Military Review

"Corn Madness"

149
To the elimination of "unpromising" villages, virgin epic, you can also add "corn madness", "meat campaign" and "dairy records", which finally knocked down agriculture. In the Soviet Union there was a problem of forage crops, and Nikita Khrushchev declared corn a panacea for all ills. In many ways, it was influenced by a trip to the United States, where corn was one of the main crops. In 1955 — 1962 The area under corn has doubled. For this it was necessary to reduce the crops of other cultures.


Moreover, corn was sown even in those regions that did not fit this agricultural crop due to its natural and climatic conditions. So, there are even jokes on this subject: “Well, Koryak brothers, we sow corn?” “We sow,” answered the Koryaks, putting on fur coats. About crop failure Khrushchev did not want to hear. Those managers who could not ensure the corn harvest were removed from their posts. Therefore, many executives, in order to maintain their posts, wrote about high yields, went for fraud, registry.

The development of virgin and fallow lands should, according to Khrushchev and his supporters, solve the problem of grain. Since these places were scarcely populated, the new state farms could not plan here multilateral agriculture, but only a monoculture of wheat with a high level of mechanization of all the work and the transfer of people from traditional agricultural areas and years for temporary seasonal work. For the future, of course, the task was to fully develop and settle these lands, but this could take many years. And the country needed to dramatically increase the production of not only grain, but animal products. But the main obstacle to the development of livestock was due to the lack of feed quantities. Khrushchev and his advisers on agriculture (A. Shevchenko played the main role among them, his assistant in agriculture since the times of Khrushchev’s secretary of the Central Committee of Ukraine) knew very well that corn was the main fodder crop in the US Production was associated in the United States with the rapid development of animal husbandry. Thus, until the second half of 1950, corn in the structure of grain crops of the USSR barely reached 15%, and, for example, in North America it was more than 35%, in Australia and South America - over 30%. Such a structure was dictated by the traditions of farming and geographical, climatic conditions.

It should be said that Khrushchev in this regard was a typical Westerner, that is, he saw something good in the West and immediately wanted to instill it on Russian soil, disregarding the natural climatic conditions, traditions and experience. In this respect, the Russian liberals 1990-2000-ies and the Trotskyists-Khrushchev-Gorbachev-is one of the fields of berries (poisonous).

Already in 1955, the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs introduced the post of "agricultural attache" at most of the USSR embassies, and along this line a lot of information and proposals for reforms accumulated in the CPSU Central Committee and agricultural ministries. In addition, numerous agricultural delegations and excursions headed by ministers of agriculture and their deputies were sent to the USA and other countries.

Even at the plenum in September 1953, Khrushchev proposed to significantly increase the area of ​​corn sowing for grain in Ukraine and in the south of the USSR, and in other areas for silage. However, despite intensive propaganda, corn crops in the USSR in 1954 year grew by only 800 thousand hectares, reaching an area of ​​4 million 300 thousand hectares. In collective and state farms, where corn was not previously cultivated, it was treated with caution and sown only experimental plots. Such an approach was quite reasonable and justified, since there was no mechanization for the cultivation of corn, and its cultivation required a great deal of manual labor. This irritated Khrushchev. Under its pressure, the Central Committee of the CPSU issued a directive to expand corn crops in almost all agricultural areas almost several times. Although the conditions for such a program were absent: there was not enough silage structures, machinery, fertilizers, good seed material, people, and just experience.

However, this did not stop Khrushchev and his supporters. Violating the newly adopted work planning procedure, which allowed collective farms to decide on the distribution of crops on their own, taking into account local conditions and opportunities, collective farms of state farms were given very high targets for corn crops in 1955 year from district committees and district executive committees. At many meetings and conferences in the spring of 1955, Khrushchev reminded us of the experience of the 18th century in forcing the introduction of potatoes. As a result, corn crops increased spirally in 1955, reaching about 18 million hectares. Far from all, the experience of growing corn in 1955 was successful, but a relatively hot year (with drought in the south and east) was favorable for this crop. In the south, a substantial amount of not only silage was harvested, but also grains; successes in growing green mass for silage were also observed in some collective and state farms in the middle nonchernozem belt and in the Baltic States. This allowed Khrushchev to continue the "corn" offensive. At 1956, a further increase in acreage was planned. The summer of 1956 was dry in the European part of Russia, therefore the year was not unfavorable for corn.

On this wave of the first apparent success, which was viewed as a serious victory for the agriculture of the USSR, the campaign was continued and expanded. Everywhere they planned the construction of new silage structures, the development of feeding livestock with corn silage, special machines were created for the mechanization of work, production of clean lines of corn was established. In Ukraine, a special Corn Research Institute was established, the Pavilion “Corn” was allocated at the Agricultural inset in Moscow. The USSR Ministry of Agriculture began publishing a special journal with the same name. The food industry has expanded the range of products and canned corn. In Moscow, they even opened a special large store "Corn". As a result, corn, like virgin lands, has become a symbol of the upcoming rapid rise in livestock and agriculture in general.

22 May 1957 of the year in a speech at the zonal meeting of agricultural workers of the regions and autonomous republics of the USSR Khrushchev promised to catch up and overtake America for three years in the production of meat, milk and butter per capita. It was about competition in the production of meat and dairy products. Instead of the grassland system of crop rotation, which is traditional for almost the entire USSR (except Central Asia), it was recommended at the meeting to switch to fast, wide and widespread corn crops. Academician TD Lysenko spoke against this, but his arguments were called in the press "dogmatism, disbelief in the possibilities of Soviet agriculture and the relapse of thinking during the period of the personality cult of Stalin."

Catching up the US in the production of butter and milk was not too difficult. In the States, the consumption of butter and milk has been declining for many years, the Americans have increased the production and consumption of vegetable oil and margarine. Therefore, in 1957, oil production in the USSR and the USA was almost at the same level (at the same time, the production and consumption of butter and milk in the USA were lower in 2-3 than in European countries). But in the production of meat the USSR lagged far behind the USA. And Khrushchev's call to close the gap in 3-4 of the year was unrealistic to fulfill. In 1957, the USSR produced 7,5 million tons of meat or 36 kg per person. And the United States produced 16 million tons of meat this year, kg of 97 per person. Thus, the USSR had to increase meat production almost three times in three years. Khrushchev was hoping mainly for the growth of feed resources, especially maize. However, his task was from the realm of fantasy, not real life.

In 1957, the USSR did not yet have real conditions for the rapid development of animal husbandry. In 1953, the procurement and procurement prices for meat, milk and butter were significantly increased, but the production cost of these products was higher in all agricultural areas of the country. As for meat, the high cost of production was associated with poor mechanization of work, the lack of modern farms on collective and state farms, lack of fodder and other factors. For example, retail government prices for meat were still low, and collective farms did not have profits to expand reproduction of livestock. All problems were solved, but not by emergency methods. On livestock farms on collective farms, manual labor prevailed. Only 5% of the work was done using machines and mechanisms. It is clear that these problems could be solved. Livestock could be raised by systematic and long-term work, and not for 2-3 of the year.

Khrushchev himself allowed only a one-year delay: “There will be no tragedy if, for example, in 1960, we still cannot catch up with America in meat production. You can allow some kind of delay, it will be nice to solve this problem in 1961 year. However, in the 1961 year, we must, as they say, clean up the “remnants”, and the main work should be done in the 1960 year. Here we have the courage to gain strength and resolve this issue. ”

However, the increase in meat production, for objective reasons, in the second half of the 1957 year and in the 1958 year was very modest. Over the 1958 year, meat production in the country grew by only 300 thousand tons, that is, less than 5%. This caused extreme irritation of Khrushchev. He counted on 60-70%. All regional committees were required to take drastic measures in order to sharply increase meat production in 1959.

This led to disaster. The first secretary of the Ryazan regional committee A.N. Larionov at the end of 1958 at the regional party conference promised to increase meat production by 2,5 times during the year, and by harvesting meat - by 2 times. The idea was supported by some other areas. According to unofficial data, Larionov even promised the post of chairman of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR. The region was awarded the Order of Lenin. Larionov gathered the foremost agricultural workers and set an even more difficult task - to increase the production of meat on collective farms 5 times (!) In one year, almost to 4 times in state farms and exceed the sales plan and state meat deliveries to 3 times! Ryazan Oblast, which sold 1958 thousand tons of meat to the state in 48, promised to sell 1959 thousand tons of meat in 150 in the year. The editorial board of the newspaper Pravda did not even want to publish these new increased obligations of the region, and the agricultural department of the Central Committee, which considered them too high and unreal, opposed this. But on the personal order of Khrushchev, these commitments were published in Pravda on January 9 1959. In this regard, Khrushchev began to put pressure on other areas, so that they increased their obligations. Thus, the Stavropol Territory made commitments to increase meat production 1959 2,5 times, the Krasnodar Territory did the same. The Moscow Region has promised to increase production by 2 times, as well as the Belarusian SSR, etc.

It is impossible to increase so much a large number of farms, livestock of livestock for a year and fatten up livestock to increase weight gain. However, Moscow’s heightened attention and excessive advertising in the press made retreat impossible. And in order to fulfill the promise to increase meat production in the region 4-5 times, it was necessary to slaughter almost all cows and pigs from collective farm farms, which is a crime. In the Ryazan region, in order to fulfill this promise, they ordered not only the increase in the 1959 population of livestock, but also a significant part of dairy cows from the so-called. "Breeding stock". In addition, tens of thousands of cows and pigs were forcibly bought in the private farms of the peasants. However, this was not enough. I had to buy up livestock in neighboring areas right up to the Urals. The purchases had to spend funds that were allocated for construction, health care and education. But this was not enough. Neighbors also made increased commitments and were alarmed when they learned about the actions of the Ryazan "procurers". On the borders of the Ryazan region even began to put up police posts, which selected illegally purchased cattle.

A fivefold increase did not work. Then the Ryazan Regional Committee overlaid not only collective farms with meat taxes. State farms and private farms, but also obliged to produce meat to all institutions, including schools and police stations. All urgently began to breed rabbits. In factories, people often simply collected money, went to the store and bought meat (1,5-2 rubles for 1 kg), and then they were taken to procurement centers, where they took the 25-30 cop. per 1 kg. The same operations were carried out with oil. As a result, meat, butter and milk disappeared from the shops in the area. But the plan fulfilled. In December, the region reported 1959 that meat production was “increased” 4 times, and the state transferred 150 thousand tons of meat, three times more than in 1958 year. Larionov received a Hero of Socialist Labor. He was praised. Even the school textbooks urgently entered the "feat" of the Ryazan region.

The following year, the region pledged to raise the bar even more - to 180-200 thousand tons. However, the agriculture of the region, due to the extreme measures of 1959, was falling apart. Livestock numbers plummeted. Collective farmers and workers of state farms, who were given receipts instead of money, did not go to work, demanding either to give up livestock or pay full monetary compensation. Monetary funds of collective farms were exhausted. Many collective farms simply went bankrupt. The region could not give even half of the usual annual plan, that is, it passed about 30 thousand tons, 6 times less than promised. Other works failed. The grain production plan was executed only on 50%. When at the end of 1960 a special commission of the Central Committee of the Party arrived in the region to check the state of affairs, she confirmed complete collapse of the agricultural area. Larionov committed suicide.

Thus, the policy of Khrushchev in the field of meat production has caused great damage to the country. Not only Ryazan, but also other areas suffered. Total meat production in 1960 compared to 1959 in 200 thousand tons. In 1961, it remained at the level of 1959. Only in 1962 was there a slight increase. Ryazan experiment, repeated in 1959-1960. and in other areas of the country, had negative consequences. In 1964, 8,3 million tons were produced, that is, less than in 1959. Production of eggs and wool in 1964 was also lower than 1959. The gap in the amount of meat production per person between the United States and the USSR was even greater increased.

"Corn Madness"

Nikita Khrushchev had a good personal relationship with John Kennedy

Already in 1957-1959. the area under corn was increased by about a third - due to the sowing of industrial crops and forage grasses. However, at that time, this undertaking covered only the North Caucasus, Ukraine and Moldova. The process has not reached the “northern seas” yet. I must say that a moderate expansion of corn crops would not bring harm. However, Khrushchev and here "bent the stick" to its fracture.

On a visit to the USA in September 1959, Khrushchev visited Iowa in the fields of the famous farmer Rokuela Garst. He grew hybrid corn, which gave a very high yield. Khrushchev was so blinded that he gathered a meeting at the USSR Embassy in Washington, where he criticized our diplomats and analysts for not paying attention to the “corn” experience of the Americans and ordered the Soviet Ministry of Agriculture to literally overwhelm American corn-growing materials. According to contemporaries, Khrushchev at the embassy, ​​and on arrival in the USSR, was literally insane. He called for: “resolutely change local leaders who have dried up themselves and dried corn. Well, what did we do in agriculture after Stalin? Yes, virgin soil, but this is not enough. What are we worse than the Americans? Thanks to corn, they have no problems with livestock and grain farming. And what is our field or our climate worse? And yet they also write letters to me that, they say, you can not sow corn everywhere, you need its adapted varieties, you are asked to preserve grass-growing crop rotations. Is this not dogmatism and sabotage? ”

As a result, corn began to be promoted from 1959 up to Arkhangelsk and Karelia. In fact, it was a total outrage not only over the agricultural traditions of Russia, but over common sense.

True, initially there were significant successes. Thus, in the States and Canada, hybrid varieties of corn were bought, which were successfully introduced in the North Caucasus, in Ukraine and Moldova. They yielded high yields - half more than traditional Soviet varieties, and this dramatically improved the feed supply of livestock, significantly increasing its productivity in these regions already in 1958-1959. However, the "miracle" quickly ended. Americans and Canadians have already begun to raise seed prices since 1959. Khrushchev’s attempt to “agree” on their value during a visit to the United States did not lead to success. Therefore, Soviet purchases abroad faded away already in 1960.

The consequences were disastrous for the country's agriculture and food security. Since traditional crops were replaced with corn, instead of plenty of milk and meat in the USSR, their ubiquity came, except for Moscow, Leningrad and the nomenclature food distributors, a shortage. As well as the lack of most traditional Russian cereals. Negatively, "corn madness" has affected the livestock of cattle and pigs.

