and click quote, and then your thought. No offense, but vague turns out ...
      6. bodzu
        bodzu 16 February 2016 14: 45 New
        12
        Nikita Sergeevich Khrushev was near-minded and conceited. He did not have a basic systemic education and a penchant for self-education. The result of his reign is known to all. So that he allegedly laid the foundations of the Russian manned space program the same is not true, the beginning was laid under Stalin. That fact was able to take advantage of the fruits of another's labor.
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 1 March 2016 19: 01 New
          0
          In 1955 (long before the flight tests of the R-7 rocket) S.P. Korolev, M.V. Keldysh, M.K. Tikhonravov came to the government with a proposal to launch into space using the R-7 rocket an artificial Earth satellite (AES) ) The government supported this initiative. In August 1956, OKB-1 withdrew from NII-88 and became an independent organization, with S.P. Korolyov appointed as its chief designer and director.
          Quote: bodzu
          .So that he (Khrushchev) allegedly laid the foundations of the Russian manned space exploration is also not true, the foundation was laid under Stalin.

          Under Stalin, there was another "beginning" -
          September 25, 1938 Korolev was included in the list of persons subject to trial by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR. In the list, he walked in the first (firing) category. The list was endorsed by Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov and Kaganovich. The fact that he did not disappear in the camps is a great success for our country. And then we were FIRST!
      7. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 18: 45 New
        0
        Quote: siberalt
        build personal bomb shelters, and go to work with a gas mask

        Neither the missiles of that time, nor the planes of that time, were capable of striking America. If the Tu-4 could fly with an atomic bomb, then it could not return. In general, he was only an aircraft capable of raising an atomic bomb and that was all ... Propaganda made the Americans walk with gas masks: it was necessary to create ardent enemies from their recent allies. And this could only be done by terrorizing the population of the United States. Space exploration began not with Khrushchev, but with Stalin. You should read the book "Missile Weapons of the USSR". Most people only know the Katyusha RS and BM -8-48. But for your information, by the end of the war, the USSR possessed PX (ER X) missiles launched from Il-4 and Pe-8 bombers, which made it possible to shell Berlin without entering the air defense zone of the whole of Berlin. Most of the experimental missiles during the war years were created in single copies, one of these missiles created in the Bureau of Sergo Beria became the very missile that
        Quote: siberalt
        Paulus !!! landed

        Do you even know: why was Gagarin the first to fly into space, and not a nuclear warhead? Because at that time, Korolev’s rockets could raise a short and light astronaut, but not a four-ton nuclear warhead. This is one of the answers about gas masks that Americans wore ... which by the way could not save from radiation.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. siberalt
          siberalt 16 February 2016 19: 40 New
          +2
          An empty argument. Khrushchev made a breakthrough in rocket science. But to paint it in all black is something like a detsky laughing Try reading books. Do not be like dogs for an article like "face". For newbies. Khrushchev's personality has already been discussed many times at the forum. Everyone remained unconvinced. Ukraine now also says that Stalin and Putin are to blame for all its troubles. So what? But for some reason, monuments to Khrushchev are not erected for the gift of Crimea. He is also our story with you. And where can I go?
          1. Villon
            Villon 16 February 2016 21: 30 New
            +2
            Quote: siberalt
            An empty argument.

            If empty, why argue?

            Quote: siberalt
            But to paint it in all black is something like a detsky

            Nobody painted it in black here. The author neatly stated the facts. Only.

            Quote: siberalt
            Try to read books.

            What "books"? Or is it all the same for you?

            Quote: siberalt
            The forum has repeatedly discussed the identity of Khrushchev. Everyone remained in their own opinion.

            You may have remained unconvinced, but why do you speak for others? Why do you think you know for others what they think and what they think?

            Quote: siberalt
            He is also our story with you.

            That is why it must be studied.
        3. veteran66
          veteran66 16 February 2016 20: 09 New
          0
          Quote: shasherin.pavel
          why was Gagarin the first to fly into space, and not a nuclear warhead?

          Why is there a nuclear warhead in space? And why is a "short and light astronaut" in America? What are you talking about? Read Academician B. Chertok, who stood at the origins of our cosmonautics, you will learn a lot of new things, incl. and Stalin's attitude to rockets and space.
        4. Pushkar
          Pushkar 17 February 2016 00: 46 New
          0
          Quote: shasherin.pavel

          Do you even know: why was Gagarin the first to fly into space, and not a nuclear warhead? Because at that time, Korolev’s rockets could raise a short and light astronaut, but not a four-ton nuclear warhead. This is one of the answers about gas masks that Americans wore ... which by the way could not save from radiation.
          The "short and light" cosmonaut was carried by the Vostok spacecraft, which weighed the same weight as the warhead. And the gas mask trapped radioactive dust that would settle in the lungs. So that. the Americans had something to fear.
      8. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 16 February 2016 19: 46 New
        +1
        Quote: siberalt
        And space exploration began under Khrushchev.

        Yeah, they mastered in a couple of years - before the Khrushchev, however, there were no missiles under Stalin, only with the Khrushchev it all started fellow
        1. veteran66
          veteran66 16 February 2016 20: 12 New
          +2
          Quote: Mr. PIP
          Yeah, they mastered in a couple of years - there weren’t any rockets before

          You see, dear, space is not only a rocket, it is just a delivery vehicle. There is a second component - a spaceship (manned). So they (spaceships) under Stalin really did not exist.
        2. Pushkar
          Pushkar 17 February 2016 00: 53 New
          +2
          Quote: Mr PIP
          Quote: siberalt
          And space exploration began under Khrushchev.

          Yeah, they mastered in a couple of years - before the Khrushchev, however, there were no missiles under Stalin, only with the Khrushchev it all started fellow
          Sevens under Stalin was not. And the fact that Khrushchev in every possible way supported the development of the space rocket program (begun under Stalin) is a fact. Not everything in it was unambiguously bad, not for nothing that the monument at the Novodevichy cemetery was half black and half white.
        3. veteran66
          veteran66 17 February 2016 19: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: Mr. PIP
          Yeah, they mastered in a couple of years - before the Khrushchev, however, there were no missiles under Stalin, only with the Khrushchev it all started

          if the question is to dig deeper, then space exploration began even under the tsar-priest, I hope the names Tsiolkovsky and Zander tell you something?
        4. Bayonet
          Bayonet 1 March 2016 19: 07 New
          0
          Quote: Mr. PIP
          Yeah, they mastered in a couple of years - before the khrush, there were no missiles under Stalin

          Judge for yourself whether or not
          The design of the R-7 was completed in July 1954, and on November 20, 1954 the creation of the R-7 rocket was approved by the Council of Ministers of the USSR. March 20, 1956 a decree was adopted on measures to ensure the testing of the R-7 rocket. Flight tests of the R-7 rocket began with an unsuccessful launch on May 15, 1957. But on August 21, 1957, the world's first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) successfully completed a flight.
      9. Pancho
        Pancho 16 February 2016 20: 59 New
        0
        Quote: siberalt
        space exploration began under Khrushchev

        You are not telling the truth, space exploration began under Comrade Stalin. In general, I think that there is some kind of curse on Russia about the “Elite.” Apart from Stalin, you can not say anything particularly good about anyone, perhaps only about Brezhnev, and the rest ...
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 1 March 2016 19: 10 New
          0
          Quote: Pancho
          Tell the truth, space exploration began under Comrade Stalin.

          All clear ...
    2. sdv68
      sdv68 16 February 2016 10: 34 New
      +2
      And you would not be bad to study history not from liberal books.
    3. Villon
      Villon 16 February 2016 10: 54 New
      0
      Quote: itr
      Dear author, you are paranoid !!!!

      Unproven accusation is the best praise.
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 16 February 2016 11: 50 New
        0
        Quote: Villon
        Unproven accusation is the best praise.

        And what is there to prove. Enough of this
        Firstly, Khrushchev fulfilled the order of his masters in the West.
        1. Villon
          Villon 16 February 2016 21: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: Mera Joota
          And what is there to prove. Enough of this
          Firstly, Khrushchev fulfilled the order of his masters in the West.

          Well, what's so terrible about that? Weren't party members in any way connected with the West?
    4. iouris
      iouris 16 February 2016 12: 20 New
      +6
      Quote
      Churchill, who was celebrating his 90th birthday in the British Parliament at that time, said that "there is a person who has done a thousand times more harm to the advice of Russia than me - this is Nikita Khrushchev, pat him."
      “The harm caused by Khrushchev, according to the Minister of Defense of the USSR, Marshal of the Soviet Union D.F. Ustinov, more than Hitler, Napoleon and all world terrorism put together. ”
      End quote
      1. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 19: 13 New
        +1
        Quote: iouris
        “The damage that Gorbachev caused was greater than Khrushchev, Hitler, Napoleon, and all world terrorism combined.”
        End quote

        It is unfortunate that Stalin was not allowed to remove the party from the supreme power and transfer all power in the country to the Parliament, then we would not have stepped on tombwhether! the second time.
    5. V.ic
      V.ic 16 February 2016 12: 31 New
      0
      Quote: itr
      Dear author, you are paranoid!