Already by 1964, at least 60% of the corn sowings produced in 1960-1962 years died, and the yield of the existing corn fields was twice as low as in 1946-1955's. therefore already with 1962, regular, and growing imports, including from North America of grain, including corn, and meat raw materials, began. Russia-USSR was implanted for import. But the scientists who openly opposed the All-Union Corn Epic, Khrushchev and the Khrushchevites were called "charlatans" and "cabinet bureaucrats." Therefore, if at the beginning Khrushchev was still trying to report on negative trends in the corn campaign (as well as virgin and other campaigns), soon, due to its tough and narrow position, local leaders not only closed the channel of cautious criticism, but also began to report only " positive".

And from the 1960 of the year, numerous false reports were sent to the Kremlin about record-breaking maize yields, unprecedentedly large gains in livestock production, one hundred percent supply of farms with feed. As well as the fact that Soviet corn varieties are much better than North American ones. Began bacchanalia with assignment of titles, other awards, prizes. At the XXI Congress of the CPSU, the pioneers made a verse greeting: “Raise calves and match us, we work with the whole class. We also want to catch up with America on meat! ”Already in the 70s, it came to the point that they defended dissertations on the long-term benefits of grain imports, primarily from the USA.

Soviet statistics was forced to hide the real state of affairs and trends in the economy, especially in agriculture. This information most often appeared under the heading "For official use". In order to somehow cover up the situation with the 1961 year, prices for livestock products, bread and cereals began to rise. Collective farms, especially livestock breeding, were transferred to state farms or transformed into state farms, and cattle and pigs were “withdrawn” from the farmsteads of collective farmers and personal farms of citizens at symbolic prices. In addition, taxes on poultry in collective farms and private farms were imposed, which were abolished only from the 1965 year. The lack of acceptable premises for keeping large numbers of animals, the poor condition of the food supply, unfavorable financial conditions for farmers and livestock and pigs for the state led to the mass slaughter of animals (including poultry) in their own farmsteads. It is clear that these measures could not change the situation. It is worth noting that Stalin, in his latest book, The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, published in 1952, called such ideas "harshakovschiny" and "gibberish of furious Marxists."

It is not surprising that the “reforms” of the Khrushchevites led to a crisis in the livestock industry of the whole country, from which it did not fully recover until the collapse of the USSR (and then agriculture was cut down again, but already liberal “reforms”).

Blow to orthodoxy

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

A powerful blow was inflicted on the Old Believers. Old Believers who did without priests (besopovtsy), were declared "sectarians." They closed the prayer houses of the Old Believers, destroyed their communities. From the territory of the Old Believer settlements, the masses exported ancient icons of the XVII — XVIII centuries, ancient church books and manuscripts. Many of them were invaluable, as they contained information about genuine stories Russia and the Russian people. A significant part of these artifacts was lost, died (as in the storerooms of the Grozny Museum, the repository of the Grozny University in 1990-s) or disappeared in private collections, leaked abroad.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Khrushchev "perestroika"

Enemy blow to the Soviet civilization
As Khrushchev, the Soviet armed forces and law enforcement bodies were trashers
How Khrushchev sentenced the Russian village
Virgin epic Khrushchev
149 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. venaya
    venaya 19 February 2016 06: 38
    19
    "Reforms" of Khrushchevites led to a crisis in animal husbandry throughout the country

    Although corn is of course a good fodder for animal husbandry, when frank mediocrity, and even at such high government posts, takes the initiative, it takes an irreversible destructive turn, very sad for the whole country, dangerous for the preservation and even existence of the whole country as a whole.
    1. RUSS
      RUSS 19 February 2016 10: 38
      14
      Quote: venaya
      Although corn is certainly a good livestock feed, when open-minded mediocrity takes the initiative,

      "Make the fool pray, he will break his forehead," so our chairmen were breaking their foreheads to please the Khrushchevs, sowing corn from the Arctic Circle to Kara-Kum!
      1. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 19 February 2016 12: 07
        +1
        When Peter 1 brought potatoes to us and forced them to cultivate, there were also many fools who did not know what to do with it and many outraged, whole potato riots happened. Where are you now, potato rebels?

        And the country needed to dramatically increase the production of not only grain, but livestock products. The main obstacle to the development of animal husbandry was the lack of proper amount of feed.


        Another quote from the author confirming that Khrushchev wanted to finally improve the life of the people after forty years of Soviet rule. The traditional for our country happened: “they wanted the best, but they got it as always”.
        1. Ivan Tartugai
          Ivan Tartugai 19 February 2016 14: 16
          +7
          Quote: Nicholas K
          ... that Khrushchev finally wanted to improve the life of the people after forty years of Soviet power.

          Who cares what Khrushchev wanted, what Khrushchev did not want.
          Who cares what Khrushchev thought and where he did not think.
          The main thing is what Khrushchev did. Only completed tasks determine whether he is good or bad.
          And the affairs made by Khrushchev did not improve the life of the people, but made it worse and predetermined the collapse of the country.
          What Khrushchev wanted, what Khrushchev thought no one knew, but what Khrushchev did see everything.
          1. tol100v
            tol100v 19 February 2016 23: 07
            0
            Quote: Ivan Tartugay
            What Khrushchev wanted, what Khrushchev thought no one knew, but what Khrushchev did see everything.

            You can find fault with Khrushchev, I agree. And I agree with the maize. But, the fact that We still live in the "Khrushchev", and not in the "Gorbachev" and "Yeltsin" - this is his merit. Not even his, but the country that has risen from the ashes!
            1. Ivan Tartugai
              Ivan Tartugai 20 February 2016 21: 53
              +1
              Quote: Tol100v
              Khrushchev can be blamed. I agree.

              To cherish, neither need anyone, nor anyone, especially dead Khrushchev. You just need to soberly, calmly evaluate it, Khrushchev’s activity. About the dead man it is necessary to tell only the truth. As the ancient Romans said: “De mortuis aut verum, aut nihil”, i.e. "About the dead or the truth, or nothing."
              Quote: Tol100v
              But, the fact that We still live in the "Khrushchev", and not in the "Gorbachev" and "Yeltsin" - this is his merit.

              You are right Khrushchev is a specific case of Khrushchev. Not his thoughts, whose thoughts no one saw, but a specific case. Everyone can look at the Khrushchev, consider, millions of people live in them.
              One can even say that most of the country's population, unfortunately, still lives in hrushes.
              Why "Unfortunately.
              Panel, concrete slabs are the most unfavorable housing for people. Everyone knows that the most favorable dwelling in terms of the apartment environment is a wooden house, it is somewhat inferior to it, almost equivalent to a wooden one - it is a house made of adobe and soil materials, a house made of full-bodied clay brick is somewhat worse, and a concrete slab is worse than any other for the health of people living. Unfortunately, in the country richest in forests, I don’t write about clay for bricks, a huge mass of people live in concrete concrete slabs. Millions of people daily ruin their health, living for years, decades in the shrews. This is a merit of Khrushchev.
              Panel, concrete slab the most energy-consuming heating dwelling in the whole world. The heating of the panel crusher is accompanied by the greatest heat loss through the walls and the roof, in comparison with brick stalins and other types of dwellings. To compensate for the heat loss of the crushers, millions and millions tons of fuel are additionally burned, which is additional costs, additional development of energy raw materials, and additional environmental pollution. This is Khrushchev’s business.
              From the point of view of the architectural solution, everyone sees that there is no worse building in the city. Khrushcheb is the grayness of our cities. And this is also very important for permanent residence in this dwelling person. Housing for a long stay of a person should be beautiful.
              That is why people call panel buildings of the times of the Khrushchev building Khrushchev, a good home is not called that.
              Therefore, everyone who lives in Khrushchebs does not perceive them as a permanent dwelling and would not mind moving into a brick stalinka or building, if not a wooden, then at least a brick house, but the residents of Khrushchebs are limited. They have nowhere to go, as they still live in "Khrushchevs".
              1. 19001900
                19001900 21 February 2016 16: 56
                +1
                In Khrushchev there are 40-160 apartments (depending on the number of entrances and the destination of the first floor), and it takes from 360 to 1440 square meters, and how much space will 40-160 private houses take into account that a private house needs at least 200 square meters ?? What, for example, will the area of ​​Moscow become if it becomes a 1-2 story building with the same population ??
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 1 March 2016 08: 47
              -1
              And they could live in "Stalin's". A separate topic, in which everything was also successfully destroyed by Nikita Pich.
              1. JS20
                JS20 10 January 2017 00: 34
                0
                Quote: EvilLion
                And they could live in "stalinkas"

                Why would it all be? Dzhugashvili was in power from 1927 to 1953. 26 years. And what, he built a lot of stalin? No, just as much as the Bolsheviks' bonzes and their servants needed. The six lower level lived in communal apartments. The rest lived in barracks. Someone in the factory. And someone in the camp.
                The society was very differentiated by caste, people lived very differently. The "witnesses of socialism" today like to call it "equality."
              2. tezey
                tezey 19 January 2017 14: 08
                0
                Could live in Stalin. Rather, they could, but not many. You dear, you simply did not see those Moscow people who in the sixties moved from communal apartments to their own small apartments in Khrushchev. From overpopulated bugs to clean, new and most importantly their own without a bunch of neighbors apartments. The state could not then settle all in Stalin. There wasn’t so much money. Therefore, before writing, I advise you to study the topic.
            3. michell
              michell 9 January 2017 16: 13
              +1
              Quote: Tol100v
              But, the fact that We still live in the "Khrushchev", and not in the "Gorbachev" and "Yeltsin" - this is his merit.

              Regarding the "Khrushchev" ...
              Few people know that "Khrushchevs" (prefabricated panel houses) are not a Soviet invention. They were developed in Nazi Germany as cheap housing for workers. These projects (together with theoretical conceptual studies) were exported from Germany after the war.
              Now think about why the word "stalinka" is associated with a luxurious apartment with high ceilings, wide corridors, a hefty bathroom and kitchen, and the word "Khrushchev" ("khrushchoba") - with a dull concrete box with tiny corridors and a kitchen and a combined bathroom. Once again - prefabricated prefabricated concrete houses with a minimum wall thickness were developed by Fascists - and to this fact, neither add nor subtract ... And not because of the personal characteristics of the country's leaders, these projects under Stalin were gathering dust somewhere in storage, but under Khrushchev it happened their renaissance wink
            4. michell
              michell 9 January 2017 16: 14
              0
              Quote: Tol100v
              But, the fact that We still live in the "Khrushchev", and not in the "Gorbachev" and "Yeltsin" - this is his merit.

              Regarding the "Khrushchev" ...
              Few people know that "Khrushchevs" (prefabricated panel houses) are not a Soviet invention. They were developed in Nazi Germany as cheap housing for workers. These projects (together with theoretical conceptual studies) were exported from Germany after the war.
              Now think about why the word "stalinka" is associated with a luxurious apartment with high ceilings, wide corridors, a hefty bathroom and kitchen, and the word "Khrushchev" ("khrushchoba") - with a dull concrete box with tiny corridors and a kitchen and a combined bathroom. Once again - prefabricated prefabricated concrete houses with a minimum wall thickness were developed by Fascists - and to this fact, neither add nor subtract ... And not because of the personal characteristics of the country's leaders, these projects under Stalin were gathering dust somewhere in storage, but under Khrushchev it happened their renaissance wink
              1. JS20
                JS20 9 January 2017 17: 00
                +1
                Quote: michell
                designed by FASCIS

                What, the Italians were engaged in the design of houses in Germany?
                Quote: michell
                Now think about why the word "stalinka" is associated with a luxurious apartment with high ceilings, wide corridors, a hefty bathroom and kitchen, and the word "Khrushchev" ("khrushchoba") - with a dull concrete box with tiny corridors and a kitchen and a combined bathroom.

                So you think about how many "Khrushchev" buildings could be built for the same money as one Stalinist building. And how many people could get from the state for rent, albeit small, but separate housing. And so that you think better, let me remind you that the bulk of the population under Dzhugashvili lived not in the Stalinist era, but in barracks. Here, in the real ones. No, not in the prisons, although many people lived there. In the factory, mostly.
                After the room in the barracks, such "khrushcheba" seemed to people like the royal chambers. And no Stalinist for most of these people even shone nearby.
        2. Kvazar
          Kvazar 19 February 2016 16: 49
          +1
          Do not confuse soft with warm.
          With their initiatives, they destroyed the system called "the great rebuilding of nature" which tens of institutions have been developing for ten years. Leading minds, trial crops, etc.
          Plus Khrushchev destroyed equipment stations and transferred it to collective farms while breaking them into smaller ones. As a result, the USSR by the year 60 there was a famine and corn only one moment of the destruction of the USSR Union of Artists began to buy products abroad.
          Crops of grass fell three times. Crops of grain 1,5 times per hectare.

          That is what ONE man a trocist can do with his stupidity. At the same time, Khrushchev was the only one whom they tried to remove twice. And he was the only one who was sent to retire (in fact, for the full threw out into the cold), all the others were carried out with their feet forward from old age.
        3. user
          user 20 February 2016 12: 29
          0
          On y happened traditional for our country


          Before writing such nonsense it is better to ask your parents and relatives about the written story. If your parents are not in the know, ask relatives and friends who at that time did not live in Moscow and St. Petersburg and such a revelation will open for you. . .
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. GAF
        GAF 19 February 2016 14: 10
        +9
        Quote: RUSS
        "Make the fool pray, he will break his forehead," so foreheads our chairmen, for the sake of Khrushchev, sowing corn from the Arctic Circle to Kara-Kum!

        In Altai, in a good year, in some places, corn grows three meters high, hiding a forage harvester. In the context of the article, corn acts as a symbol of the omnipotence of the partocracy, which forced local leaders to “bash the foreheads” in spite of their own common sense. In a tough combination: "by the decision of the party and government ..." the word party always comes first. The metastases of self-reproduction of the partocracy reached such a degree that in 1962 a decision was made at the Plenum to divide the party organizations into industrial and rural ones. Industrial and rural regional party committees appeared and further down the hierarchical ladder. Following the party, the executive committees, the Komsomol organizations, the police were divided according to the production principle ... Fish spoils from the head. Alexander Zinoviev, a dissident opposed to party democracy, warned that the USSR was not economically and militarily tough for external enemies. Achilles heel considered the system of organization of party autocracy in the country. And so it happened. Gangrene, beginning at the top, ....
      4. Bayonet
        Bayonet 19 February 2016 14: 56
        +4
        Quote: RUSS
        "Make the fool pray, he will break his forehead," so our chairmen were breaking their foreheads to please

        Yes, and now this is everywhere. My boss says bluntly - it’s not our business to think, but to stupidly carry out!
    2. Litsvin
      Litsvin 20 February 2016 18: 04
      0
      Khrushchev had many nicknames among our people - Nikita the maize, Nikita the swineherd, etc. Also, ordinary Soviet people wrote a lot of jokes and proverbs, for example, "corn is bacon, corn is meat, corn is everything." The mediocrity of the politician has led to unforgivable distortions in agriculture, as well as in other spheres of the economy. About this period, my uncle, the former chairman of the state farm, told a lot of interesting things - for example, smart farm managers perfectly understood that the imbalance in the direction of corn during crop rotation can simply destroy the livestock and completely impoverish the soil (corn has such a property), " the paper was sown with useless "seed, which, of course," did not sprout ", after the" act of compiling the culling "they sowed the field with traditional grain crops. In addition, any competent leader always had unaccounted areas - not on paper, in fact - there is. These areas helped to maintain the fodder base and fulfill the "socialist obligations to deliver grain to the state." When Brezhnev came, the corn idiocy was not "no" - they began to plant it only in reasonable quantities.
    3. tol16
      tol16 20 February 2016 19: 02
      0
      The bull's eye. Under Gorbachev, in the most high-tech industries, the military-industrial complex began to produce pans and called it conversion. And in a year so 52m, it would be treason to the motherland, in its purest form. And Andropov himself moved him.
  2. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 19 February 2016 06: 39
    +9
    Khrushch managed to do a lot of things in his time. Would not have stopped in time, and to Gorbachev's "changes" could have brought the Union.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 19 February 2016 09: 50
      +1
      Quote: VNP1958PVN
      A lot of things had time to do khrushchik in due time.

      "I did it" -
      Nuclear installations were used as power plants on ships (the nuclear icebreaker "Lenin") and on submarines. The priority areas of scientific and technical policy were the problems of nuclear physics, rocket and aviation technology
      The development and creation of rocket technology was intensively underway.
      In the 50-60s, radio engineering and electronics developed rapidly. It was then that television came to the homes of many Soviet people. In the same period, Soviet scientists Prokhorov and Basov created the world's first laser.
      The period under review was characterized by close attention of the state to the problems of the development of domestic science and, above all, to the natural and technical sciences. For this, significant amounts were allocated from the state budget for the construction of both new and reconstruction of existing institutions and their equipment. New academic and industry research centers were created. The USSR Academy of Sciences assumed the function of coordinating the work of scientific institutions. Among them, it is worth highlighting the Physics Institute. P. N. Lebedeva, Institute of Physical Problems named after S. I. Vavilov, Institute of Physical Chemistry, etc. Already at the end of the fourth five-year plan, work began on the creation of electronic computers.
      During these years, Soviet scientists created a laser. This discovery and the invention made on its basis played a huge role in the further development of scientific and technological progress throughout the world. Significant results have been achieved in the field of welding and the creation of electric welding equipment. The shaft of achievements in the field of the science of technology was such that, starting in the mid-50s, the USSR, together with other advanced states, entered the era of the scientific and technological revolution. First of all, he considered it necessary to improve the motivational mechanism in which the results of labor would be more closely linked to wages. The core of the Kosygin reform was the economic calculation, into which industrial enterprises were transferred. According to the innovation, they had the right to keep part of their income at home, and then distribute it within the collective to material incentives, social and cultural and domestic needs of workers. This was an attempt to implement the Leninist idea that "socialism is a work for oneself."
      CPSU leaders hoped to avert the danger of the scientific and technological backwardness of the USSR. Many enterprises were modernized, new ones were built. The country's energy base was strengthened, new hydroelectric power plants were built - Bratskaya, Kuybyshevskaya, Volzhskaya, Kakhovskaya and others. There was a transition from coal fuel to oil and gas, their production in the 1960s. increased by 2,4 and 4,3 times, respectively. Labor productivity in the first half of the 1960s grew by 5,8% per year. This allowed in a short time to significantly increase labor productivity and ultimately increase the production of Group B products.
      1. Azitral
        Azitral 19 February 2016 10: 06
        +1
        I totally agree. Add: the whole cosmos. All Strategic Rocket Forces. And, perhaps, the most important thing: the five-story building, which fans of the Solid Hand so love to mock. The current ones cannot imagine what it is like - moving from semi-basements with conveniences in the yard, to a funny small-sized apartment with gas, hot water and a warm toilet. This is a gigantic leap into another era. I still remember Voronezh in the very beginning of the 60s. Yes, a lot of stupid things: at least Crimea and Manchuria are worth it, but he was a great leader. There is no need to equate it with labeled insignificance. And, I’ll add, with Brezhnev even more harmful for the country.
        1. oborzevatel
          oborzevatel 19 February 2016 10: 46
          13
          And you want to say that all this is the merit of Khrushchev?
          I will try to dissuade.
          Nuclear installations were used as power plants on ships (the nuclear icebreaker "Lenin") and on submarines. The priority areas of scientific and technical policy were the problems of nuclear physics, rocket and aviation technology

          In the USSR, theoretical and experimental studies of the features of starting, operating and monitoring reactors were carried out by a group of physicists and engineers under the guidance of academician I.V. Kurchatov. The first Soviet F-1 reactor was built in Laboratory No. 2 of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Moscow). This reactor was put into critical condition on December 25, 1946. The results of studies at the F-1 reactor became the basis for projects of more complex industrial reactors in design. In 1948, a plutonium production reactor was put into operation, and on June 27, 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant with an electric power of 5 MW was commissioned in Obninsk.
          So Khrushchev simply did not interfere with the work, the backlog of which was laid down without his participation.
          In the 50-60s, radio engineering and electronics developed rapidly.

          You still tell us about the development of air defense.
          Also, Khrushchev began to raise, but without him, was it?
          Work also began without his participation.
          In order to increase the effectiveness of the actions of bomber aircraft on enemy ships, on September 8, 1947, the USSR Council of Ministers issued a decree on the organization of a special bureau, SB No. 1 MV, and a Comet air-sea cruise missile was created. In 1950, SB No. 1 was converted to KB-1, and the S-25 Berkut anti-aircraft missile defense system of Moscow was developed.
          During these years, Soviet scientists created a laser.

          One would think that without his participation they would not have managed:
          In 1940, V. Fabrikant and F. Butaeva predicted the possibility of using stimulated emission from a medium with population inversion to amplify electromagnetic radiation.
          1950: A. Kastler (Nobel Prize in Physics in 1966) proposes a method of optical pumping of a medium to create an inverse population in it. It was put into practice in 1952 by Brossel, Castler and Winter. Before creating a quantum generator, there was only one step left: to introduce positive feedback into the medium, i.e. to place this medium in the resonator.
          1954: the first microwave generator - a maser on ammonia (C. Townes, Basov N.G. and Prokhorov A.M.
          1. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 11: 28
            0
            Quote: oborzevatel
            So Khrushchev simply did not interfere with the work, the backlog of which was laid down without his participation.

            Well, yes, actually fellow
            Khrushchev was (oddly enough it may seem to some) a FAITHFUL successor to Stalin's policy, not a small part of his reforms were conceived even under Stalin, under Khrushchev they were "only" implemented (I recall the words of Lenin who "stole" reforms from the Socialist-Revolutionaries - it does not matter who invented, it is important who implemented)
            But then the question is, why do you love Stalin and do not love Khrushchev, if one worthy successor of the policy of another ?! OBJECTIVITY WHERE?!?!?! fellow
            Don't you like Khrushchev for his "unpreparedness and adventurism"?
            Do you think Stalin's forcing "collectivization" was a lesser adventure than Khrushchev's "virgin lands"?
            Yes, nothing of the kind, just dissatisfied with "collectivization" have not survived, and there are practically no memories of them request
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. RUSS
              RUSS 19 February 2016 11: 56
              0
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              Khrushchev was (oddly enough it may seem to some) a FAITHFUL successor to Stalin's policy, not a small part of his reforms were conceived under Stalin, under Khrushchev they were "only" implemented

              An interesting conclusion! good What will they answer to this? We wait...
              1. Mordvin 3
                Mordvin 3 19 February 2016 12: 11
                +2
                Quote: RUSS
                Quote: Mr. PIP
                Khrushchev was (oddly enough it may seem to some) a FAITHFUL successor to Stalin's policy, not a small part of his reforms were conceived under Stalin, under Khrushchev they were "only" implemented

                An interesting conclusion! good What will they answer to this? We wait...

                And it is quite possible. Only painfully abrupt start. And he swung at the 2,12 rifle range. Here he was drowned in a pond. I wanted the best.
              2. Vadikkrsk
                Vadikkrsk 19 February 2016 18: 45
                +5
                Acceleration was already ... For 30 years the military-industrial complex was enough. And the collective farms under Brezhnev finished off. I remember a village with a farm, a cheese factory, a stable, tractors, a post office, a school, a first-aid post, and a bunch of guys I played with ... Holidays after second grade! After a couple of years already oh - somehow it’s not so. Dad lives there. Car shop twice a week. Not grieving - born in 1941 Do not get used to it.
            3. oborzevatel
              oborzevatel 19 February 2016 11: 58
              +2
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              Don't you like Khrushchev for his "unpreparedness and adventurism"?

              That's it.
              They answered their own question.
              He launched not only the satellite, but also agriculture.
              1. Mr. Pip
                Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 12: 06
                +1
                Quote: oborzevatel
                He launched not only the satellite, but also agriculture.

                Yeah, and under Stalin at -30 they planted not only grain laughing
                In general, I also do not like Khrushchev for adventurism, but the point was that the reforms of Stalin were initially no less adventurous - the apple does not fall far from the apple tree hi
            4. Kvazar
              Kvazar 19 February 2016 17: 04
              +1
              Since when did the Trocist lead the continuation of Stalin's policies? oo
              For the words of Beria that he would continue Stalin’s policy, Khrushchev’s people blamed him without a trial in the basement.
              1. Mr. Pip
                Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 18: 16
                0
                Quote: Kvazar
                Since when did the Trocist lead the continuation of Stalin's policies? oo

                You better remember how Stalin first destroyed the Trotskyists, who since 1923 called for a planned economy and "industrialization" with "collectivization" then he himself pursued this policy wassat
        2. oborzevatel
          oborzevatel 19 February 2016 10: 46
          13
          Quote: Azitral
          Add: the whole cosmos. All Strategic Rocket Forces.

          Can you give you more examples that the work was carried out both before and without it?
          Moreover, his ambitions could lead to disastrous results.
          What is the Voskhod spaceship worth - for the sake of a record, for the sake of Khrushchev, three people were pushed into the Vostok capsule, no spacesuits, no ejection seats, no SAS, and all for the sake of a record.
          Thank God, the next five manned flights were canceled.
          Quote: Azitral
          the most important thing: the five-story building, which fans of the Firm Hand so love to mock

          The first experimental frame-panel houses were built in 1948 in Moscow on Sokolina Gora and Khoroshevskoye Highway according to the projects developed by the State Construction Project (with the participation of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR) and Mosgorproject, respectively. Initially, these four-story houses were built with a steel frame, but due to the high metal consumption (more than 16 kg per 1 m³ of the building), they soon switched to a precast concrete frame (steel consumption up to 3,75 kg per 1 m³). Since 1950, in addition to frame-panel houses with connected joints, construction of frameless panel houses began in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Magnitogorsk and other cities.
          The experience was recognized as successful, and Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated May 9, 1950 No. 1911 "On reducing the cost of construction" initiated the design of the first highly mechanized concrete plants.
          1. Kvazar
            Kvazar 19 February 2016 17: 06
            +1
            Thank you, I didn’t know that Khrushch didn’t care about this either. 3 years to design 5 to build just the same. Then it’s completely sad ....
          2. Bayonet
            Bayonet 19 February 2016 17: 20
            0
            Quote: oborzevatel
            , for the sake of Khrushchev, three were pushed into the Vostok capsule, no spacesuits, no ejection seats, no CAC, and all for the sake of a record.

            Note - "for the sake of Khrushchev." There are enough of such quick ass licking now! hi
        3. V.ic
          V.ic 19 February 2016 10: 47
          -4
          Quote: Azitral
          the most important thing: the five-story building, which fans so love to mock

          Live in them yourself ...
          1. starper
            starper 19 February 2016 11: 54
            11
            At 13, he moved out of the hut, you know, when in the morning the ice bucket dolbish in a bucket ... and then the crane turned .. In general, you don’t understand, there’s nothing to compare. :-)
            1. V.ic
              V.ic 19 February 2016 12: 14
              +2
              Quote: starper
              At 13, he moved out of the hut, you know, when in the morning the ice bucket dolbish in a bucket ... and then the crane turned.

              1. Dolbishь.
              2. Grew up in a village. After the 5th grade, I split 5 cubes of birch butts for the first time. Three wedges, a hammer, a cleaver and two axes. I can swing the cleaver in a circular motion from both shoulders to beat. After the 8th grade I went to the "techie", then the institute, the army ...
              3. Read the passage about water in my comments.
              Quote: starper
              In general, you don’t understand, there’s no reason to compare.: -

              We will compare the spelling of "grandfather" at the age of 59, who finished 8 (eight grades of high school) in the USSR and the spelling "child EG". With a ladle you can hammer yourself on the "pumpkin". If hands grow from another place, then it is useless to blame Putin for your troubles.
            2. Generalissimo
              Generalissimo 19 February 2016 13: 29
              +3
              And how do people still live in the village?
              1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
                Uncle VasyaSayapin 19 February 2016 16: 02
                +4
                Village village strife. There is almost no trace of the completely hopeless ones, and in most of the rest people do not just live, but rather live out their days. But there are also such as the village "Gryazi", where the Pugacheva Castle. I think everything is in order there with comfort.
                1. Generalissimo
                  Generalissimo 19 February 2016 23: 41
                  0
                  This is not a village, this is a cottage village.
          2. bubalik
            bubalik 19 February 2016 23: 33
            0
            "V.ic" ,, I live, like what to compare ,, in vain you write like that ,,
            1. V.ic
              V.ic 20 February 2016 18: 43
              0
              Quote: bubalik
              "V.ic" ,, I live, like what to compare ,, in vain you write like that ,,

              Here are the familiar letters V.ic saw, so it seems that you are contacting me.
              Here is your phrase "two in one" I cannot decipher:
              Quote: bubalik
              how to compare

              They usually compare something with something, but about the "how", so the same should happen in one measurement system, but in no case "how".
              Quote: bubalik
              in vain you write like that

              I am writing that I am observing, and what I am not observing, that I am not writing. My family survived in a garrison without drinking water and in DOS without central heating (only our entrance was two years old, three out of six apartments) only thanks to my village hardening.
        4. oborzevatel
          oborzevatel 19 February 2016 10: 52
          16
          You will also praise him for his "achievements" in the development of the Air Force ...
          Read the memoirs of V. Myasishchev, how he received a stick from Khrushchev for the M-50, in the presence of A. Tupolev.
          "Your plane is not ready, even the propellers are not installed!"
          Screws - on a supersonic strategic bomber, Karl, ...