      Bread /bread/ Siva / gray / mares / mare / ...
    6. Andrey Petrov47
      Andrey Petrov47 17 February 2016 17: 24 New
      0
      And who are you?
      Khrushchev (i.e. the May bug) - Kaklyaksky voluntarist, Trotskyist and bloody executioner.
      His eldest son, an officer, was shot for the murder of a colleague at the verdict of a military tribunal.
      His youngest son, who became the director of the rocket factory under his dad, went to the US for permanent residence, where he advises the enemies of Russia.
      - The family is ...
  3. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 16 February 2016 06: 13 New
    +9
    Well, what can you say? Enemy of the people. Fittest.
    1. Avantageur
      Avantageur 16 February 2016 13: 44 New
      0
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Well, what can you say? Enemy of the people. Fittest.

      And it all began ordinary, with a glass of Pepsi Coca ...


  4. venaya
    venaya 16 February 2016 06: 27 New
    21
    Khrushchev smashed the Armed Forces of the USSR without a fight and better than any external enemy!

    A purely Trotskost approach: "Neither peace nor war, but dissolve the army"Such was the upbringing of this" leader "in Tritsky circles. I think it is difficult to describe all his activities in short articles, although it is necessary - for the edification of posterity.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 16 February 2016 11: 53 New
      +4
      Quote: venaya
      Khrushchev smashed the Armed Forces of the USSR without a fight and better than any external enemy!

      A purely Trotskost approach: "Neither peace nor war, but dissolve the army"Such was the upbringing of this" leader "in Tritsky circles. I think it is difficult to describe all his activities in short articles, although it is necessary - for the edification of posterity.

      Explain why you need an army of 5 people with a population of 396 million?
      1. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 19: 27 New
        0
        Quote: Mera Joota
        What is needed army numbering 5 396 038 people

        and you divide the number of soldiers into square kilometers of the USSR. 1 soldiers on 37 civilians, even in antiquity, twenty residents kept one professional peace war in order to feel calm, if they weren’t enough, princely squads called for and paid for them at the expense of the population. In case of invasion, every family had armor and an ax .. at least. It is true that the squad should not have been sitting, there are no enemies, so run away to a neighbor and take part of the harvest from him, or make him pay tribute, as was done in Novgorod and there was a usual fee: one squirrel from smoke per year. From Ugra and Bjarmia they took sable from smoke.
        1. veteran66
          veteran66 16 February 2016 20: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: shasherin.pavel
          in order to feel calm, if the princely squads called for their own, they paid for them at the expense of the population. In case of invasion, every family had armor and an ax .. at least.

          This is understandable, but the army is no longer with clubs, but with missiles ...
          1. Villon
            Villon 16 February 2016 21: 43 New
            0
            Quote: veteran66
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            in order to feel calm, if the princely squads called for their own, they paid for them at the expense of the population. In case of invasion, every family had armor and an ax .. at least.

            This is understandable, but the army is no longer with clubs, but with missiles ...

            But rockets require constant care for them. And there are things that missiles alone cannot do.
            1. veteran66
              veteran66 17 February 2016 06: 55 New
              0
              Quote: Villon
              And there are things that missiles alone cannot do.

              Yes, the land with the natives could not be captured, but we had a different doctrine, have you heard about the principle of nuclear deterrence? So, quite successfully applied. Therefore, the army could not be so gigantic
              1. Generalissimo
                Generalissimo 17 February 2016 19: 17 New
                0
                Anyone talking about "nuclear deterrence", if only not about the case - as if on the contrary, the "natives" did not capture through the Amur. They will move by company and without a strong Air Force and Navy Army, no weapons of mass destruction will be enough.
                1. veteran66
                  veteran66 17 February 2016 19: 52 New
                  0
                  Quote: Generalissimo
                  They will move in a rotary manner and without a strong Army of the Air Force and Navy, no WMD will be enough.

                  no one denies the presence of a strong army and navy, but there is a difference in the concepts of a strong and numerous.
                  1. Generalissimo
                    Generalissimo 18 February 2016 10: 17 New
                    -1
                    strong, then - numerous.
            2. veteran66
              veteran66 17 February 2016 19: 37 New
              0
              Quote: Villon
              And there are things that missiles alone cannot do.

              Yes, the land with the natives could not be captured, but we had a different doctrine, have you heard about the principle of nuclear deterrence? So, quite successfully applied. Therefore, the army could not be so gigantic
  5. 1536
    1536 16 February 2016 06: 45 New
    14
    I’m thinking, if we were not prevented from going forward, if the people were not tied hand and foot by these scoundrels from the top of the so-called "Communist Party", reborn after the death of I.V. Stalin to the ground in a certain gang of untouchables, filled with opportunists, fellow travelers and simply swindlers and ignoramuses, what heights could the USSR reach and how would we live now? Alas, history has no subjunctive mood, and these Khrushchevs and various other Gorbachevs fell on people's heads not from the moon, were born, lived nearby, and we applauded them, took their nonsense at face value. And it ended with the fact that by the 90s of the last century the country practically collapsed, and the peoples inhabiting it plunged into poverty. And the “Khrushchevs” continued to cheat and steal, fled abroad, and did not incur any punishment. On the contrary. Lectures are given and consultations are given to Western "partners", and their children and grandchildren have already joined in this. And there is no need to talk about Space, about the Lenin icebreaker, about the fact that there was no war. This was all in spite of, and not in the name, as they say, and fits into the framework of covering the ambitions of these ghouls.
    There is only one conclusion - we ask ourselves, is the country guaranteed against a repetition of the coming of such unfortunate rulers? In my opinion, no!
    1. veteran66
      veteran66 16 February 2016 20: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: 1536
      bastards from the top of the so-called "communist party"

      I would not put quotes, otherwise it turns out again, the system is good, but the managers are bad ... it’s strange like that.
  6. sa-ag
    sa-ag 16 February 2016 06: 45 New
    +8
    one-time, two-suggestive ...
  7. Good cat
    Good cat 16 February 2016 06: 57 New
    +1
    Trotskyist evader, pest!
    1. Dangerous
      Dangerous 16 February 2016 11: 48 New
      +6
      Have you ever lived at that time to say so? From the first paragraph, the article seems too lopsided.
      PS Recently, the reaction in the comments of most users has been surprising. Whatever the article was written about, almost all echoed it with one voice. The author would have written that after Stalin Khrushchev made the great missile, space and nuclear power from the USSR, everyone would have praised him in compliments and the most exalted epithets.
      Of course, I don’t want to write such a thing (they can ban it), but most have brains like ordinary cattle - where everything is, there they are. They wrote that the bad person — we will havit, wrote that the good person — would drown in praise. Sadly this is all of course, when there is no opinion ...
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 16 February 2016 12: 13 New
        0
        Quote: Dangerous
        but most have brains like ordinary cattle - where everything is, there they are. They wrote that the bad person — we will havit, wrote that the good person — would drown in praise.

        Let me apologize for the Bald Cornster and say that he was a good person? So:
        Khrushchev was a good man? belay Sorry-and-those! negative
      2. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 19: 45 New
        -3
        Quote: Dangerous
        but most have brains like ordinary cattle

        And I would refer you to this majority ... I can accuse the author of writing his article using a negative opinion about Khrushchev (of the majority) of the country's population, but I cannot accuse him of populism, as he carefully studied history of that time and I confess that many facts ... not most ... revelations for me, especially about the destruction of the fleet. Now I just realized ... Khrushchev focused on missiles not because they were good ... but because he could not expect that missile weapons would achieve such success. It should be remembered that at the beginning of the design of "Point Y", many pessimists pointed to the American experience that with a range of more than 40 km, the missile cannot guarantee hitting accuracy by even 20% and the missile weapon can only be used with volley fire. You can only imagine what they said about an anti-aircraft missile with a defeat height of over 20 km! After all, the engine must work all the time of vertical rise and not be interrupted until the end of the flight, in contrast to shooting along the horizon, where the rocket performed the final part of the flight along a ballistic curve, like a projectile. Khrushchev thought he was leading the country to a dead end, but it turned out that the general concentration of science and technology would lead to such a leap forward. What can you say: glory to the Soviet designers, who are able to make a "Triumph" out of the unprecedented
      3. veteran66
        veteran66 16 February 2016 20: 21 New
        +5
        Quote: Dangerous
        Recently, the reaction in the comments of most users has been surprising.

        so after all, ratings, ratings then need to be raised. I remember years ago when Turkey hinted that it was possible to talk about the Turkish stream. Oh, how they praised Erdogan, how they praised .... they’ve faded, damn it! Let me remind you of an ancient legend that if a vampire bites a person, he becomes a vampire. In the process, there were many bitten by rams.
      4. Villon
        Villon 16 February 2016 21: 45 New
        0
        Quote: Dangerous
        The author would have written that after Stalin Khrushchev made the great missile, space and nuclear power from the USSR, everyone would have praised him in compliments and the most exalted epithets.