          Yes, Khrushchev was a great mind ...
        5. iouris
          iouris 19 February 2016 11: 44
          +1
          If communism had been built in the USSR, we would not have discussed the identity of Khrushchev here.
          Politics is the art of the possible. Of course, Gorbachev was impossible immediately after Stalin. But the process "started" just then. Che Guevara met with Khrushchev and other Soviet leaders. He made an unambiguous conclusion about the beginning of the bourgeois degeneration. The essence of the political class and process in Eastern Europe, and not only in the USSR, was determined by the Yugoslav dissident Djilas ("New Class"), who worked with Broz Tito, met with Stalins and other leaders of the USSR. (By the way, before the First World War, Tito worked as an auto mechanic for Ferdinand Porsche, and Porsche came to the USSR, where he was even offered to become the Minister of the Automotive Industry, but he replied that he would not drink so much).
          And the essence of the process, according to Jilas, was industrialization, i.e. in globalization, turning the backward regions of the world into markets. That is what the process ended with. April 22.0.2012, XNUMX Russia is admitted to the WTO. The rest were automatically accepted.
          1. V.ic
            V.ic 19 February 2016 12: 16
            +3
            Quote: iouris
            If communism was built in the USSR,

            If "yes" if only, then mushrooms would grow in the mouth!
            1. bubalik
              bubalik 20 February 2016 00: 02
              -1
              V.ic (4) RU  Today, 12: 16 ↑
              If "yes" if only, then mushrooms would grow in the mouth!
              ... you wrote nonsense ,,, -
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. oborzevatel
            oborzevatel 19 February 2016 16: 29
            +1
            Quote: iouris
            If communism was built in the USSR

            “I’ll tell you later. ".
            Putin
        6. Kvazar
          Kvazar 19 February 2016 17: 01
          +1
          Space laid during the war. R-7 is the seventh missile development already.
          Khrushch is not related to any achievement of 60 years.
          Space laid in the early 40s.
          The nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants laid the groundwork in the first half of the 40s (Beria was in charge).
          The missile defense was laid immediately after the war (Beria was supervised by the first Moscow air defense S-25)
          Full self-sufficiency was laid right after the war (the great restructuring of nature) as a result, the card system was the first to be canceled and by the year 50 got rid of a shortage of products (Khrushchev destroyed).
          Artel production (private traders) and private CX are developed. Khrushchev nationalized (and these are the largest plants that still operate). Even during the Second World War, many cooperatives did not make such measures.
        7. Bayonet
          Bayonet 19 February 2016 17: 16
          +3
          Quote: Azitral
          . The current ones cannot imagine what it is like - moving from semi-basements with conveniences in the yard, to a funny small-sized apartment with gas, hot water and a warm toilet.

          That's right! I remember what happiness it was! And now zazhralis - "Khrushchebs" you know!
      2. ILDM1986
        ILDM1986 19 February 2016 11: 06
        +5
        one would think that Khrushchev personally launched Gagarin into space, made television sets, rebuilt production, and improved the way people live. In fact, everything that was achieved under Khrushchev was left behind from the time of Stalin, but what remains after Khrushchev? collapsed agriculture? collapsed industry? collapsed economy?
        1. V.ic
          V.ic 19 February 2016 12: 19
          +4
          Quote: ILDM1986
          Khrushchev personally launched Gagarin into space

          (+) ... but no one mentioned the execution of workers in Novocherkassk ... It’s in peacetime, and the hero of the SS who ordered Iss Iss Pliev.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. RUSS
            RUSS 19 February 2016 12: 34
            +1
            Quote: V.ic
            but no one mentioned the shooting of workers in Novocherkassk ... It’s in peacetime, and the hero of the SS who ordered Iss Iss Pliev.

            Mentioned more than once, Khrushchev gave the order to Pliev by encryption through Malinovsky, the point is different, you just need to be objective in historical assessments - the Khrushchevs had mistakes and achievements, and of course Novocherkassk is generally on the verge of a crime, and the author Samsononov sees only "black" in the "board" of Khrushchev.
            1. Ivan Tartugai
              Ivan Tartugai 19 February 2016 18: 32
              +3
              Quote: RUSS
              Of course Novocherkassk is generally on the verge of crime

              Why is the execution of residents in Novocherkassk on the verge of crime? Exactly this real crime of Khrushchev’s power.
              And unfortunately not the only one.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. RUSS
                RUSS 20 February 2016 09: 30
                0
                Quote: Ivan Tartugay
                Quote: RUSS
                Of course Novocherkassk is generally on the verge of crime

                Why is the execution of residents in Novocherkassk on the verge of crime? Exactly this real crime of Khrushchev’s power.
                And unfortunately not the only one.

                I agree, although many believe that Khrushchev acted correctly, there was an article on VO justifying those events, and many, oddly enough, forum users supported the author ...
          3. Ivan Tartugai
            Ivan Tartugai 19 February 2016 18: 26
            +2
            Quote: V.ic
            ... but no one mentioned the execution of workers in Novocherkassk ...

            Novocherkassk has not yet been remembered. But Temir-tau is much less likely to remember. There, too, Khrushchev’s power forced Soviet soldiers and Soviet cadets to shoot at the people, also in peacetime in 1959.
            Twice Hero of the Soviet Union, General Pliev, probably for the execution in Novocherkassk received the Order of Lenin from Khrushchev in 1962.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. RUSS
          RUSS 19 February 2016 17: 54
          0
          Quote: ILDM1986
          one would think that Khrushchev personally launched Gagarin into space, made television sets, rebuilt production and improved people's lives

          You might think that Stalin personally won the war, personally built with a trowel in his hands at "Soviet construction sites", etc., as if everything is one-sided in one gate, as a jamb it is Khrushchev's fault, as success is Stalin's groundwork.
          1. bubalik
            bubalik 20 February 2016 00: 39
            0
            RUSS (3) RU  Yesterday, 17: 54 ↑ You would think that Stalin personally won the war
            ,,, so also won the war ?,, Khrushchev, Stalin or all the same, the Soviet people ?,,
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. RUSS
              RUSS 20 February 2016 09: 38
              0
              Quote: bubalik
              ,,, so also won the war ?,, Khrushchev, Stalin or all the same, the Soviet people ?,,

              Soviet people!
          2. The comment was deleted.
        4. Bayonet
          Bayonet 19 February 2016 19: 09
          +1
          Quote: ILDM1986
          and what remains after Khrushchev? collapsed agriculture? collapsed industry? collapsed economy?

          The Warsaw Pact, a leading nuclear research power, which had to be reckoned with (CMEA was created in 1949, but its truly active activity began around 1960, when the USSR leadership tried to make CMEA a kind of socialist alternative to the EEC (European Economic community or “common market”, the predecessor of the European Union), mass housing construction and much more. There were serious mistakes, but you can’t slander and slander the work of people of that era!
      3. Dangerous
        Dangerous 19 February 2016 11: 24
        +1
        RUSS, I completely agree. The board of each ruler of Russia or the USSR can be viewed either from a positive or negative point of view. This article is the second one-sided in this spirit in a week. For people who lived in huts before this Khrushchev really seemed like a paradise at that time. And a large number of our first nuclear submarines also appeared in his time. And those who write that they supposedly would have launched Gagarin into space without him, and mastered the peaceful atom, it’s also possible to say about Putin that the backlog of Soviet scientists and designers is still being used
      4. Kvazar
        Kvazar 19 February 2016 16: 56
        0
        Well, yes.
        Destroyed private farming.
        Completely nationalized the artillery factories (all of a sudden they released everything from furniture to shells) and it was they who had an updated easel park.

        You won’t believe it, but the Artel is actually equal to a private factory. So half of the furniture was released on them. And these were not small factories.

        Everything else was laid down by Stalin's school education and Stalin's programs. Simply, many things could be realized only by the age of 60.

        It will be a discovery for you that they began to prepare for a flight into space during the war. Realizing that there is not enough design school. It worked out. You probably never wondered why the Soyuz rocket has the designation P-7. So P = rocket. Number is the number of new development. Prior to the strategic missile, there were short- and medium-range missiles R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6. And only then the Soviet designers were able to create the R-7 and send Gagarin into space. And all this was laid two decades before the flight.
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 19 February 2016 18: 22
          +1
          Quote: Kvazar
          Prior to the strategic missile were short-range and medium-range missiles R-1, ....

          On April 14, 1948, a Resolution of the Council of Ministers was issued, which authorized the creation of the first Soviet ballistic missile R-1. In fact, it was an A-4 rocket, made mainly from domestic materials. Making changes to the rocket was minimal. Department No. 3 of NII-88 (supervisor SP Korolev) was engaged in the creation of ballistic missiles based on the FAU-2; department No. 4 (head EV Sinilshchikov) developed guided anti-aircraft missiles based on Wasserfall; Department No. 5 (supervisor S.Yu. Rashkov) - guided anti-aircraft missiles based on the "Shmetterling"; and department number 6 (headed by P.I. Kostin) - unguided anti-aircraft missiles based on the Typhoon. To test the A-4 missiles, the State Central Test Range of the USSR Ministry of Defense was created. It was located about 100 km southeast of Stalingrad near the Kapustin Yar test site.
      5. skeptic31
        skeptic31 20 February 2016 18: 10
        0
        On the one hand, it is surprising that such a significant number of Khrushchev’s supporters emerged during these publications, because it is difficult to oppose something to such a visual display of the “achievements” of his reign. On the other, nothing surprising. We talk so much about brainwashing in Ukraine that we forget about our own “achievements” in this area. In the 80s and 90s, so much shit was poured on us about the terrible Stalin, the cretin Lysenko and other things, that many plunged into it headlong, considering it the ultimate truth. A man is so arranged, it is easier for him to live, abstracting from realities, than to admit that he was elementarily circled around a finger.
      6. EvilLion
        EvilLion 1 March 2016 10: 31
        0
        All this went to Khrushchev, and something even faster, just if something in the 50 was still in its infancy, then it could not come in a year. Or do you think that Gagarin flew in the 61, so did it all in a snap? Work has been going on there since the 30s.
    3. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 19 February 2016 12: 19
      +4
      It is worth saying that Khrushchev in this respect was a typical Westerner, that is, he saw something good in the West and immediately wanted to instill it on Russian soil


      Comrade Samsonov opened my eyes to who should be considered a "true" patriot. It turns out that if you saw something good in the West, then in no case should you try to repeat it in your homeland, otherwise you will be known as a Westerner, a liberal, the fifth column and other poisonous berries. But if you see something bad in the West, then, apparently, you must definitely ring up everyone about it louder - then you are generally a one hundred percent patriot. He did so much for the good of the country.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 19 February 2016 17: 28
        -2
        Quote: Nikolai K
        It turns out that if you saw something good in the West, then in no case should you try to repeat it in your own country,

        Bow to Gorbatom ...
        Quote: Nikolai K
        But if you see something bad in the West, then, apparently, you must definitely ring up everyone about it

        And often "Westerners" ring out about this?
        Quote: Nikolai K
        So much for the good of the country did.

        Yeah, Moishe and Mykyt twins = brothers ... and Yoba partisans!
      2. Cat man null
        Cat man null 9 January 2017 16: 59
        0
        Quote: Nikolai K
        Comrade Samsonov opened my eyes to who should be considered a "true" patriot. It turns out that if you saw something good in the West, then in no case should you try to repeat it in your homeland, otherwise you will be known as a Westerner, a liberal, the fifth column and other poisonous berries. But if you see something bad in the West, then, apparently, you must definitely ring up everyone about it louder - then you are generally a one hundred percent patriot. Did so much for the good of the country

        - quotes should be fully cited fool

        Khrushchev in this respect was a typical Westerner, that is, he saw something good in the West and immediately wanted to plant it on Russian soil, regardless of climatic conditions, traditions and experience

        - and read off the line
        - then the meaning will begin to reach in an undistorted form ... maybe negative
  3. Wheel
    Wheel 19 February 2016 06: 42
    +5
    Yeah, scha kaaaak professor will appear, but kaaak praise the bald senile ...
    These Russian idlers did not know how to grow corn ...
    Well, if the matter had been entrusted to his ancestors - the collective farmers Jews, and with passports - that’s from there, Nikita’s undertaking would have blossomed in full color ...
    1. Chisayna
      Chisayna 19 February 2016 07: 47
      +2
      His Jewish ancestors did not want to work in the collective farms of the Jewish Autonomous Region. And he told tales about how his grandfathers, collective farmers, earned workdays for him for education. The dream of these "collective farmers" is Crimea.
    2. Trailer
      Trailer 19 February 2016 09: 13
      +7
      Khrushchev undoubtedly has something to praise:

      1. Baikonur construction and space exploration
      2. Construction of Khrushchev, by which 70 percent of the population resettled. Add to this the availability of this housing. The country got out of the barracks. Thousands of hospitals and stadiums.
      3. The beginning of the construction of new young cities, including mine.

      Why the author does not write about it? Khrushch for social networks made on 50 years of stock, which is still still breathing.

      I’ll add:

      4. Fight against organized crime, when thieves "in law" were simply destroyed
      5. Development of the resort infrastructure of the USSR
      6. The development of light industry and the production of household electrical appliances
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. RUSS
        RUSS 19 February 2016 09: 47
        +2
        [
        Quote: Karavan
        Khrushchev undoubtedly has something to praise:

        1. Exposing the personality cult of Stalin. Rehabilitation of hundreds of thousands of illegally repressed. Relative democratization of society.

        2. The adoption of the "Peace Program", the main thesis of which is the prevention of war between states with different social systems.

        3. The conclusion of the Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear testing in three areas: atmosphere, space and under water.

        4. The reduction of the Armed Forces of the USSR by one third (1,2 million people) and the reduction of exorbitant military spending.

        5. Pension reform affecting tens of millions of citizens. Under Khrushchev, for the first time, retirement became possible.

        6. The reform of agriculture: the collective farmers, who were practically in the position of serfs, began to receive a guaranteed cash payment for labor. They were given passports, allowed to go to other collective farms and leave for the city.

        7. Mass housing. For example, in 1956, the pace of construction in Moscow overtook the pace of population growth.

        8. The USSR achieved the greatest achievements in the field of science and technology. The world's first nuclear power plant (1954), the first satellite (1957), the first cosmonaut (1961).

        9. Mastered 30 million hectares of virgin lands.

        10. The "Iron Curtain" opened, cultural exchange with foreign countries revived. Soviet people slowly began to travel abroad
        1. Azitral
          Azitral 19 February 2016 10: 24
          +5
          Thank. I forgot about the passports of rural residents. And as for the virgin lands, only HOW was done in reproach. And the decision itself is absolutely correct: why on earth will the POST? And so the country is empty, like a bubble. Since then, by the way, no one has decided on sane development programs, and this, in my opinion, is the general purpose and task of the Russian people: the development of empty lands of the north and east of Eurasia. No one else can handle it.
          1. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 10: 32
            -2
            Quote: Azitral
            And as for the virgin lands, only HOW was done in reproach.

            This is the root of the "contradictions" of the Khrushchev era - WHAT was done, everything was done with real care for people and with the aim of making their life better, and HOW it was done - well, excuse me, what kind of successors Stalin brought up "from the plow and without education", that's how they worked fellow
            1. oborzevatel
              oborzevatel 19 February 2016 12: 03
              0
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              what kind of successors did Stalin bring up

              He raised normal successors.
              Before the authorities, their mediocrity, like Khrushchev, was not allowed.
              Take, for example, the unforgettable Lawrence Palych.
              What is not a successor?
              1. Avantageur
                Avantageur 19 February 2016 12: 21
                0
                Quote: oborzevatel
                Quote: Mr. PIP
                what kind of successors did Stalin bring up

                He raised normal successors.
                Before the authorities, their mediocrity, like Khrushchev, was not allowed.
                Take, for example, the unforgettable Lawrence Palych.
                What is not a successor?

                Khrushchev was not any successor of Stalin. Cartilage fussed in advance and seized power by criminal means eliminating "competitors". Stalin, voiced his successor and was Voznesensky, but he was immediately denigrated: Beria, Bulgarin, and the illiterate Jewish-Jewish Khryashov. Ultimately, Voznesensky was convicted and executed.

                Quote: oborzevatel
                Take, for example, the unforgettable Lawrence Palych.
                What is not a successor?


                After Stalin's death, Beria was assigned the role of the "gray cardinal" of the union, and Khrushchev was assigned the role of party secretary, which in principle he was, during the reign of Joseph Vissarionovich.


                1. RUSS
                  RUSS 19 February 2016 12: 28
                  0
                  Quote: Avantageur
                  After Stalin's death, Beria was assigned the role of the "gray cardinal" of the union, and Khrushchev was assigned the role of party secretary, which in principle he was, during the reign of Joseph Vissarionovich.

                  What a deep historical knowledge!
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. Mr. Pip
                  Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 13: 15
                  0
                  Quote: Avantageur
                  Khrushchev was no receiver of Stalin.

                  Don't confuse me here, the "secretary general" was not a monarch and did not appoint successors - the party chose the successors, and Khrushchev was this very party (created and raised by Stalin personally) "collective and unconscious" and the main thing here is that Khrushchev's policy was almost completely successive Stalin's policies.
                  Quote: Avantageur
                  After Stalin's death, Beria was assigned the role of the "gray cardinal" of the union, and Khrushchev was assigned the role of party secretary, which in principle he was, during the reign of Joseph Vissarionovich.

                  And you do not confuse the personal and informal relations of long-familiar people with their "professional" qualities, and speaking of the legends about the "eccentricities" of Stalin and Khrushchev, we can only talk about the closeness of these people - they do not joke with strangers wassat
                  1. Generalissimo
                    Generalissimo 19 February 2016 13: 36
                    +3
                    This is when Stalin wrote "stop d.urak" on Khrushchev's request to increase the execution quota in Ukraine?
                  2. Avantageur
                    Avantageur 19 February 2016 14: 10
                    -1
                    Quote: Mr PIP
                    party elected successors

                    Yeah, she chose, under the strict guidance of Stalin, and after Joseph's death, "palace coups" began in which he overtook everyone and overthrew, blackened - the evil Cartilage Mikita.


                    1. Mr. Pip
                      Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 14: 42
                      0
                      Quote: Avantageur
                      Yeah, I chose, under the strict guidance of Stalin.

                      Yes, yes, under the strict guidance of a sensitive Stalin, do you answer the question - did the PARTY support Khrushchev in 1953 or not ?! laughing
                      1. Avantageur
                        Avantageur 19 February 2016 17: 43
                        -1
                        Quote: Mr PIP
                        PARTY that Khrushchev in 1953 supported or not ?!

                        No, they didn’t support it, but they chose with a wave of his hand. Then, those who chose Cartilage for the post of Secretary of the Central Committee, he was also removed, with the help of a support group (Molotov, Kaganovich).


                      2. Mr. Pip
                        Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 18: 25
                        +1
                        Quote: Avantageur
                        No, they didn’t support it, but they chose with a wave of his hand.

                        They were all 5 years old? belay
                        Quote: Avantageur
                        Then, those who chose Cartilage for the post of secretary of the Central Committee, they also replaced him

                        Right exactly "those"? And what were they waiting for so much ?! laughing
                      3. Avantageur
                        Avantageur 19 February 2016 18: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Mr PIP
                        Right exactly "those"? And what were they waiting for so much ?!

                        You will learn about this in the following posts by Alexander Samsonov ...


                      4. Mr. Pip
                        Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 19: 08
                        0
                        Quote: Avantageur
                        You will learn about this in the following posts by Alexander Samsonov

                        "About this" and many other things I do not learn from the posts of Alexander Samsonov hi
        2. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 12: 50
          0
          Quote: oborzevatel
          Take, for example, the unforgettable Lawrence Palych.
          What is not a successor?

          Well then, let me remind you that Malenkov became the official successor of Stalin, and it was he (along with Beria who, by the way, who stood "behind him") who first put forward the ideas of "WORLD WORLD" and "disarmament" and "lifting the ban on the Western press" and, in general, the course to " rapprochement with the West "(in particular, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Germany) and much more liberal and democratic, such as" amnesty "and" debunking the cult of Stalin "!
          But, after decisions and statements about both reducing remuneration to party officials and limiting the role of the party in the life of the country, Malenkov was immediately overthrown by Khrushchev with the APPROVAL OF THE PARTY! And the PARTY generally shot Beria!
          Therefore, there is no need for "LA-LA-LA", if it were not for Khrushchev, "perestroika" would have already been in 1955 - but why then do those who love Stalin love Beria so much and dislike Khrushchev ?! wassat
    3. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 19 February 2016 15: 58
      0
      All boobies always think that everything is simple and understandable, and scientists are old senility. This is the trouble. No place for boobies at the helm of the state. Let them do what they can, best of all, physical.
      And the lands under the USSR were developed even on Sakhalin and the EAO. Only there, many state farms were planned for loss and they closed in 1992. Ask those who worked there if in doubt. Three of them worked with me in the Far East, in different places.
      And about the empty lands of the north. He lived most of his life in the Far East. There are few travel lands there. And in the north there are none at all. Show at least one example of effective land development in the North, east of the Urals. What a bum!
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 19 February 2016 18: 33
        0
        Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Only there many state farms were planned

        This "planned loss" - in general, puzzles you! How can you plan unprofitability, that is, plan in advance to throw money down the drain? Try to explain this to the capitalist! request
    4. Ivan Tartugai
      Ivan Tartugai 19 February 2016 23: 24
      +2
      Quote: Azitral
      ... why on earth will the POST?

      It is necessary to master it with profit, and not just so as to master it, which was not empty.
      Under Khrushchev, they did just that, mastered raised the virgin lands. And after the rise of virgin lands with bread and food, the country became even worse. And why, then, Khrushchev drove the people to develop virgin lands? Before the development of virgin land, the country provided itself with bread, and after the development they ran to bow to the states: "Sell grain, we will pay."
      From Suslov’s speech at the plenary session where Khrushchev was filmed: “Last year (in 1963), serious difficulties arose even in the country with bread. In this regard, comrade Khrushchev suggested introducing a card system. And this is 20 years after the war! We were forced to highlight 860 tons of goldto buy grain from the capitalists. "
      What is the use of such development, what is the use of such a rise in virgin lands?
      Only harm.
      Of course, for example, Kazakhstan benefited from the rise of virgin lands as a whole. There were negative points, but overall won. Huge amounts of money have been invested in the construction of roads and state farms. Tens of thousands of young specialists came from teachers, doctors, agronomists, engineers, but the country, the Soviet Union, lost. Khrushchev violated and destroyed the grain economy of the country, and how they began to purchase grain in 1963 and then the volume of grain purchase only increased over the years.
      But this is breadhe should be his. Buying bread is not buying diamonds or any special watches, luxury goods. They showed the country in the sale of diamonds, and to hell with them, but you can’t say about bread, everyone needs it, everyone and every day.
      1. carbine
        carbine 20 February 2016 01: 16
        0
        Quote: Ivan Tartugay
        Khrushchev suggested introducing a card system. And this is 20 years after the war!

        And where is the war? There have always been cards in the USSR. From the first day to the last. But they were not always called "cards". Different sly names appeared much more often: "invitations", "checks", "passes for the right of access", etc. etc. Of course, such "cards" existed mainly for the elite. The communists were great masters of inventing all kinds of such things.
        And real cards were already for everyone and almost everything appeared in the 90s. 45 years after the war and 4 years after the fall in oil prices in 1986. The "highly developed industrial power" did not survive this regrettable fact.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  4. oborzevatel
    oborzevatel 19 February 2016 11: 47
    +1
    And again - I do not agree!
    Quote: RUSS
    Exposing the Stalin personality cult. Rehabilitation of hundreds of thousands of illegally repressed. Relative democratization of society

    Doubtful achievement.
    Why didn’t you expose yourself? Also participated.
    Quote: RUSS
    Reducing the Armed Forces of the USSR by one third (1,2 million people) and reducing exorbitant military spending.

    About this, the whole article in the same cycle was, I completely agree with her.
    Quote: RUSS
    Agricultural reform: collective farmers who were practically in position serfs.

    Who told you that? Valeria Novodvorskaya bit, or what?
    Quote: RUSS
    Mass housing construction. For example, in 1956, the pace of construction in Moscow overtook the rate of population growth.

    Already wrote about the decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of May 9, 1950 No. 1911 "On reducing the cost of construction"
    Quote: RUSS
    The USSR has achieved major achievements in the field of science and technology. The world's first nuclear power plant (1954), first satellite (1957), first astronaut (1961)

    You might think that the Obninsk NPP was only built for one year?
    About the satellite and the astronaut - already wrote.
    One thing I’ll say - it’s not his merit, thank you for not interfering with the fact that they started without him.

    Quote: RUSS
    Developed 30 million hectares of virgin land

    Died 30 million hectares of virgin land. Already wrote in the same cycle.
    Quote: RUSS
    The "Iron Curtain" opened, cultural exchange with foreign countries revived. Soviet people slowly began to travel abroad

    A dubious so-so achievement, I must say ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 19 February 2016 12: 02
      -1
      Quote: oborzevatel
      Doubtful achievement. Why didn’t you expose yourself? Also participated

      Well, who will expose himself? His example was to expose Brezhnev, not Samsonov laughing
      Quote: oborzevatel
      Who told you that? Valeria Novodvorskaya bit, or what?

      Novodvorskaya cannot bite me purely physically due to the fact that she has been gone for a couple of years.
      Quote: oborzevatel
      Died 30 million hectares of virgin land. Already wrote in the same cycle.

      In Kazakhstan, the former virgin lands are still sown in these territories.
      Quote: oborzevatel
      A dubious so-so achievement, I must say ...

      A dubious achievement in opening the "curtain"? Well, who is stopping you, isolate yourself personally from the world or the world from you.
      1. oborzevatel
        oborzevatel 19 February 2016 13: 25
        +2
        Quote: RUSS
        Well, who's stopping you isolate yourself personally from the world or the world from you

        My lifestyle and the commitments made at one time isolated me from the foreign world. What, however, I do not regret. hi
        Why should we go over to personalities?
        Like in a joke: but I, ... I ..., I’ll pile on you all here ...
  5. sdv68
    sdv68 19 February 2016 13: 06
    +2
    1. The rehabilitation of the innocently repressed began with the arrival of Beria - at the end of the 38th.

    2. and 3.

    All this is not from a good life. For the USSR in terms of the number of nuclear warheads caught up with the states only in the 70s.

    4. This is from what figure? That's what liberal wiki writes https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Советская_армия

    Also, in the period 1946-1948, the Soviet Armed Forces were reduced - from 11,3 million people to about 2,8 million people.


    5. "But the men don't know" (c) It turns out that there was no pension under Stalin)))

    6. It turns out that serfs built the economy, which became the second economy in the world, able to break Hitler's fascism? Where is it they built it (the economy). On their collective farms? And they collected tanks and planes in the beds?

    7. The construction was. That's just the projects were developed under Stalin. Khrushchev pretty badly robbed them (connected the toilet to the bathroom) under the guise of a reduction in price, and so they got Khrushchev.

    8. Yes. Khrushch's cosmos loved and was proud of him. Yes, and astronauts and developers of rockets from the corn plant saw mostly only advantages. There is just one caveat. Almost all projects were created under Stalin. The P5 took off at the end of the 52nd. P7 in those years was in the project (if not in the "blue").

    9. Read about this in the article on the link under this article. And the result of this "fruitful creativity" is the Novocherkassk execution. Tell me why it happened?