        No, they would not do that.
  8. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 16 February 2016 06: 58 New
    15
    "And we run, fart, eat cornbread!" ditty of the times of the Khrushchev thaw.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 16 February 2016 08: 45 New
      15
      Goodies, goodies!
      Cuba is eating pancakes.
      We clap our hands
      pop the corn!
      1. castle
        castle 16 February 2016 12: 06 New
        +5
        Khrushchev took money from the huge pocket of the Moscow region and transferred this money to the development of the civil sector, such as housing construction (then even Khrushchebs were a blessing), agriculture. I also made mistakes, but after the war it was necessary to give the people a rest, get medical treatment and live. It was not in vain that Pokrovsky's song "The new settlers are coming" was covered. The original - "Will I soon see my beloved in the steppe region?", And redistribution "Will I soon see a loaf of bread on my table?" and many more words were covered. Before Khrushchev, the Ministry of Defense put its paw on all the wealth of the Union. And for the good of the people, it is necessary for the generals to step on the throat.
        1. Syrdon
          Syrdon 16 February 2016 14: 20 New
          +1
          all this could be done with less idiotic methods. hacking alive is not right. It was possible and certainly necessary to direct flows into the national economy without prejudice to the Moscow Region. As a result, it turned out neither one nor the other. My father said that when they found out that they removed it, people had a holiday, so he got everyone.
        2. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 19: 51 New
          -1
          Quote: hrad
          housing (then even the slaughterhouse was grace)

          Is that an achievement !? Here Stalin resettled people from basements to apartments ...
      2. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 16 February 2016 12: 56 New
        +8
        I know that.

        We caught up with America
        In the production of milk.
        But they didn’t catch up with meat
        The member broke in the bull.

        This is about an experiment in the Ryazan region, when cows were bought for meat from all personal farmsteads. As a result, there were no cows left, and the secretary Larionov was forced to engage in such monstrous postscripts that he lost the title of Hero of Socialist Labor, and committed suicide.
  9. CONTROL
    CONTROL 16 February 2016 07: 25 New
    25
    Articles Khrushchev - those who wish can find and read!
    ... he was not any "agent of Western influence" - simply and primitively: a narrow-minded opportunist, moderately cunning and resourceful ... and then - he seized upon unlimited power, and began to "settle accounts" with his "offenders" ... or with those whom he considered as such; petty, essentially worthless, man! His image is splendidly reflected in the famous sculpture of E. Unknown - an attempt of light to break through from darkness, or - does the dark in a person prevail over the light? ...
    In fact, history teaches us that humanity is not guaranteed from the coming to power of such people! The role of the individual in history, so to speak ...
    1. Villon
      Villon 16 February 2016 11: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: CONTROL
      ... he was not any "agent of Western influence" - simply and primitively: a narrow-minded opportunist,

      Please note that Khrushchev was not alone. He came to power as a result of a conspiracy, consisting of conspirators from among the party. And this is already a whole group. If one can still say about one person: "narrow-minded opportunist", then about a whole group it is already impossible to say "narrow-minded opportunists".
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 1 March 2016 19: 23 New
        0
        Quote: Villon
        He came to power as a result of a conspiracy,

        He left the same way ... Or rather, he was "gone" wink
    2. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 19: 57 New
      -2
      Quote: CONTROL
      simple and primitive

      So in the government remaining from Stalin were even more primitives? I do not agree! It was an insidious and cunning crest, at the birth of which Judas hanged himself a second time.
    3. Rastas
      Rastas 16 February 2016 20: 11 New
      +2
      It is not necessary to exaggerate the power of the Secretary General, then there was no unlimited power, even from Stalin until the 38th. Otherwise, Khrushchev would not be ousted in the 64th, if he had unlimited power. Also, Brezhnev was not released in the 78th, and Chernenko in January 85th, when he was hopelessly ill. And then Khrushchev is a bastard here, he was ruining the army, but the Khrushchev defense ministers - Zhukov and Malinovsky - are heroes.
  10. parusnik
    parusnik 16 February 2016 07: 38 New
    +6
    NS Khrushchev, acted in style .. I wanted the best, but it turned out as always .. Will we sow or plant corn? .. Sow, sow!
    1. Ivan Tartugai
      Ivan Tartugai 16 February 2016 15: 06 New
      +1
      Quote: parusnik
      NS Khrushchev, acted in style .. I wanted the best, but it turned out as always.

      It is not known what Khrushchev wanted, since what he read in the lectures from the high rostrum, in speeches before the people, can be a lie. You can say anything, you can lie very convincingly and with inspiration. We have heard many "storytellers" and Khrushchev with communism 20 years later, and Brezhnev with developed socialism, and Gorbachev with perestroika. In addition to them, we heard and listened to a huge army of lower-level storytellers of secretaries of party committees, district committees, regional committees, republics of the Khrushchev recruitment and spill.
      The main thing is his deeds, not his words.
      It is well written in the Gospel of Matthew, "... Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inside there are ravening wolves: you will know them by their fruits." Those. you will know them by deeds.
      So Khrushchev lied from the stands about communism, and he fell the country. The fruits of his work, his deeds say that he is a predatory wolf.
      Most likely, he wanted to do worse and faster, but it turned out just worse and slower than he wanted.
  11. inkass_98
    inkass_98 16 February 2016 07: 41 New
    15
    Alexander, do you have other colors or shades besides black and white? I have already hinted to you somehow that it doesn’t happen that everything was just really bad or everything was just wonderful during the reign of any head of state. You have everything categorically - to shoot or reward. Well, let's just offhand: the start of large-scale housing construction, universal free secondary education, and the organization of the same day-care groups in schools with free meals for children.
    Destruction of ships and other military equipment - yes, I agree, it was done completely crazy. A reduction in the size of the army to 2,5 million people. quite reasonable measure. Well, the country did not need 5 million soldiers in peacetime, just an excess. It is from this surplus that the legs grow at hazing and the construction of generals' dachas: a soldier should be engaged in combat training, and not sitting in the barracks, when various exotic thoughts climb into his head from idleness.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 16 February 2016 08: 50 New
      +7
      Under Khrushchev, military unit 11011, a driving school, was disbanded ... So there they trained class drivers and there was a base and teachers at the proper level. And the intensity of the study did not allow "exotic thoughts"
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 16 February 2016 09: 01 New
        +5
        Many people fell under the comb, any reduction implies the breaking of human destinies and the liquidation of objects, structures, organizations and other things. And not all of them are superfluous or bad.
        I repeat once again - there is no black-and-white scale in life, even the most gloomy for my worldview Gorbachev-Yeltsin times had their own shades.
        1. CONTROL
          CONTROL 16 February 2016 11: 09 New
          +3
          Quote: inkass_98
          I repeat once again - there is no black-and-white scale in life, even the most gloomy for my worldview Gorbachev-Yeltsin times had their own shades.

          It is true that Khrushchev made attempts to repent; there is his - heavily truncated - scraps of memoirs, letters to Adzhubei (who is Aleksey, the underground nickname "beetle near-Radsky"; and we are wondering where the "coloradas" came from ...) ... But - the "command" that retained power did not give, did not give ...
          In some ways, he - Khrushchev - evokes sympathy ...
          But I remembered this (then I went to school, grades 1-2-3): like village children, a little one like me quietly threatened his portrait on the wall with fists ... called him names in a whisper ... Such an impression of childhood. ..
        2. Villon
          Villon 16 February 2016 11: 25 New
          -1
          Quote: inkass_98
          I repeat once again - there is no black-and-white scale in life, even the darkest personally Gorbachev-Yeltsin times had their own shades.

          In the light of shades, there really is something in common between Khrushchev and Yeltsin. And they both wanted to flatter themselves to the people, amusing them. Khrushchev hit the department with a shoe, Yeltsin conducted the orchestra in a drunken state. Both failed. People do not deceive. Both that, and another use special dislike of the people.
          1. kalibr
            kalibr 16 February 2016 16: 28 New
            +2
            He did not hit with a shoe, it was found out long ago. He just took it off, and then "there" they gave him a shoe ... There were a lot of articles about this!
            1. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 20: 18 New
              0
              Those sitting next to him confirm that they beat him, but not on the UN rostrum, but on the table at which he was sitting, as they wrote to the “pulpit,” in order to prevent his opponent from speaking. Memoirs should be read and not scientific articles on this topic.
              1. Pushkar
                Pushkar 17 February 2016 01: 05 New
                +2
                Quote: shasherin.pavel
                Those sitting next to him confirm that they beat him, but not on the UN rostrum, but on the table at which he was sitting, as they wrote to the “pulpit,” in order to prevent his opponent from speaking. Memoirs should be read and not scientific articles on this topic.
                Better yet, watch a newsreel. He pounded his fist.
        3. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 20: 13 New
          0
          Quote: inkass_98
          Gorbachev-Yeltsin times had their own shades.

          Well, yes ... from gray to black 37 shades ... The blackest shade of the Grobochev period is when the commander of an atomic submarine returned from a campaign, saw the conditions in which the family lives and ... shot himself. And if he ...
    2. Villon
      Villon 16 February 2016 11: 10 New
      -3
      Quote: inkass_98
      let's just offhand: the beginning of large-scale housing construction, universal free secondary education, and the organization of the same day-care groups in schools with free meals for children.

      Offhand, all this was started before Khrushchev. And Khrushchev just didn't get it. But he was able to spoil something here too. Destroyed the teaching of logic and psychology at school, abolished separate education at school. Replaced the proposed construction of high-quality houses with temporary "Khrushchev" houses.
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 16 February 2016 11: 46 New
        +3
        What good is separate education? I have a feeling that it was not everywhere. At least, acquaintances who studied in schools in the late 40s and early 50s. in the non-chernozem outback, in the countryside, in the regional centers, I was surprised to learn about the very fact of the existence of separate education.
    3. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 20: 08 New
      -1
      Quote: inkass_98
      Yes, the organization of the same day care groups in schools with free meals for children.