    10. Yes. And how we lived without chewing gum and mars / sneakers)))
  6. Generalissimo
    Generalissimo 19 February 2016 13: 33
    -1
    Again about the millions of executed (Trotskyite executioners) by Stalin personally? Further point by point, translate into human language meaninglessly ...
  7. bubalik
    bubalik 20 February 2016 00: 47
    0
    РУСС (3) RU  Yesterday, 09: 47 ↑
    ,,, all that you brought what , I won’t even dispute, such a mess in your head ,,, request
  8. The comment was deleted.
  • Wheel
    Wheel 19 February 2016 10: 24
    +6
    Quote: Karavan
    Khrushchev undoubtedly has something to praise:

    1. Baikonur construction and space exploration
    2. Construction of Khrushchev, by which 70 percent of the population resettled. Add to this the availability of this housing. The country got out of the barracks. Thousands of hospitals and stadiums.
    3. The beginning of the construction of new young cities, including mine.

    Why the author does not write about it? Khrushch for social networks made on 50 years of stock, which is still still breathing.

    1. Baikonur and space are somehow weakly correlated with Khrushchev, their appearance is not his merit.
    2. No matter how funny, but "Khrushchev" - a myth.
    To refute it, it is enough to look into the collections "The National Economy of the USSR" for the corresponding years and compare some well-known facts.
    Ebony began in the 57th: in the Decree of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of July 31, 1957, it was directively proposed to develop new standard designs for residential buildings.
    The first Khrushchevs were built in Moscow in the 58th.
    The massive construction of "Khrushchevs" throughout the country began in 1959, and on an industrial basis since 1961, when the first house-building factories appeared. For the construction of an apartment building, including the zero cycle and the supply of communications, then, as now, it took at least a year. Therefore, the mass settlement of brick "Khrushchevs" began not earlier than 1960, and industrial ones - starting from 1962.
    Well, the figures from the "Collection" for the corresponding years.

    Years Number of new settlers (thousand) Built (million sq. M.)

    +1955 3158 21.8
    +1956 3456 27.5
    +1957 4564 34.3
    +1958 5213 45.8
    +1959 5824 50.8

    +1960 5594 51.3
    +1961 5229 49.3
    +1962 5110 49.0
    +1963 4897 47.8
    +1964 4629 45.4
    +1965 4675 47.5
    Everyone can draw conclusions himself ...
    3. Young cities were built throughout the existence of the Soviet Union.
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 10: 36
      0
      Quote: Wheel
      Ironically, the Khrushchevs are a myth.

      MYTH what exactly? They have been built according to your table since 1955, why did you want to say exactly that? request
      1. Wheel
        Wheel 19 February 2016 11: 15
        +2
        Quote: Mr PIP
        Quote: Wheel
        Ironically, the Khrushchevs are a myth.

        MYTH what exactly? They have been built according to your table since 1955, why did you want to say exactly that? request

        Can you read?
        In the text Russian on gray it is written:
        Ebony began in the 57th: in the Decree of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of July 31, 1957, it was directively proposed to develop new standard designs for residential buildings.
        The first Khrushchevs were built in Moscow in the 58th.
        The massive construction of "Khrushchev" nationwide began in 1959, on an industrial basis since 1961when the first house-building plants appeared. For the construction of an apartment building, including a zero cycle and communications, then, as now, it took at least a year. therefore mass settlement of brick "Khrushchevs" began not earlier than 1960, and industrial - since 1962.

        It is not difficult to guess that before the "Khrushchevs" were built "Stalin's" hi
        1. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 11: 56
          0
          Quote: Wheel
          Can you read?
          The text in Russian in gray says:

          The text shows the dynamics of construction, and why should I think of all this? fellow
          Quote: Wheel
          Ebony began in the 57th: in the Decree of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of July 31, 1957, it was directively proposed to develop new standard designs for residential buildings.

          YOU ARE NOT RIGHT - Read:
          Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated May 9, 1950 No. 1911 "On reducing the cost of construction" (it is with this decree that the formation of a "theoretical base" for future construction begins)
          Decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of August 19, 1954 "On the development of the production of prefabricated reinforced concrete structures and parts for construction" (it was planned to construct more than 400 reinforced concrete plants
          Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of July 31, 1957 "On the development of housing construction in the USSR" (beginning of MASS construction - your table shows the dynamics).
          Quote: Wheel
          It is not difficult to guess that before the "Khrushchevs" were built "Stalin's"

          You have enchanting ideas about construction wassat
          "Khrushchev" is a collective name for frameless panel houses, developed (more precisely, purchased technologies for production from France) under Stalin, under Stalin, which began to be built in 1950 and began to be massively built under Khrushchev and after Khrushchev hi
          It differed from "Stalinok" by a lower ceiling, it was not caused by the goal of humiliating the "proletariat", but by the development of building technologies and the ability to build houses without a "half-meter" crossbar above the doors, as well as by the technology of reducing the height of the doors themselves from 2.5 to 2.0-2.1 hi
          1. Wheel
            Wheel 19 February 2016 13: 48
            +4
            Quote: Mr. PIP
            YOU ARE NOT RIGHT - Read:
            Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated May 9, 1950 No. 1911 "On reducing the cost of construction" (it is with this decree that the formation of a "theoretical base" for future construction begins)
            Decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of August 19, 1954 "On the development of the production of prefabricated reinforced concrete structures and parts for construction" (it was planned to construct more than 400 reinforced concrete plants
            Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of July 31, 1957 "On the development of housing construction in the USSR" (beginning of MASS construction - your table shows the dynamics).

            No, is everything all right with the logic?
            What place are the first two decrees connected with the last?
            The first Resolution you mentioned was adopted after the positive experience of building frame-panel houses in Moscow.
            The second - according to the results of the successful construction of already frameless panel houses in Moscow, Magnitogorsk, Leningrad, Kiev ...
            But these were panel "stalinkas" with high ceilings, a spacious kitchen, a separate bathroom.
            With the decision of the 57th year, small rooms began with a combined bathroom, often a shower instead of a bath, a kitchen of 2,8 - 4 sq. M.
            Quote: Mr. PIP
            You have enchanting ideas about construction
            "Khrushchev" is a collective name for frameless panel houses, developed (more precisely, purchased technologies for production from France) under Stalin, under Stalin, which began to be built in 1950 and began to be massively built under Khrushchev and after Khrushchev
            It differed from "Stalinok" by a lower ceiling, it was not caused by the goal of humiliating the "proletariat", but by the development of building technologies and the ability to build houses without a "half-meter" crossbar above the doors, as well as by the technology of reducing the height of the doors themselves from 2.5 to 2.0-2.1

            Yah?
            That’s just the same and exclusive panel?
            But from my daughter's window, the Perm microdistrict "Gorodskie Gorki", and for some reason 70% of the Khrushchevs are brick ..., with kitchens 2,8 meters and a shower instead of a bathroom ...
            And his father in Kharkov at the end of the 50s had a panel steel panel with ceilings of 2,9 m and a kitchen of 8 squares ...
            Who to believe, your eyes or you, as a great specialist?
            1. Mr. Pip
              Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 14: 18
              0
              Quote: Wheel
              What place are the first two decrees connected with the last?

              1. Determined what to build. (determined by technology)
              2. The second HOW and WHAT TO BUILD. (creation of the necessary production base)
              3. WHERE AND WHOM TO BUILD (already in fact mass construction)
              Quote: Wheel
              The first Resolution you mentioned was adopted after the positive experience of building frame-panel houses in Moscow.

              No, mushrooms were recognized as NOT POSITIVE from here and the Decree “On reducing the cost of construction” stop
              Quote: Wheel
              With the decision of the 57th year, small rooms began with a combined bathroom, often a shower instead of a bath, a kitchen of 2,8 - 4 sq. M.

              There were no such kitchens, + - 5 meters they are all.
              Quote: Wheel
              Is it straightforward and exclusively panel?

              The main thing is that everything is FRAME! And the frame material was the second thing. fellow
              Quote: Wheel
              But from the window of my daughter, the Perm microdistrict "Gorodskie Gorki", and for some reason 70% of the Khrushchevs are brick ..., with kitchens 2,8 meters and a shower instead of a bathroom

              Yes, the main series was 1-447 and was brick, but the height of the ceilings there is 2.48 meters. 2.7 meters is either 438 series (but it is made of concrete and 2.7, it is usually only the first floor - the remaining 2.48 meters), or already modifications 1-447, most likely 1-447C - but this is BREZHNEVKA - there were no Khrushchevs with 2.7! hi
              1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
                Uncle VasyaSayapin 19 February 2016 16: 53
                +1
                Excuse me if the question is strange: what are the production technologies for two-meter and two and a half-meter doors different? Or did you mean exactly "the technology of reducing the height of the doors themselves from 2.5 to 2.0-2.1", i.e. the technology meant that it was possible to reduce the height of already finished 2,5 meter doors.
                Do not take offense. I just never heard about it and I can’t imagine it in an adequate way.
                Have you removed the window above the door? The opening became lower, guessed? Then what is the technology? In a light in the stairwell?
                I always thought that high ceilings were needed because of the characteristics of steam heating. And when they did water demand for high ceilings disappeared.
                1. Mr. Pip
                  Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 18: 38
                  0
                  Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
                  Have you removed the window above the door?

                  Not removed, but added.
                  Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
                  high ceilings were needed due to the characteristics of steam heating.

                  They were needed because there was a "carrying crossbar" above the door.
                  Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
                  door height reduction technology

                  Apparently I didn’t quite exactly put it what
              2. Wheel
                Wheel 19 February 2016 19: 13
                +1
                Quote: Mr. PIP
                There were no such kitchens, + - 5 meters they are all.

                Do you see a gopher?
                Нет!
                But he is! hi
      2. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 19 February 2016 11: 39
        +6
        I do not agree neither with the Wheel nor with you, PIP. I read that the construction of cheap mass housing was planned under Stalin. And it began with him. I myself live in the house of the 53 year, according to the layout of the apartments, it is not much different from the Khrushchev. Ceilings are higher (2,90). the kitchen is a bit larger (7,50), that's all. There is a passage room. I think that such houses were a transitional option.
        1. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 12: 11
          +2
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          I read that the construction of cheap mass housing was planned under Stalin.

          Yes, I didn’t argue with this, and I wrote the same above. hi
        2. Wheel
          Wheel 19 February 2016 13: 50
          0
          Quote: mordvin xnumx
          I do not agree neither with the Wheel nor with you, PIP. I read that the construction of cheap mass housing was planned under Stalin. And it began with him. I myself live in the house of the 53 year, according to the layout of the apartments, it is not much different from the Khrushchev. Ceilings are higher (2,90). the kitchen is a bit larger (7,50), that's all. There is a passage room. I think that such houses were a transitional option.

          The passage room is not a hallmark of Khrushchev.
          Stalinka with checkpoints also had a place to be.
          A characteristic feature of the Khrushchev is its small size.
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 19 February 2016 15: 13
            +2
            Quote: Wheel
            Quote: mordvin xnumx
            I do not agree neither with the Wheel nor with you, PIP. I read that the construction of cheap mass housing was planned under Stalin. And it began with him. I myself live in the house of the 53 year, according to the layout of the apartments, it is not much different from the Khrushchev. Ceilings are higher (2,90). the kitchen is a bit larger (7,50), that's all. There is a passage room. I think that such houses were a transitional option.

            The passage room is not a hallmark of Khrushchev.
            Stalinka with checkpoints also had a place to be.
            A characteristic feature of the Khrushchev is its small size.

            So I write about the fact that I live in Stalin the very last years of construction, and for example my Germans built my sister (2 of the 40 of the years), the area is bigger than my treshka.
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 19 February 2016 15: 56
              +5
              I want to add. I believe that Khrushchev for the 50,60,70-s is the very thing that is needed. Gradually, people are overgrown with technology and have to increase the footage. The norm in 9 is sq.m. it was calculated by scientists or officials from the GDR after the war, where they calculated that a person should have a wardrobe, a bed, a table, a chair, a nightstand, have 2 pairs of boots, 3 shirts, etc. I believe that this norm has become obsolete at least 30 years ago. But we really do not like to change the rules, right?
          2. carbine
            carbine 20 February 2016 01: 27
            -1
            Quote: Wheel
            A characteristic feature of the Khrushchev is its small size.

            And low ceilings. And also, as a rule, a combined bathroom.
            1. Avantageur
              Avantageur 20 February 2016 01: 37
              -1
              Quote: carbine
              And low ceilings. And also, as a rule, a combined bathroom.



    2. carbine
      carbine 20 February 2016 01: 25
      -2
      Quote: Wheel
      2. No matter how funny, but "Khrushchev" - a myth.

      Quote: Wheel
      Ebony began in the 57th: in the Decree of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of July 31, 1957, it was directively proposed to develop new standard designs for residential buildings.

      Quote: Wheel
      The first Khrushchevs were built in Moscow in the 58th.

      Quote: Wheel
      Everyone can draw conclusions himself ...

      Those. the fact that Khrushchev served as 1st Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee (1st person in the USSR both in the Constitution and in fact) from 1953 to 64 does not mean that the 1957 Resolution was taken under his general guidance?
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • V.ic
    V.ic 19 February 2016 10: 50
    +1
    Quote: Karavan
    For the social sphere, he made a reserve for 50 years, which is still breathing.

    ..on an incense or something?
    Quote: Karavan
    The fight against organized crime, when thieves "in law" were simply destroyed

    ... with whom are they still struggling?
    Quote: Karavan
    Development of resort infrastructure of the USSR

    ... have you been in Turkey for a long time?
    Quote: Karavan
    Development of light industry and production of household electrical equipment

    Well, when was that?
    1. Trailer
      Trailer 19 February 2016 13: 45
      -1
      Quote: V.ic
      V.ic (4)


      You, as the representative of one noble people, answer with a question. And you can't bring counter-facts.
  • oborzevatel
    oborzevatel 19 February 2016 11: 35
    0
    I already wrote above about the "Khrushchevs", which began to erect before him
    Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of May 9, 1950 No. 1911 "On reducing the cost of construction"

    Quote: Karavan
    Construction of Baikonur and space exploration

    About the construction of Baikonur:
    a fragment of memoirs of the doctor of technical sciences Arkady Beniaminovich Naishul (1920-2005), who worked all his life in the space industry
    In 1952 year (Karl!) Boris Konoplev, the chief designer of the radio control system, called me and suggested that I take up the choice of a testing ground for the upcoming tests of the R-7 rocket. It was necessary to determine the starting point, the location of the main and auxiliary radio control point. OKB-1, i.e. By sticks.
    Three areas were proposed for the location of the landfill: Kuban, Chuvashia and Kazakhstan. Kuban and Chuvashia immediately fell away, since the areas of the fall of the first steps were in the densely populated area. Kazakhstan remained.