      Were you in these groups? ”I started my life in a kindergarten, where I was from Monday morning to Saturday evening ... And then extended school ... how do you say there? With free! Well, yes, I understand: what do you dislike about modern life? Rent, salary, food prices ... What did you like before? Played in the sandbox, ate and sleep .. This is for you free meals, you didn’t trust money then, but for your parents? " I served in the womb, by order of the thirty-seventh ... And I served two terms during my lifetime: one in kindergarten, the other at school ... Thank you Khrushchev for seeing my parents a hundred times less than nannies and teachers.
      Maybe you think this is an achievement, but I do not ...
    4. Rastas
      Rastas 16 February 2016 20: 15 New
      +1
      I wrote everything correctly, I fully support it. Leaders of countries, especially great countries, cannot either be lowered below the plinth or only raised to heaven.
    5. denis02135
      denis02135 16 February 2016 20: 26 New
      +1
      Respectable inkass_98

      Quote: inkass_98
      Destruction of ships and other military equipment - yes, I agree, it was done completely crazy.


      And who should guard, contain surplus weapons? I understand another 100 thousand assault rifles, but what about a dozen ships, a hundred planes, a thousand tanks. If I am not mistaken, by the end of the Soviet Union there were about 20 thousand tanks in storage.
  12. Million
    Million 16 February 2016 08: 27 New
    +5
    By the way, and the children / grandchildren of Khrushchev in which country now live?
    1. bionik
      bionik 16 February 2016 08: 48 New
      +9
      Quote: Million
      By the way, and the children / grandchildren of Khrushchev in which country now live?


      The son of the former first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev - Sergei Nikitich Khrushchev in 1991 left for Brown University (USA) to give lectures on the history of the Cold War, which he specializes in today. He remained for permanent residence in the United States, currently lives in Providence, Rhode Island, and has American citizenship. He is a professor at the Thomas Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.
      1. Million
        Million 16 February 2016 09: 07 New
        0
        Well, that says a lot!
      2. CONTROL
        CONTROL 16 February 2016 11: 23 New
        +2
        Quote: bionik
        The son of the former first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev - Sergei Nikitich Khrushchev in 1991 left for Brown University (USA) to give lectures on the history of the Cold War, which he specializes in today. He remained for permanent residence in the United States, currently lives in Providence, Rhode Island, and has American citizenship. He is a professor at the Thomas Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

        ... And my daughter is Rada, and my son-in-law Ajubey (do not have a hundred friends, but marry like Ajubey ...) have lived all their life in Russia, they have been something journalistic ... and buried in Russia ...
        Here are the grandchildren - they kind of faded ...
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 16 February 2016 11: 47 New
      +6
      And where did the daughter of Stalin live?
    3. Mera joota
      Mera joota 16 February 2016 11: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: Million
      By the way, and the children / grandchildren of Khrushchev in which country now live?

      Where did Stalin's daughter run away to?
      1. iouris
        iouris 16 February 2016 13: 06 New
        -2
        First, remind us how Khrushchev dealt with Svetlana’s brother Vasily Stalin.
        1. Mera joota
          Mera joota 16 February 2016 13: 32 New
          +5
          Quote: iouris
          First, remind us how Khrushchev dealt with Svetlana’s brother Vasily Stalin.

          Svetlana fled in 1966, how could pensioner Khrushchev deal with her at that time?
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 16 February 2016 13: 38 New
            -2
            You didn’t understand the question, it’s about Vasily, and Svetlana is here
          2. iouris
            iouris 16 February 2016 20: 14 New
            +1
            Do you think it was so easy to escape from the USSR?
          3. shasherin.pavel
            shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 20: 24 New
            0
            Quote: Mera Joota
            Svetlana fled to 1966.

            to America, but from China, where she lived after the USSR.
            1. Bayonet
              Bayonet 1 March 2016 19: 44 New
              0
              Quote: shasherin.pavel
              to America, but from China, where she lived after the USSR.

              Not from China, but from India! How did Stalin's daughter get to India? There she sought to bury her next husband, a citizen of this country, Brajes Singh. Permission to travel was not given for a long time. Some historians claimed that the then Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces Anastas Mikoyan obtained such permission. And here is the document - the decision of the Politburo of November 4, 1966. On it is the visa of the head of the general department of the Central Committee of the CPSU K.U. Chernenko. We read: "Comrade. Alliluyeva (Stalin) Svetlana asked Comrade Kosygin A.N. allow her to go to India for 7 days for her husband’s funeral. This question has been voted over the phone with TT. Brezhnev, Voronov, Kirilenko, Kosygin, Pelshe, Podgorny, Polyansky ...
              In India, Alliluyeva turned to the US Embassy for help. At night, the Americans brought Alliluyev to Delhi airport, from where she flew to Switzerland. There she asked for political asylum. But local authorities, fearing complications in relations with Moscow, refused her. Then the runaway flew to Italy, but they refused to accept her there either. In the end, the Americans transported the fugitive to their military base in Germany, and from there to the USA, where local authorities immediately granted political asylum to her. At Kennedy Airport, she spoke to reporters. “Hello everyone! - screamed the refugee into the microphone. “Very happy to be here!” It’s just wonderful! ”
      2. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 20: 23 New
        -2
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Stalin's daughter from whom she fled?

        From Khrushchev! You just don’t believe that democracy came with Khrushchev ... At the Severonickel plant a man in the locker room in the morning told a joke about Khrushchev ... he didn’t return to the workshop from lunch, the workers handed over even clean things to the family. Here is such a thaw ...
  13. Old26
    Old26 16 February 2016 08: 40 New
    10
    I thought for a long time what to put the article - PLUS or MINUS, but I did not decide.
    Recently, it has become fashionable to give the activity of certain politicians in only one color. Black or white. I like the politician - white and fluffy, do not like - black and necessarily an "agent of influence" who tried to destroy the Soviet Union.
    So is Khrushchev. It cannot be painted with black only. Yes, there was a timeserver, before that "danced" to the tune of Stalin, and after his death - became the initiator of the debunking of the personality cult. Therefore, not everything is so simple.
    In addition to this, there are frank stretches in the article, if to say fraud. This applies to Kuznetsov. The author should know that Kuznetsov was demoted and dismissed not because he was interfering with the collapse of the fleet. This reason was the death of Novorossiysk, which was blamed on Kuznetsov.
    Regarding the fleet, not everything is so simple either. The program of the late 40s and early 50s, approved by Stalin (a 20-year program for the construction of the Big Fleet) provided for the construction (forgive me, I write from memory, I can be wrong about something) 15 battleships, 15 battle (heavy) cruisers, EMNIP 60 light cruisers, about half a thousand destroyers and more than a thousand submarines. And starting in 56, it was decided to start designing aircraft carriers. We always have the "ordering party" (the country's leadership) sometimes does not know whether the executors (industry) can do it.
    Therefore, the cruisers of the 68th project were reduced. It's a pity, but in terms of combat potentials they no longer corresponded to the realities of that time. And much more. The same reduction in the army (everything is not so clear), virgin lands, corn and so on. And those who came in his place were not so white and fluffy ....
    1. Villon
      Villon 16 February 2016 11: 30 New
      -2
      Quote: Old26
      Kuznetsov was demoted and dismissed not because he interfered with the collapse of the fleet. This reason was the death of Novorossiysk, which was blamed on Kuznetsov.

      Well, it was impossible to write: "removed from office because it prevents the collapse of the fleet." There is a reason and there is a pretext.

      Quote: Wikipedia
      According to Oleg Sergeyev, the author of the NVO, the ship was blown up by "domestic intelligence services with the knowledge of the country's leadership for domestic political purposes" to discredit Admiral Kuznetsov’s costly program for the large-scale construction of surface ships.
    2. Ivan Tartugai
      Ivan Tartugai 16 February 2016 15: 16 New
      -2
      Quote: Old26
      It cannot be painted with black only. Yes, there was a timeserver, before that "danced" to the tune of Stalin, and after his death - became the initiator of the debunking of the personality cult.

      Yes, there was an opportunist - this is already a black color.
      Being on high and "dancing" to the tune of Stalin, again black color.
      And after his (Stalin IV) death, black coloring began to dance on his grave again.
      He, Khrushchev, smeared himself with his own affairs in black.
    3. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 20: 36 New
      -2
      Quote: Old26
      the death of Novorossiysk, the responsibility for which was blamed on Kuznetsov.

      This means that Kuznetsov himself had to swim with a scuba under the bottom of the Novorossiysk and look for a bomb there? And it does not remind you: "You are only to blame for the fact that I want to eat!"
    4. Bayonet
      Bayonet 1 March 2016 19: 49 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Recently, it has become fashionable to give the activity of certain political figures in only one color. Black or white.