    No need to hang Khrushchev laurels of the founder of Soviet cosmonautics and the builder of the spaceport.
    Quote: Karavan
    Start of construction of new young cities

    And before Khrushchev they were not built, you might think.
    Quote: Karavan
    The fight against organized crime, when thieves "in law" were simply destroyed

    The famous "suchya war (sorry, that's the only way I can write) did it start with him?"
    Suchya war - a fierce struggle between two groups of prisoners convicted of criminal offenses that took place in correctional labor institutions (ITU) of the USSR in 1946 (Karl!) - 1956 The conflict involved, on the one hand, the so-called “suki” - convicts who tolerated the administration of the correctional institution and wished to “take the path of correction”, and on the other hand, “thieves in law” who professed old rules that denied any cooperation with authorities . Subsequently, it grew into a struggle of "legitimate" thieves, that is, adhering to the "classical" thieves rules, and thieves who voluntarily or by compulsion refused to fulfill them and, accordingly, joined the "sukam"

    About everything else - google on the net, you will find many interesting and not related to Khrushchev.
  • starper
    starper 19 February 2016 12: 01
    +2
    Well, actually, all this should have been done by any leader of the state, and what about Nikita Sergeyevich personally? And the fact that there was a guy with twists so yes :-)
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 19 February 2016 12: 09
      +2
      Quote: starper
      Well, actually, all this should have been done by any leader of the state, and what about Nikita Sergeyevich personally? And the fact that there was a guy with twists so yes :-)

      Reading such comments, I am always surprised, and Khrushchev is that an alien? Western agent? "Varyag" hired by the people?
      Khrushchev is a product of the system, this person was close to Stalin, he was a protege of the party nomenclature, they themselves put him in, why did they allow and tolerate then?
      1. Beaver
        Beaver 19 February 2016 13: 47
        -1
        Quote: RUSS
        why allowed

        He seized upon himself, having arranged a military coup.
        Quote: RUSS
        and then endured?

        Tolerated, preparing a coup against him.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. RUSS
          RUSS 19 February 2016 13: 59
          0
          Quote: Castor
          Dorval himself, having arranged a military coup

          If I understood you correctly, then Khrushchev staged and led a military coup?
          If so, please answer more precisely.
          Quote: Castor
          Tolerated, preparing a coup against him.

          Brezhnev companions?
          1. Beaver
            Beaver 19 February 2016 14: 39
            0
            Quote: RUSS
            answer more precisely

            http://topwar.ru/6472-hruschev-i-ustranenie-berii.html
            Enjoy it! laughing
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. RUSS
              RUSS 19 February 2016 16: 42
              -1
              Quote: Castor
              Quote: RUSS
              answer more precisely

              http://topwar.ru/6472-hruschev-i-ustranenie-berii.html
              Enjoy it! laughing
              1. carbine
                carbine 20 February 2016 01: 30
                +1
                You are an incorrigible optimist with your 70%. Right, a huge optimist.
              2. The comment was deleted.
  • Generalissimo
    Generalissimo 19 February 2016 13: 25
    0
    This is all, unlike the collapse of the Armed Forces and the CX - not its achievement.
  • Ivan Tartugai
    Ivan Tartugai 19 February 2016 22: 30
    +2
    Trailer
    The construction of the Khrushchev, due to which 70 percent of the population settled.

    Everyone knows that the most prosperous for living is a wooden house, in second place is an adobe house, in the third brick of red solid clay brick and the most unfavorable for living is a concrete panel. It is suitable only for short stays, i.e. this is a temporary residence for 1-2 years, a maximum of 3 years, and then the family must move to another more suitable for living. And the most acceptable in the times of Khrushchev, and today it is a brick house.
    It is clear to everyone that a wooden house is very expensive, and an adobe house is not technologically advanced, but a brick one is not more expensive than a panel one and no more than a panel one when considering factory production.
    And thanks to the housing construction policy of Khrushchev and his followers, we still have a significant part of the country's population, already the second generation of Soviet people is ruining their health in Khrushchev.
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 22: 39
      0
      Quote: Ivan Tartugay
      And the most acceptable in the times of Khrushchev, and today it is a brick house.

      Yeah, in the 90s people built brick cottages for themselves, and then they didn’t know where to get the money for insulation-heating.
      So brick is definitely the century before last, google about modern "efficient houses" that practically do not consume energy for heating compared to bricks.
      1. Ivan Tartugai
        Ivan Tartugai 20 February 2016 05: 27
        +1
        Quote: Mr PIP
        Yeah, in the 90s people built brick cottages for themselves, and then they didn’t know where to get the money for insulation-heating.

        The cost of heating the building is very high. It is better to spend it once during construction, during the construction of a building, but to build a warm dwelling. The heating costs are not lump-sum, but constant are the entire period of operation of a residential building. Here are the slums the most energy-intensive heating , heating the hut, the street is practically heated. Losses due to heating of 1 square meter of the house are the largest of all existing residential buildings in the world. And here Khrushchev "distinguished himself" "surpassed" all the countries in the reduced costs of heating the home. It caused great damage to the country and people. Because of the Khrushchev, millions of tons of fuel were additionally burned and are now being burned to heat the street.
      2. Ivan Tartugai
        Ivan Tartugai 20 February 2016 06: 15
        0
        Quote: Mr PIP
        Yeah, people built brick cottages in the 90s, and then they didn’t know where to get the money for insulation-heating

        You are right, the cost of heating is a very significant item of expenses for the operation of the home. Especially here, where the main, large part of the country has a very harsh climate and temperatures are low, and the winters are long. Better once, that is, at a time, it will be spent during the construction, during the construction of the building, but to build a warm house, than then all the time of living to bear the additional costs of heating your home.
        So here is the crush the most energy-consuming house for heating. By heating the crust, you also practically heat the street. According to the given heat losses during heating of 1 sq. meters of housing, above the huts there are no residential buildings around the world. And here Khrushchev "Distinguished" surpassed all countries in the world. Great damage was done to the country and people. Due to the low thermal resistance of the walls and roofs for heating, the coffers were additionally burned and now, although Khrushchev has not existed for a long time, millions and millions tons of fuel are being burned and will still be burned.
  • Azitral
    Azitral 19 February 2016 10: 14
    +5
    The Jews grow fruits in the desert, which they supply, among other things, to us. In the USSR, before my eyes, between 76 and 80 years old, they plowed carrots and cabbage. I myself heard the collective farmers say: "If only someone steals ...". Potatoes - no, they didn't plow them, they still managed to plunder the bulk, and the rest went under the snow, in the form of huge green heaps. It was scary and ashamed to look. Just do not say that I am generalizing: this is the Black Earth Region, large villages. In other places it was even worse. It's not about corn, it's about collective farms in general.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 19 February 2016 10: 23
      +1
      Quote: Azitral
      It's not about corn; it's about collective farms in general

      This is the whole point.
  • Mr. Pip
    Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 10: 24
    0
    Quote: Wheel
    If the business were entrusted to his ancestors - the collective farmers-Jews, and with passports - here tada, Nikita’s undertaking would flourish

    Shaw, have Jews ever been starving? request
    1. Wheel
      Wheel 19 February 2016 10: 47
      +3
      Quote: Mr. PIP
      Shaw, have Jews ever been starving?

      Well, as the Professor spoke yesterday, it is not clear how he was born and survived. laughing
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 12: 00
        +3
        Quote: Wheel
        Well, as the Professor spoke yesterday, it is not clear how he was born and survived.

        Are you talking about the fact that he wrote that he was a relative of Stalin himself?
        Well, in this case, of course, the chances of survival were rapidly decreasing, especially with a Jewish surname crying
    2. V.ic
      V.ic 19 February 2016 10: 54
      +2
      Quote: Mr. PIP
      Shaw, have Jews ever been starving?

      Personally, Stalin, Malenkov and Bulganin plagued to prevent an increase in the population of the "chosen people" in Srael.
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 11: 58
        +1
        Quote: V.ic
        Personally, Stalin, Malenkov and Bulganin plagued to prevent an increase in the population of the "chosen people" in Srael.

        Ai-yai-yay poor-poor Kaganovich Lazar Moiseevich, they ate and drank, he probably sat next to him only sniffed crying
        1. V.ic
          V.ic 19 February 2016 12: 23
          0
          Quote: Mr. PIP
          Kaganovich Lazar Moiseevich, they ate and drank, he probably sat next to him only sniffed

          Oh, excuse me, did not mention Lazar Moiseevich in vain! request
          1. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 13: 17
            0
            Quote: V.ic
            Oh, excuse me, did not mention Lazar Moiseevich in vain!

            In general, it is better not to mention ALL of them; the Kremlin wall is not eternal soldier
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 19 February 2016 21: 40
          +2
          Yeah, Kaganovich sniffed so much that they put platinum crowns in his teeth. wassat
  • Dangerous
    Dangerous 19 February 2016 11: 26
    0
    Stupid article. In 50 years, it will be possible to write an article about Putin "oligarchic madness" or "oil madness". Article - delirium and one-sidedness
  • Letnab
    Letnab 19 February 2016 06: 54
    +7
    But Nikitushka did the business .... We still disentangle!
    And to hide the real information, they have not gone far, everyone is also under pressure from the governors and many others, laudatory reports are written, and titles and awards are also awarded ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 19 February 2016 09: 49
      -4
      Quote: Letnab
      But Nikitushka did the business ....

      In the 50s - the first half of the 60s. The Soviet Union has made great strides in many areas. Russian science was making huge strides forward. In 1954, the first nuclear power plant in the world was launched in the USSR in Obninsk. The system of the Academy of Sciences was developing. In 1957, a decision was made to establish a large scientific center - the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The construction of a scientific town ("Akademgorodok") began in the Novosibirsk region, which a few years later turned into a major research center. At the same time, there was a process of creating branch academies: medical, agricultural, pedagogical, architecture and construction.
      Significant successes were achieved by Soviet science in the field of atomic nucleus physics and semiconductor physics. In 1957, the most powerful particle accelerator in the world, the synchrophasotron, began to operate in the country. At the same time, the joint Institute for Nuclear Research launched its research. Scientific developments were accompanied by a process of staff growth in quantitative terms. According to official figures, in 1950 in the USSR there were 162,5 thousand scientific works, and in 1960 - 354,2 thousand.
      A real revolution in the consciousness of people took place after the launch of the first Soviet satellite on October 4, 1957. Several years later, on April 12, 1961, Yu. A. Gagarin on the Vostok spacecraft made the first ever flight around the globe. Human space exploration began.
      A significant share of the difficulties experienced by the peoples of the USSR in the 50s and subsequent years was associated with the need to mobilize huge human and material resources in order to complete research and technical projects for the production of nuclear weapons in the shortest possible time. A large number of prominent scientists were forced to deal with defense problems. Impressive results in this direction were achieved already at the beginning of the 50s. Thus, in 1954, an air-to-air missile was adopted by the Air Force fighter aviation, aiming at a target using a radar beam. In 1959, an air-to-ground missile was adopted by the Air Force's strategic aviation, which could be launched from a heavy bomber 200 km away from the target and at the same time carry a nuclear warhead. In the same year, a group of scientists led by S.P.Korolev developed a silo version of the R-9 ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear charge.
      The development of Russian culture in the "Khrushchev decade" was carried out largely under the influence of political reforms. In the first half of the 50s. the works of I. Ehrenburg, V. Dudintsev and a number of other authors have acquired special relevance.
      1. sdv68
        sdv68 19 February 2016 14: 39
        0
        Quote: RUSS
        In the 50s - the first half of the 60s. The Soviet Union has achieved great success in many industries.

        .


        All of the above is the legacy of "bloody Stalinism." For example, in rocketry, the first P5s began flying at the end of the 52nd. P7 was then already in the project (if not "in blue"). The atomic project is also from the Stalinist era. And so throughout.
  • Beaver
    Beaver 19 February 2016 07: 24
    +1
    good Alexander, I'm waiting for the continuation, the country should know its "heroes". I hope you will also tell about Khrushchev's alcoholization. hi
    1. Azitral
      Azitral 19 February 2016 10: 28
      0
      About alcoholization? Please: late 20s, early thirties. vodka stalls right in the shops. The idea of ​​Koganovich, and Joseph Vissarionovich highly approved. Since then it has gone. Read the documents.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 19 February 2016 10: 56
        -4
        Quote: Azitral
        The idea of ​​Koganovich, and Joseph Vissarionovich highly approved.

        Forgot to mention the commemorative comrade. Rykova ... Attacks Your message is just a bunch (fetid!).
      2. Beaver
        Beaver 19 February 2016 13: 22
        0
        Quote: Azitral
        late 20s, early thirties. vodka kiosks right in the shops

        I heard about it, about drunkenness during working hours - somehow it was never done. request
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. RUSS
      RUSS 19 February 2016 12: 59
      -2
      Quote: Castor
      Alexander, I'm waiting for the continuation, the country should know its "heroes".

      "By pouring mud on a person, you humiliate yourself," Alexander Samsonov, do not be like street shouts.
      1. Beaver
        Beaver 19 February 2016 13: 38
        +3
        Quote: RUSS
        Alexander Samsonov don't be like street screamers

        As far as I noticed, Alexander does not claim that everything was only bad. And indeed, what kind of head of state would it be if he would only bring harm to his people, without bringing absolutely no benefit? You perfectly complement the author with a multiple listing of the good that was under Khrushchev, saving the first from this work. Your position looks like an attempt to protect a person who is not able to do this on his own and deserves respect. hi
        For all that, street screamers tell the truth much more often than cabinet hackers. I repeat, I have never met a single "Khrushchinist" and I'm afraid I won't. The attitude of the people towards Nikita Sergeevich was rather negative even before A. Samsonov's articles appeared on VO.
      2. sdv68
        sdv68 19 February 2016 14: 45
        -1
        Quote: RUSS
        "By pouring mud on a person, you humiliate yourself," Alexander Samsonov, do not be like street shouts.