      Ernst Unknown gave Khrushchev the most true assessment. A monument of white and black marble, as it claimed the contradictory struggle of evil and good in the character of Khrushchev.
  14. Belousov
    Belousov 16 February 2016 08: 42 New
    +2
    I don’t believe the thesis about following instructions from the West, it’s rather just a mismatch of the position and scale of the person. Stalin, too, did not have an ideal biography, but when he came to power, he began to build a COUNTRY, and not to take revenge on his personal enemies, to think how he would remain in history.
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 16 February 2016 11: 43 New
      +3
      Stalin built the country. But he also avenged his personal enemies. Unfortunately.
      1. Villon
        Villon 16 February 2016 20: 59 New
        -2
        And who was Stalin's personal enemy, whom he took revenge on?
  15. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 16 February 2016 08: 46 New
    +7
    As for me, one of the most meager things that he did was the destruction of part of the affairs of the state archive
  16. Old26
    Old26 16 February 2016 09: 30 New
    +2
    Quote: ShadowCat
    As for me, one of the most meager things that he did was the destruction of part of the affairs of the state archive

    I do not think that he was the only one. Those who come after usually try to clean up what could have been on them.
    1. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 16 February 2016 11: 15 New
      +1
      So it’s not only about them ... I’m silent about the 90s.
  17. kotuk_ha_oxote
    kotuk_ha_oxote 16 February 2016 09: 47 New
    -1
    The author is handsome !!! fool
  18. guzik007
    guzik007 16 February 2016 10: 05 New
    +7
    Khrushchev, of course, broke a lot of firewood. But it’s impossible every bast in a row, as they say. There are rules and laws of demography and economics. They say, the state can, without prejudice to its development, contain an army of 1% of the population in peacetime. The above is a heavy burden for the economy. A vivid example is the modern army of the DPRK and the economy of the country. Another thing is thoughtless. Millions of people were sharply thrown out without employment. And yet, in our country, not a single ruler learns from the mistakes of others. It is enough to recall Mechny and the withdrawal of the GSVG troops
    1. Ivan Tartugai
      Ivan Tartugai 16 February 2016 16: 41 New
      -1
      Quote: guzik007 (4)
      A good example is the modern army of the DPRK and the country's economy.

      Bad example.
      DPRK is a small country, a tiny territory, about 25 million people, and scarce resources for minerals and agriculture. There is no close comparison with the Russian Federation and even the Republic of Kazakhstan. Moreover, a complete blockade, entirely sanctions under the leadership of the US superpower and its mongrel. And while the North Koreans conduct nuclear research, they did a bomb, launched a satellite, reformed agriculture, and since 2013 they have provided themselves and not only with food.
      So in the DPRK, things are not so bad.
      True, the Yankees, on behalf of the world community, want to and will make the sanctions for the DPRK even tougher to "protect democracy". This is from whom the main damage to the country, not from your army. and not only for the DPRK.
  19. vitya1945
    vitya1945 16 February 2016 10: 09 New
    +1
    Someday, the archives will be opened and people will find out for what kind of “carriages” Gorbachev handed over and finally handed over the Soviet Union.
    But Khrushchev, a cunning, flawed, uncultured peasant, avenged Stalin for his son, and the country for his own insignificance.
  20. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 16 February 2016 10: 35 New
    +8
    Khrushchev struck at the military-strategic positions of the USSR in the northwest. In January 1956, the Porkkala-Udd naval base - “a pistol at the temple of Finland” ceased to exist. 100 sqm kilometers of Finnish territory, leased to the Soviet Union in 1944 on a voluntary basis for a period of 50 years. The unique position from which the entire Gulf of Finland was shot through was unthinkably surrendered to the recent enemies besieging Leningrad under the pretext of "improving relations with Helsinki."

    I recommend to recall - what happened to a similar unique position on Hanko in WWII. She never waited for the enemy’s fleet, was blocked from land and was regularly bombarded. As a result, the KBF was forced to organize the first supply, and then the evacuation of the base on the route shot by 305 mm guns of the Finnish BO. With heavy losses - one VT-521 which was worth it.
    In 1957, seven cruisers were sent for scrap at once, which had a high degree of readiness (Shcherbakov, Admiral Kornilov, Kronshtadt, Tallinn, Varyag, Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok). Infected with “rocket euphoria” the Soviet leadership considered the project 68 bis artillery cruisers to be hopelessly outdated weapons. Although the same Kuznetsov showed that cruisers can be upgraded. In November 1954, the Commander-in-Chief of the Naval Forces approved the task to study the re-equipment of the cruisers, pr. 68 bis anti-aircraft missile systems S-75 Volkhov.

    Between "showed"And"approved the task for the study of rearmament"- a distance, R&D length and an experimental ship. By the way, according to the results of the study, it turned out that the S-75 on the 68-bis cannot be installed even in the M-2 version - a specialized naval air defense system is needed.
    Even before the completion of the conversion of Dzerzhinsky, the major shortcomings of the M-2 system were clear.
    These are the excessive dimensions of the rocket (10,4 m), small ammunition on the ship, increased fire and explosion hazard, and low fire performance of launchers. By a resolution of the Council of Ministers of 10.08.1957/70/70, all work on the cruiser pr. 2 was discontinued, with the exception of work on the experimental ship pr. 2E. All the shortcomings were confirmed during the operation of the M-XNUMX system on the cruiser Dzerzhinsky. It was further aggravated by the fact that it was not possible to create an automated system for refueling. We used only a backup manual refueling system located in the cellar. This was a necessary measure, but there was no other way. And although the M-XNUMX complex showed its effectiveness during testing, it did not receive further development because of the above-mentioned shortcomings.

    The 82 cruisers, also known as the heavy cruisers of the Stalingrad type (the ship's 3), in fact, the real battleships, were also destroyed. Just a month after the death of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, three of the hulk were removed from the stocks and cut into metal. In addition, Khrushchev stopped all work on the long-range, as well as in general on heavy artillery.

    And why did the fleet need them in the 50s? If Kuznetsov himself spoke of them as follows:
    A heavy, obscure ship. It is not visible that the end justifies the means. Very expensive ship ...

    By the way, about the battleships you turned down - booking and PTZ pr.82 corresponded, rather, to a heavy cruiser.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 16 February 2016 12: 10 New
      +5
      You're right. Also, the respondents mourning the ships sawn on the stocks somehow forget that it was impossible to build both warships and civilian ships at the existing facilities. It was after the "drank" that the massive construction of a civilian fleet, so necessary for the country, began.
      1. sdv68
        sdv68 16 February 2016 12: 57 New
        0
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Even the respondents, mourning the ships sawn on the slipways, somehow forget that with the available capacities it was impossible to build both military ships and civilian ships at the same time.

        What can you say about the cut down captured German ships? Did they also have to be "built on the stocks together with civilians?"
        1. Mera joota
          Mera joota 16 February 2016 13: 38 New
          +4
          Quote: sdv68
          What can you say about the cut down captured German ships? Did they also have to be "built on the stocks together with civilians?"

          Why were they needed? Was there anything worthwhile? Well, Nuremberg is not a bad cruiser, I agree. However, after the boilers were destroyed on it and the resource of mechanisms was chosen, it became a burden. What was the point of exploiting it.
          I repeat, why were they needed?
          1. sdv68
            sdv68 16 February 2016 17: 24 New
            -2
            Quote: Mera Joota
            Why were they needed? Was there anything worthwhile?
            Was it or not I don’t know, but, in your opinion, it turns out that the British and Americans, fools and do not know how to count their blood bucks / pounds, just did not follow the example of a maize and did not destroy the captured German fleet that they inherited after the partition?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 16 February 2016 17: 45 New
              +3
              Quote: sdv68
              Quote: Mera Joota
              Why were they needed? Was there anything worthwhile?
              Was it or not I don’t know, but, in your opinion, it turns out that the British and Americans, fools and do not know how to count their blood bucks / pounds, just did not follow the example of a maize and did not destroy the captured German fleet that they inherited after the partition?

              What are you saying? Do you remind me - what happened to "Prince Eugen", "Leipzig", EM Z-38, Z-39, "Richard Beitzen", "Hans Lody"? wink
              1. veteran66
                veteran66 16 February 2016 20: 34 New
                +3
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Do you remind me - what happened to "Prince Eugen",

                and they generally returned many ships to Italians and Germans. In addition, the United States and Britain got the best and most modern ships.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 16 February 2016 15: 51 New
          +4
          Quote: sdv68
          And what do you say about the sawn-off captured German ships?

          Are you talking about "Admiral Makarov"? And what else to do with the only ship of its type for the entire fleet, built 20 years ago in a country that survived war and occupation and is currently divided in two? Moreover, the shipyard-builder and some of the factories remained on the territory of the hostile military-political bloc. Where to get spare parts for him, if that?
          Let me remind you that the completion of the Lyuttsov and Seydlitz was declared impossible precisely after a list of the necessary parts and their manufacturers was drawn up.

          Plus, "Makarov" in the "case history" had a torpedo hit (the nose was torn off).

          There is no point in using it as a training one either - it's like training T-62 crews in a trophy four. smile Moreover, at that time the fleet already had domestic training CDs of Project 68K.
    2. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 20: 41 New
      -2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      I recommend remembering that

      that thanks to Hanko, the Baltic Fleet ships were able to evacuate from Tallinn to Kronstadt.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 17 February 2016 11: 02 New
        +2
        Quote: shasherin.pavel
        that thanks to Hanko, the Baltic Fleet ships were able to evacuate from Tallinn to Kronstadt.

        How? Surely the Kriegsmarine headquarters planned to block Tallinn from the sea and only the presence of Hanko prevented this?
        Because there is no other influence of Hanko on the Tallinn crossing - Gangut was located north-north-west of Tallinn and could not cover the highway lying east of Tallinn between Kronstadt.
        Moreover, the presence of Hanko did not stop the Germans and Finns from putting minefields on this highway. And also strike from the air on ships departing from Taalliinnaa.
  21. RPG_
    RPG_ 16 February 2016 11: 08 New
    +3
    The fact that Khrushchev worked for the West is unlikely, but that he did not understand the harmfulness of his activities is very likely. It was necessary to give him to a psychiatric hospital, and not to the party.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 1 March 2016 20: 00 New
      0
      Quote: RPG_
      but I didn’t understand the perniciousness of my activity, this is very likely. It was necessary to give him to a psychiatric hospital, and not to the party.

      So after all, the comrades from the Politburo approved and looked faithfully in the eyes! And what about the "stormy, prolonged applause turning into standing ovations" at the congresses? But what about - "The Soviet people unanimously approve and warmly support ..."? hi
  22. alert_timka
    alert_timka 16 February 2016 11: 08 New
    +5
    But one thing saddens me. While the ruler on the throne, our society with some kind of frenzy is ready to lick his ass to shine, but it is worth removing him from the throne. That is the same society with the same frenzy begins to blaspheme it with all sorts of mud, competing who will throw more ..... And so in a circle, this account is waiting for all the leaders of our country.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 February 2016 18: 00 New
      +2
      Quote: alert_timka
      But one thing saddens me. While the ruler on the throne, our society with some kind of frenzy is ready to lick his ass to shine, but it is worth removing him from the throne. That is the same society with the same frenzy begins to blaspheme it with all sorts of mud, competing who will throw more ..... And so in a circle, this account is waiting for all the leaders of our country.

      We always have a former boss - a fool,
      And the current one is just sweetie.
      Today we write history
      How the world feels a three-year-old ..,

      And tomorrow we will fix it in tears,
      Like post-infarction uncles.
      Therefore I am about today
      Silent as an scout in an ambush.

      (c) A. Dolsky
  23. drop
    drop 16 February 2016 11: 34 New
    +8
    During the first reduction of the army and navy under Khrushchev, military schools were also liquidated. I personally had to graduate as a reserve officer. True, then fate developed so that he became a scientist, chief designer, etc. But the sediment remained for life as a memory of the useless leader and adventurer. I have the honor.
  24. Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 16 February 2016 12: 05 New
    +2
    Somewhat annoying is the thoughtless and inappropriate use of the phrase "I have the honor" by many commentators.
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 20: 52 New
      0
      And how are you then with honor? Or have you never read the classics: when greeting "I have the honor to greet," when parting, "I have the honor to bow." Or modern: "Hello" - have health, Thank you = Save God. "" Goodbye "= Goodbye.
  25. Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 16 February 2016 12: 07 New
    -1
    Article minus. Superficial, many stamps and half-truths.
  26. V.ic
    V.ic 16 February 2016 12: 21 New
    0
    Anecdote of the times of Brezhnev:
    Lenin (T.K.) / -theorist of communism /.
    Stalin (T.K.) / Tyrant of the Communists /.
    Khrushchev (t.) / - yap corn /.

    P.S. JV Stalin, by the way, I respect.
  27. Alex
    Alex 16 February 2016 13: 15 New
    +8
    Yes, Khrushchev was not an agent of the West. He was just an uneducated and not very smart person. The entire defeat of the army took place because of the wrong point of view that missiles would decide everything in a future war. (Probably, Khrushchev was not the only one who thought so). All bomber aviation. My father flew at that time on the front-line bombers IL-28. What an orgy the zealous local bosses staged on the ground simply cannot be described. New, only planes from the factory were simply crushed by tanks. Even after years, my father without tears to remember this barbarism All the pilots were demobilized. Sobering up came quite quickly. Father was called back to the army, but it turned out that there was practically nothing to fly. For a long time, his father flew on the ancient Li-2. So he did not call Khrushchev except as a "bald fool" Moreover, he was a real communist, in the 90s he did not give up his membership card.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 16 February 2016 18: 46 New
      -1
      Quote: Ralex
      So he did not call Khrushchev except as a "bald fool". Moreover, he was a real communist, in the 90s he did not give up his membership card.

      Respect for the father, and for Khrushchu "hatred and contempt of the working people"! Guess three times where the selected words come from.
  28. Vadim42
    Vadim42 16 February 2016 13: 45 New
    -2
    On the acupuncture article, the author often needs to be outdoors.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 16 February 2016 19: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: Vadim42
      acupuncture article, author

      ... as well as the comment "dumbest".
  29. andrew42
    andrew42 16 February 2016 13: 56 New
    -2
    Some points (cutting of the 68-bis cruisers, the "aircraft carrier" issue) are stated too categorically. The same with regard to the overall reduction in the number of the USSR Armed Forces - most likely under the "Stalinists" the reduction would have exceeded 0,5 million times at least 2, in the NH needed specialists and skilled workers. Otherwise, considering the activities of Khrushchev since 1988 (when it became popular to remember him under Gorbachev's verbiage), I come to the conclusion that paraphrasing the author's quote is more than appropriate sentence: "SUCCESS ... DURING THE RULE OF KHRUSHCHOV WERE NOT THANKS TO THANKS, BUT IN SPITE TO HIS EFFORTS. " And this is not only about the fleet, not only about the USSR Armed Forces, but about the entire Soviet state in general. Almost everything that is credited to Khrushchev (space, rockets, and even Khrushchevs with resettlement from barracks) - all this was "charged" even under Stalin. Khrushchev simply plucked the fruits, and often ineptly. Volyuntarist - that's putting it mildly. In fact, the then "Erdogan", who inherited a gorgeous inheritance, an adventurer, an indiscriminate "functionary" in his comrades-in-arms, a former "record holder of repression", who even got rather apathetic members of the Central Committee. They say about such people "to break - not to build".
  30. Old26
    Old26 16 February 2016 15: 00 New
    +6
    Quote: Villon
    Offhand, all this was started before Khrushchev. And Khrushchev just didn't get it. But he was able to spoil something here too. Destroyed the teaching of logic and psychology at school, abolished separate education at school. Replaced the proposed construction of high-quality houses with temporary "Khrushchev" houses.

    Started? May be? The question is different, I will not even remember about teaching, the lack of teaching psychology and logic at school (what was not taught did not affect knowledge in any way), about separate education. But I will say about the "Khrushchevs". What there, what quality houses, it was supposed to build according to Stalin's plans, but the most "urgent" thing is that it was the mass construction of "Khrushchevs" that made it possible to move people from barracks to houses. Ask your fathers (grandfathers) were they happy with such "Khrushchevs" or would heroically wait for the construction of "quality houses".
    When he lived in the Poltava region, in a military camp it was:
    - three houses built by German prisoners
    - one Stalinist house (no doubt, and the apartments are good and the stairs are wide)
    - five "Khrushchevs".
    - 3 houses of Brezhnev era, the design and construction of which was begun under Khrushchev.
    Moreover, all the apartments in the Stalin-era building were communal, because it was necessary to settle people somewhere
    So that they don't talk about Khrushchev, but the fact that resettlement from the barracks was started under him (in the late 50s) is indisputable. Needless to say, this is Stalin's merit, and Khrushchev only took advantage of this. "Khrushchev" (or as they like to say now "Khrushchev") - this is the merit of Khrushchev.
    And what it means to live in a barrack or live in a hostel for 20 years and then get at least a "Khrushchev" - only those who lived in them know.

    Quote: Drop
    During the first reduction of the army and navy under Khrushchev, military schools were also liquidated. I personally had to graduate as a reserve officer. True, then fate developed so that he became a scientist, chief designer, etc. But the sediment remained for life as a memory of the useless leader and adventurer. I have the honor.

    The part was cut, right or wrong - HZ. Many really thoughtlessly cut, but this is not only characteristic of Khrushchev. "Stouretkin" also acted in this way. Many were laid off without a pension, and sometimes there was nowhere to find qualified work. Some, due to redundancies, sometimes held ranks for 6-8 years. Anything happened.

    Quote: andrew42
    "SUCCESSES ... IN THE PERIOD OF KHRUSHCHOV'S Rule appeared not thanks to, but in spite of his efforts." And this is not only about the fleet, not only about the USSR Armed Forces, but about the entire Soviet state in general. Almost everything that is credited to Khrushchev (space, rockets, and even Khrushchevs with resettlement from barracks) - all this was "charged" even under Stalin. Khrushchev simply plucked the fruits, and often ineptly.

    History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. It was during his reign, and everything else was putting an "owl on the globe". What was - what was. There were pros and cons. So it is necessary to reward according to what was done, and not why and how it was done
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 February 2016 16: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      But I will say about the "Khrushchevs". What there, what quality houses, was supposed to be built according to Stalin's plans, but the most "urgent" thing is that it was the mass construction of "Khrushchevs" that made it possible to relocate people from barracks to houses.

      In fact, the concept of "Khrushchev" appeared precisely during the temporary detention facility. The first frame-panel houses - 1949. The beginning of the design of precast concrete factories - 1950. The problem was that everything was done "from scratch" - and the IVS simply did not have time to see the material embodiment of this idea.

      By the way, there was also a division in urban construction during temporary detention facilities: the facades of the quarters facing the highway were built up with pompous buildings of the Stalinist Empire, and houses of a more modest appearance were built in the inner space. But everything rested on concrete: before the war, it was not enough even for military construction and the military-industrial complex.
    2. andrew42
      andrew42 16 February 2016 20: 13 New
      -1
      It is not that Khrushchev did not flunk the construction of the Khrushchev buildings. The point is that many of the merits are superficially attributed to Nikita Sergeich. There is no need to tell me personally about the benefits and "breakthrough" by Khrushchevs. I don't argue with that. My grandfather received an oversize in the Stalinist house at the plant under construction to them. Stalin, only because after demobilization he took up the post of deputy head of the workshop, and then head of the garage, while plowing 18 hours a day, seven days a week. And the fact that 95% of factory workers (and there were many factories) huddled in barracks, I know very well. it is also known that, for example, at the Motovilikhinsky plant in Perm, during the war (!) there was construction of houses (4-storey buildings with stoves and cold water supply), including for workers, it is clear that for the foremost workers, but nevertheless ... Moreover, there was a project of a cable car for the descent / ascent to the checkpoints of the plant. Those who have been to the Motovilikha station will understand. During the war! So, thanks to such "Khrushchev" fancies, there is still STU-STU-KI, in which a young 25-year-old guy will go to that still training. Nobody lets "dogs down" on Khrushchev, at least in the same way as he himself did, when "debunking the personality cult." Did you do it out of conscience? -Goods! From fear, it is clear as daylight: he ran to Zhukov to fill Beria, then he sent Zhukov into oblivion. The intriguer Nikita was still the one. If we haul him, then there is a much more qualitatively positive thing: under him, the collective farmers were "liberated", they began to issue passports. But even then my grandmother said in two. Progress? - Yeah, definitely. The question is HOW it was done, at what moment and at what pace. As a result, Khrushchev, if not buried, then violated it specifically. The problem is that Nikita Sergeevich is not used to controlling the calculations of the "specialists" with his own mind, let alone counting himself. effects. That is why he received a "voluntarist", primarily for economic affairs, and related personnel policy. To swing a shoe, he did it well. The article indicates the main harm of this figure: sponsoring the union republics, outskirts at the expense of the territory of present-day Russia, as well as foreign "comrades" at the expense of all republics combined. It was Khrushchev who laid this approach, because then radio electronics with microcircuitry ended up in the Baltic States as a result, and there are a lot of such examples. “Love” for Ukraine is a separate story, not to mention the apotheosis of that in the de “Crimean“ gift. ”In short, a voluntarist, or, more simply, an adventurer with a mad career ego.
  31. dzerzhinsky
    dzerzhinsky 16 February 2016 15: 23 New
    +1
    RIDDLE!
    Why did the scoundrels and thieves rule our country, where there is a mostly adequate population, after the October Revolution of 1917, with rare exceptions?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 February 2016 16: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: Dzerzhinsky
      RIDDLE!
      Why did the scoundrels and thieves rule our country, where there is a mostly adequate population, after the October Revolution of 1917, with rare exceptions?

      Another mystery: how did these "villains and thieves" manage to overthrow the most honest and decent people who ruled Russia we lost, and thinking exclusively about Mother Russia? wink
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 16 February 2016 16: 39 New
        +1
        The answer to the riddle: And the people helped them!
    2. robbihood
      robbihood 16 February 2016 17: 43 New
      +4
      Because the driving force behind the October revolt was the scoundrels of the world flood (the elite led by Lenin) and domestic scoundrels of various calibers and subspecies (psychopaths, thieves, sadists, murderers, simply frostbitten, and the downtrodden peasant who was thrashed) in the form of a "revolutionary mass".
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 16 February 2016 19: 08 New
        +2
        Quote: robbihood
        Because the driving force behind the October revolt was the scoundrels of the world flood (the elite led by Lenin) and domestic scoundrels of various calibers and subspecies (psychopaths, thieves, sadists, murderers, simply frostbitten, and the downtrodden peasant who was thrashed) in the form of a "revolutionary mass".

        And where did this very slaughtered and stained peasant come from? Was it also raised by the Bolsheviks - even under the tsarist regime?

        By the way, more than a million appeared in the village at the end of 1917 slaughtered and stoned peasants... with weapon. They dreamed only of peace and redistribution of the land. So there was only one question - who will be the first to ride this "social base".
    3. iouris
      iouris 16 February 2016 20: 15 New
      0
      The population does not participate in the selection process at all.
    4. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 20: 56 New
      0
      Quote: Dzerzhinsky
      rule the villains and thieves

      Because bribery before the revolution was the main source of income for the entire ruling elite, except for the king, because he was already given everything ... sometimes a silk scarf around his neck.
  32. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 16 February 2016 16: 28 New
    +3
    The correctness is now fully confirmed.
    Khrushchev’s military concept: bet on ICBMs and SSBNs.
    They reliably defended the USSR and defended Russia.

    To keep an army the size of a wartime after a war is absurd and ruin.
    All Western countries have reduced their armies and military budgets many times
    after the 2nd World War. Khrushchev did the same thing - quite reasonably.

    And Brezhnev’s forcing the construction of the surface fleet -
    one of the main reasons for the bankruptcy of the USSR with a 4-fold drop in oil prices
    in 1986. Giant amounts of budget were spent on surface ships.
    And there was no money for anything else.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 February 2016 17: 51 New
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      And Brezhnev’s forcing the construction of the surface fleet -
      one of the main reasons for the bankruptcy of the USSR with a 4-fold drop in oil prices
      in 1986. Giant amounts of budget were spent on surface ships.
      And there was no money for anything else.

      Yes, yes ... Yes, exactly 4% of the military budget spent on ships destroyed the USSR. laughing
      The figures for military spending in the USSR are no longer a secret - they were cited by uv. Exeter in his post on the possibility of building full-fledged AUG in the USSR. The fleet as a whole absorbed no more than 15% of the military budget of the USSR. At the same time, only 4% was spent on the ships themselves (four percent!) of the total budget.
      Costs of the Navy of the USSR in 1989 amounted 12,08 billion (at the total military budget of 77,294 billion rubles), of them 2993 million rubles for the purchase of ships and boats and 6531 million for technical equipment)

      А huge amounts of budget the army and the air force devoured with their thousands of orders of expensive armored vehicles, missiles and aircraft.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 16 February 2016 19: 07 New
        +2
        "Yes, yes, yes ... it was 4% of the military budget spending on ships that killed the USSR. Laughing" ///

        I relied on an old article on the conclusions made once by CIA analysts on
        Reagan's order. In their opinion, it was the fleet that was the "black hole" of the Soviet
        military expenses. Because of many complex small-scale projects
        large modern ships a long-term construction arose, which pulled and pulled extra. money.
        They were probably transferred from other budget expenditures and the amount
        many times exceeded the 4% that you wrote about. However, I can’t prove it,
        Unfortunately.
        But the conclusion of the CIA was: not only not to interfere with the construction of the fleet, but rather actively help,
        throwing through pseudo-traitors drawings and technological solutions. They were
        We are sure that sooner or later a financial collapse will occur. Despite the fact that even with a successful
        the implementation of ALL projects of the Navy of the USSR could not resist the American fleet in the open ocean. So the States did not risk anything.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 16 February 2016 19: 29 New
          -1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          I relied on an old article on the findings made once by CIA analysts commissioned by Reagan.

          Kamrad, why listen to Caruso in Rabinovich's rehashif, EMNIP, Pavlov published the official figures of expenses?
          Quote: voyaka uh
          They were probably transferred from other budget expenditures and the amount was many times greater than the 4% that you wrote about. However, I can’t prove it, unfortunately.

          Which many complex small-scale? Of the small-scale ones, there were only "large pots" - 941, 1144, 1164 and 1143. All the rest of the NK and PL were built in relatively large series.
          As for the transfer of expenses, it can be assumed in the same way that the army with the navy and the Strategic Missile Forces with the air defense had the same transfer. For example, we can take at least "Energy-Buran", which was financed, among other things, within the framework of civilian space. Although one of the main customers was precisely the military - remember what was the Energia payload at the first launch.
          Moreover, the army of "dual-use technologies", the funding of which could formally be carried out under civilian provisions, had much more - four-wheel drive cars alone are worth something. smile
    2. bober1982
      bober1982 16 February 2016 18: 30 New
      0
      voyaka uh: There was no military concept in Khrushchev’s head, and could not be.Hold an army after the war the size of wartime is absurd and ruin.That's right. But Khrushchev made the reduction hastily, and not quite reasonably, as you say.
      To say that boosting the construction of the surface fleet under Brezhnev + falling oil prices is one of the main reasons for the collapse of the USSR is very naive.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 16 February 2016 19: 30 New
        +2
        for bober1982:
        "There was no military concept in Khrushchev's head, and there could not be" ////

        I agree that "concept" is too high a word for Khrushchev. I do not consider him a "big mind". But someone (correctly) persuaded him that ICBMs and nuclear submarines are “good” for the USSR, and “big ships” are bad.
        And the result has been true so far.
        In general, the political and social turn of Khrushchev was urgent and correct (with all the stupidities along the way).
        You cannot live in peace in a state of war (Stalinist economy).
        Joseph Tito did the same thing as Khrushchev, for a longer time and more consistently. And socialist Yugoslavia (the multinational double of the USSR) became richer and more pleasant for life than the USSR.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 16 February 2016 20: 19 New
          0
          But after all, only ten years have passed after the war, the Americans were going to throw us with atomic bombs, in these conditions it was impossible to make such sharp political and social turns.
          Yes, and about Yugoslavia, in my opinion, you are wrong. It could be called a socialist country with a stretch. The level of life in Yugoslavia is not an indicator. We in the USSR and republics had a different standard of living. In the RSFSR, by the way, probably the most low.
    3. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 16 February 2016 21: 21 New
      -1
      Didn't you see how the country was impoverished with the destruction of weapons? For the production of tanks, the work of about a hundred large enterprises is required, not counting small ones from which only small parts were purchased. After the First World War, the new German Minister of Finance proposed the idea of ​​abandoning the mark's attachment to international currencies, but tying it to the country's property. Along with this, he gave preferential interest on housing construction, the stamp was printed for a loan for the construction of a house, road, ships and it was supported by this property. There is a house for 20 thousand stamps, 20 thousand stamps were printed. And at the same time he created a separate brand that the population did not know, and it was in circulation only among financial transactions for the military and civilian industries. Only the Central Bank could exchange these stamps for civilian ones. America cut military budgets after the war for one reason: It supplied tanks and aircraft, torpedo boats, destroyers, explosives and gunpowder to England and the USSR in huge quantities, and when the war ended, the Liberty alone sailed in the thousands. Was it possible to imagine that after the war the conveyor for the production of these ten-thousanders continued to work? For whom, if now hundreds of ships are not sunk every month? During the war, the USSR built only small submarines, completed several medium ones, and launched several destroyers. We only lost ships during the entire war or bought them abroad. All four fleets were coastal fleets, in the Northern Fleet there was not a single domestic ship among the cruisers. Far Eastern looked no better. And while cutting ships on the stocks? We weren't interested in how many species by chance! not the number, types of light cruisers were in England? At this time in the USSR, only light cruisers of 7 thousand tons. Battleships of the First World War.
  33. Old26
    Old26 16 February 2016 16: 39 New
    +4
    Quote: Alexey RA
    In fact, the concept of "Khrushchev" appeared precisely during the temporary detention facility. The first frame-panel houses - 1949. The beginning of the design of precast concrete factories - 1950. The problem was that everything was done "from scratch" - and the IVS simply did not have time to see the material embodiment of this idea. By the way, even in the IVS in urban construction there was a division: the facades of the quarters overlooking the highways were built up with pompous buildings of the Stalinist Empire style, and in the internal space houses of a more modest type were built. But everything rested on concrete: before the war there was not enough of it even for military construction and the military-industrial complex.

    I do not argue that both the concept and the first frame-panel houses appeared during the IVS. But mass construction, which made it possible to solve the housing problem, was precisely with the NSC. And it is associated with him. And from what he did - in any case, it is impossible to paint everything with one color - black.

    Quote: voyaka uh
    And Brezhnev’s forcing the construction of the surface fleet is one of the main reasons for the bankruptcy of the USSR with a 4-fold drop in oil prices in 1986. Giant amounts of budget were spent on surface ships. And there was no money for anything else.

    The downside is not even that we forced the construction of a surface fleet. The thing is, KVM is that in Brezhnev's time ships were built in a small series. Look at the history of the fleet. The last major series - destroyers 30 bis. In the 60s - 70s - 80s - surface ships were series of 5-8 hulls. Of course it is more expensive than building a series of 30-80 buildings
  34. 23424636
    23424636 16 February 2016 18: 34 New
    -3
    it’s very difficult to give the leader of a great country an assessment, but the loss of Port Arthur and the base in Finland is hard to understand. But what else did the Trotskyist give the Zionists for free (for 1000 tons - rotten orange) a complex of buildings and significant areas of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem in which the current Knesset of Israel and other Jewish little things. Although there is little good in his rule, the DSC, who settled communal apartments and clothing and shoe factories, which in principle dressed and shod the country
  35. V.ic
    V.ic 16 February 2016 18: 38 New
    -2
    Here, they touched the "merde", and how many screams rose ... So I mean "Khrushcha": do not touch it, because it stinks.
  36. Andryukha G
    Andryukha G 16 February 2016 18: 46 New
    -2
    House-building plants, the rocket and nuclear industries, universities, etc. other and much more were laid down for years and developed purposefully under Stalin, even such narrow-minded people like Khrushchev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin failed to destroy and destroy the Stalin base on which it now stands firmly and Russia is developing.
  37. Radikal
    Radikal 16 February 2016 21: 16 New
    0
    Quote: bionik
    Quote: Million
    By the way, and the children / grandchildren of Khrushchev in which country now live?


    The son of the former first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev - Sergei Nikitich Khrushchev in 1991 left for Brown University (USA) to give lectures on the history of the Cold War, which he specializes in today. He remained for permanent residence in the United States, currently lives in Providence, Rhode Island, and has American citizenship. He is a professor at the Thomas Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

    In addition, he worked in the USSR in the Chelomey Design Bureau (now an NPO of Mechanical Engineering), which developed (and is developing) cruise missiles.
    1. Ivan Tartugai
      Ivan Tartugai 17 February 2016 06: 07 New
      -2
      Quote: Radikal
      In addition, he worked in the USSR in the Chelomey Design Bureau (now an NPO of Mechanical Engineering), which developed (and is developing) cruise missiles.

      In addition, after graduating in 1958 in five years, by 1963 at the age of 28, Khrushchev's son managed to defend his doctoral dissertation, become a professor, Lenin Prize Laureate, Hero of Socialist Labor, a member of many Academies. The brilliant scientist was brought up by Nikita Sergeevich. Fools Americans use such a genius only in libel against the USSR. Sergey’s talents are wasted in vain. Or maybe they were only when dad was general, and resigned and his son’s talents disappeared.
  38. Old26
    Old26 16 February 2016 22: 19 New
    +1
    Quote: shasherin.pavel
    This means that Kuznetsov himself had to swim with a scuba under the bottom of the Novorossiysk and look for a bomb there? And it does not remind you: "You are only to blame for the fact that I want to eat!"

    No, of course, but someone had to be appointed guilty? Kuznetsov appointed as commander in chief of the Navy
  39. Lord blacwood
    Lord blacwood 16 February 2016 23: 11 New
    +4
    Where is the evidence that Khrushchev worked to the west. No evidence. Did the author forget the Caribbean crisis?
  40. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 16 February 2016 23: 41 New
    +2
    I did not even read this shitty little article! Screaming their former leaders is a matter of nonsense. Yes, even if achievements were possible now, it would be possible to put up with it, but against the backdrop of the GREAT FAILURES and DESTRUCTIONS of your country, criticizing minor errors in the decisions of the former leaders of the GREAT POWER is simply ridiculous and unworthy. Compared to what Gorbachev, EBN and GOP did, the company of Khrushchev’s act is SIMPLY INNOCENT SINKS. However, the author did not undertake to smash these politicians and their obvious crimes, but he smashes those who can no longer justify themselves. The thing is that the follower of EBN and the GOP company in power are many and criticize DANGER here the author’s cowardice is simply rushing out ... I read the headline and, as it were, plunged into manure, the author simply blows manure ...
    1. iouris
      iouris 17 February 2016 02: 38 New
      +1
      Let's try to think wider. Let us ask ourselves why the project of building communism ended so? The well-known Yugoslav dissident Milovan Djilas gave a good explanation to this question in the book “The New Class”. It can be easily found on I-net. From this theory it follows, in short: in Russia and in Eastern Europe, the process of industrialization, and not the building of communism, took place.
      After Stalin's death, the new class began to gain strength, turning into an exploiting class. An intra-class struggle began, which we observed as a struggle between groups. The consequence of this struggle was the reduction of the multimillion-dollar armed forces, the top commanding staff of which had a very large political influence, but most importantly, popularity among the people. The undermining of the authority of the USSR Armed Forces took place in stages: 1979 (Afghanistan), 1983 (Boeing). Then it started: Tbilisi, Rust, Vilnius, "putsch".
      In 1960, this was still impossible, so the army was reduced in order to reduce specific military leaders. It ended with counter-revolution, the "privatization" of communist property and natural resources, and the entry of the world socialist system into the capitalist market.
      The group that is in power won.
      Thus, the building of communism, especially under Khrushchev, was only the initial capitalist accumulation. In Western Europe, this process took place "naturally" (at the expense of the colonies) in the 16-19 centuries.
      If you know what the October Revolution of 1917 will ultimately lead to, then we can say that the entire elite of the party (including Khrushchev) were agents of world capital. And world capital is international.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 17 February 2016 11: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: Former battalion commander
      I did not even read this shitty little article! Screaming their former leaders is a matter of nonsense. Yes, even if achievements were possible now, it would be possible to put up with it, but against the backdrop of the GREAT FAILURES and DESTRUCTIONS of your country, criticizing minor errors in the decisions of the former leaders of the GREAT POWER is simply ridiculous and unworthy. Compared with what Gorbachev, EBN and GOP did, the company of Khrushchev’s act is SIMPLY Innocent SINKS.

      Yeah ... The break with China, pushing him to the Yankees - a small error. And the reports at the XX and XXII congresses are an innocent prank.

      If you look for the reasons for the collapse of the USSR precisely in the inflation of the army and the military-industrial complex, then one of the root causes of such inflation should be considered the break with China, which forced the USSR to prepare for war on two fronts.
  41. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 17 February 2016 20: 46 New
    -1
    No one can win Russia in an open war !!!
    But without war, from within, it turned out to be possible. Analyzing what Khrushchev, Gorbachov, Yeltsin did.
  42. VVM
    VVM 19 February 2016 10: 42 New
    -1
    The hidden enemy at the head of state, worse than a hundredfold open enemy