        "Take the log out of your eye, then it will be better to see how to get the speck out of your friend's eye" (c)
  • parusnik
    parusnik 19 February 2016 07: 28
    +5
    Here sometimes I watch foreign historical documentaries about the Soviet period .. and what's interesting .. all Soviet leaders are bad, starting with Lenin .. two good Khrushchev and Gorbachev ..
  • Avenich
    Avenich 19 February 2016 07: 36
    +8
    Yesterday I noted in the comments under this article series, but here again I remembered. My father, being a livestock specialist, hid a few bulls in the ravine for several days, from the commission that he came to the collective farm to verify the implementation of plans to fill up the population with meat. They slaughtered all the cattle in those years in a row.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 19 February 2016 09: 22
      +5
      I remember going home and copying livestock. We only had a cat from animals. Dad and presented it ....
      1. Azitral
        Azitral 19 February 2016 10: 30
        -4
        Wow. And before the commissions - only a cat? Working dad. Breadwinner.
        1. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee 19 February 2016 12: 08
          +7
          Dad was the breadwinner. Himself from the village, went through the whole war, and as far as I remember, every piece of land was planted. We lived in a garrison and we won’t get much of an economy. Then life was slowly getting better, there was an economy. And do not irony ....
  • drop
    drop 19 February 2016 08: 57
    12
    At the beginning of the 60's I had to be the secretary of the LIAP Komsomol committee. Sometimes the regional committee of the Leningrad Committee of the Komsomol obliged us to go to the working villages of the region to talk with young people. I remember the decision of the Government of that country during which it was forbidden to have cows in workers' settlements. Wild decree. The people lived in the fact that there was cattle in the families and there was milk for children and families. We could not explain such an abominable decision, I have the honor.
  • atos_kin
    atos_kin 19 February 2016 09: 02
    +3
    B_e_zdar at the helm of the country is worse than a natural disaster.
  • Dart2027
    Dart2027 19 February 2016 09: 16
    +3
    The forerunner of Gorbachev. Same ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Mr. Pip
    Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 10: 05
    +1
    No, well, of course, I generally DO NOT LOVE Khrushchev, I consider most of his reforms more than controversial, and the implementation of almost all reforms is extremely ill-conceived, unprepared and bearing an adventurous character and therefore new problems - but you must have a conscience, one-sided and exceptional hatred and it shows in each of the articles - the historian and publicist cannot be so one-sided and maximalist!
    You, dear Alexander, are still not 15 years old hi
    And poorly, Alexander, after the article about "corn" write - like your beloved Stalin, at least for you, probably a saint and in the flesh, until corn was planted with cow parsnip as "fodder" request
    Or write how, a couple of years before the construction of your beloved Dneprostroy, Stalin countered your hated "Trotskyists" (supporters of collectivization and industrialization since 1922) that "For us to build the Dnieper station is the same as for a peasant to buy a gramophone instead of a cow" request
    Or seriously and scientifically vparit into the situation, why even by the 1950s we did not even reach the volume of agricultural production necessary for banal food security - I will not say anything about the consumption of milk and meat per capita in our country and "there"?
    Well, so that your historical articles after this should be read not as an agitator, but as a scientific researcher should be? request
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 19 February 2016 10: 12
      +2
      Quote: Mr. PIP
      like your beloved Stalin, at least for you probably a saint and in the flesh, he planted everything with a cow parsnip as a "fodder

      It was a business ....
      Hogweed Sosnowski was previously classified as a silage plant [5]. Later, properties hazardous to humans were identified, but it is still not included in the lists of weeds and dangerous plants.

      Sosnovsky hogweed was first described in 1944 year. These are hardy plants that grow well in cold climates. In the north-west of Russia, it was first introduced in 1947 году
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 10: 42
        +1
        Quote: RUSS
        Later, properties hazardous to humans were identified, but it is still not included in the lists of weeds and dangerous plants.

        Since 2012 they have been excluded from the list of "selection achievements" - and in Tatarstan it is already possible to get a fine for it.
        And the funny thing is that there is also a cow parsnip in the USA, it was brought there at one time as an "ornamental plant" laughing
    3. sds87
      sds87 19 February 2016 10: 34
      +6
      Let’s with the documents and confirm everything that you wrote.
      "To build the Dnieper station is the same as for a peasant, instead of a cow, to buy a gramophone." I honestly never found confirmation that Stalin said it. This phrase is rather ascribed to Stalin by all sorts of liberals who are still afraid of the Leader of the People like the devil of incense.
      In 1945, VO ended. Terrible devastation. What should have been in time for 5 years?
      During all his time in power, Putin did not rid the country of imports of products and does not even bother. We sit on a needle and pray for the "dollar per barrel" price.
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 11: 03
        0
        Quote: sds87
        This phrase is rather attributed to Stalin by all kinds of liberals who, as a devil of incense, are still afraid of the Leader of the people.

        Personally, I first read this phrase in my time with Trotsky.
        And you can, of course, say that "Trotsky is bizarre as always" (although Zinoviev was a bzdun), but nevertheless he reminded this phrase not to us, but to his contemporary readers, who read not only him, but also the newspapers of those years for which he and referred request
        Quote: sds87
        What should have been in time for 5 years?

        Not for five, but for eight - and that’s a lot.
        And do not blame everything on the war - eight years is also a term in the first place.
        Secondly, objectively speaking, Germany was in an even worse position in the first half of the 20th century - the fall of the empire in WWII, the Weimar chaos and poverty, the destruction of the country for the second time in WWII.
        Thirdly, when the Reich attacked the USSR, the Reich was 8 years old, and the USSR 19 years - what conclusions should be made after that? request
    4. Aleksander
      Aleksander 19 February 2016 13: 19
      +3
      Quote: Mr. PIP
      why even by 1950 we didn’t even reach the volume of agricultural production necessary for banal food security - I’ll keep silent about milk and meat consumption per capita with us and "there"?

      But, finally, the "backward tsarism" in the production of milk and meat of the level 1913 yearsand for nothing 40 years! yes No way, "damned", was not given ....
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 13: 48
        +1
        Quote: Aleksander
        But, finally, we have overtaken the "backward tsarism" in milk and meat production at the level of 1913 — and only for 40 years!

        Uh, no, my friend, you're wrong!
        You look for statistics in the public domain in the period from 1916 to 1941 - the last years are usually 1913-6 and 1940-1 and there are no exact figures between them, this is because we caught up in the late 20s, but this is NEP, the bulk of agricultural products was in in the hands of 5-10 percent of the population, and these are high purchase prices for the state (the "kulaks" did not want to give it away for nothing) and the difficulty of industrialization, because "grain" was mainly going abroad to purchase equipment fellow
        So we caught up with the "royal level" 3 times: in the late 20s, early 40s and early 50s - but in general, the "royal level" even by the standards of the early 20th century was, to put it mildly, "not very" for the Empire hi
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Aleksander
          Aleksander 19 February 2016 15: 11
          +2
          Quote: Mr. PIP
          So we caught up with the "royal level" 3 times: in the late 20s, early 40s and early 50s


          There is data: "Report of the Central Statistical Administration of the USSR, the Institute of Economics of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Nutrition of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences to HA Bulganin on the level of consumption of basic food and industrial products in the USSR per capita". There are 28 and 37 with 40. 28-reached the level of 1913, but this is NEP (the same old system). But 37, 40-failure is complete. So it was caught up to 1950
    5. sdv68
      sdv68 19 February 2016 14: 59
      -4
      Quote: Mr. PIP
      And poorly, Alexander, after the article about "corn" write - like your beloved Stalin, at least for you, probably a saint and in the flesh, until corn was planted with cow parsnip as "fodder"


      And what do you dislike hogweed for? Or m. you do not know that hogweed is different. Under Stalin, the Siberian began to be cultivated - Heracléum sibíricum (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Siberian hogweed). He is just a normal fodder crop, in contrast to the hogweed Sosnowski Heracléum sosnówskyi (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosnovsky’s hogweed) very much nothing. And does not cause any burns. But anti-Stalinist liberals don't care.
  • Icebreaker
    Icebreaker 19 February 2016 10: 15
    +3
    Quote: Karavan
    Khrushchev undoubtedly has something to praise:
    1 ... 10.

    I do not agree with all points (I strongly disagree with some)), but I will add one more - the transformation of the Karelian-Finnish SSR into the Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. If it weren’t for now, we would not have Karelia ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Wheel
      Wheel 19 February 2016 11: 20
      0
      Quote: Icebreaker
      but I will add one more - the transformation of the Karelian-Finnish SSR into the Karelian ASSR. If it weren’t for now, we would not have Karelia ...

      Crimea! Crimea forgot!
      If not Khrushchev, then there would be no "KRYMNASH"!
  • vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 19 February 2016 10: 21
    +8
    - Dad, the news said that Yeltsin laid the foundations of a new Russia.
    - It's strange ... I just remember how he poured alcohol into himself. Well, he also pledged Russia to the IMF together with Gaidar ... Then we were torn, barely bought out.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 19 February 2016 10: 25
      -6
      Quote: vladimirvn
      Dad, the news said that Yeltsin laid the foundations of a new Russia.

      Yeltsin nakosyachil bless you, but let's not forget in what condition he got the country after Gorbachev.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 19 February 2016 11: 02
        +2
        Quote: RUSS
        in what condition did he get the country after Gorbachev.

        And these were representatives of different nomenclatures? Hunchback seems to be talking about 16 million bureaucrats?
  • Isk1984
    Isk1984 19 February 2016 10: 29
    +3
    Yes Khrushchev, of course, is still a type, but compared to modern times, it’s a little inconvenient to write about the defeat of the village, today the fields are abandoned, ordinary farmers lack technology, people, knowledge, Why do we export grain today, Yes, because the number of cattle has decreased there are surpluses at times, and under the USSR they fed Eastern Europe, Asia AFrica, helped everyone ...
  • vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 19 February 2016 10: 32
    +1
    What does the country mean? And who asked her to take it? You can’t, don’t take it! There will be people who have the strength and are not afraid to take responsibility. Saint Nicholas was also a good saint, he loved children and his wife, and he asked for Russia ..al.
    Quote: RUSS
    Quote: vladimirvn
    Dad, the news said that Yeltsin laid the foundations of a new Russia.

    Yeltsin nakosyachil bless you, but let's not forget in what condition he got the country after Gorbachev.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 19 February 2016 11: 03
      +2
      Quote: vladimirvn
      Yeltsin nakosyachil bless you, but let's not forget in what condition he got the country after Gorbachev.

      And where is the point to look for in the quote you cited?
      1. RUSS
        RUSS 19 February 2016 11: 26
        -2
        Quote: V.ic
        Quote: vladimirvn
        Yeltsin nakosyachil bless you, but let's not forget in what condition he got the country after Gorbachev.

        And where is the point to look for in the quote you cited?

        The point is that Yeltsin got the country in an economic decline, plus the mediocre policy of the 90s, as a result, the country was almost completely destroyed in the 91st, the country was already on the brink, and after almost at the bottom, during the time it left or "left "EBN.
  • Belousov
    Belousov 19 February 2016 11: 47
    +2
    Yeltsin got a potential that could either be used or about ..... He deliberately chose the second path just to get a "friendly" pat from the West. And even now, on the Soviet basis, we still hold out in some industries. And what would happen if they really wanted to work for the benefit of the country, and not like modern "Economists" who can only sit and dream that someday the oil price will rise and we will all heal, we will drink condensed milk, but for now let's sell the last cow to the west.
  • Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 19 February 2016 12: 18
    +3
    Guys, corn is not a bad thing! I remember on a collective farm they watered it and received a good harvest. And much remains for the villagers.
    In eastern Bulgaria, corn was planted in the summer after harvesting wheat and received good “green” animal feed.
    Well, mamalyga with butter and cheese, a very tasty dish ...
    1. Chisayna
      Chisayna 19 February 2016 12: 48
      +2
      I remember exchanging stew, sprat for corn tortillas and cherry plum jam. And what would you do, did not climb into the throat of the stew and sprat with breadcrumbs. And the corn tortillas were delicious.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. RUSS
      RUSS 19 February 2016 13: 04
      +3
      Quote: Robert Nevsky
      Guys, corn is not a bad thing!

      Useful properties of corn-

      Corn - rich in vitamins E, B, PP and ascorbic acid. Corn has a cleansing effect on the body: it is able to remove toxins, radionuclides, cleanse the body of harmful substances - toxins accumulated in the cells, corn cobs can protect us from cancer, heart disease and aging. Corn helps the growing body of children to gain body weight and supplies it with vitamins and minerals.

      Corn is rich in vitamins B1, B2, PP, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and iron, as well as trace elements (copper and nickel), which allows recommending corn products to people with allergies, diabetes, obesity and other forms of metabolic disorders, gastrointestinal pathology intestinal tract. The unique fats found in corn grains contain up to 80% fatty unsaturated acids (linoleic, linolenic, arachidonic), which are among the substances that regulate cholesterol levels. They form soluble compounds with it, preventing its deposition on the walls of blood vessels.

      Corn is rich in carbohydrates, contributing to the normalization and stabilization of blood sugar. They are also necessary for nourishing nerve cells, which is why corn is very useful for people suffering from diseases of the central nervous system (including epilepsy and poliomyelitis). Corn is an excellent nutrition for muscles, so with progressive muscular dystrophy it is also indispensable.

      Eat for health! good
      1. iouris
        iouris 20 February 2016 01: 36
        0
        It is over like that. But corn greatly depletes the soil.
        Passion for corn, especially GMOs, will destroy black earth.
        Someone constantly thinks: where to find a country that is not a pity to sow it with corn. And, which is characteristic, finds.
        Usually, this is a country that has a) black earth, b) a food problem that it cannot forever solve.
        We know what country it is. So corn apologists can be completely harmless people.
  • serverny
    serverny 19 February 2016 13: 03
    0
    Quote: Azitral
    most important: five-story building

    They were a project of the Stalin period, developed in the framework of providing citizens with affordable housing.
    Of course, all the fame in this area, as well as the successes of rocket and nuclear scientists (the foundation for which was laid from the very beginning of industrialization), was assigned to Khrushchev.
    1. RUSS
      RUSS 19 February 2016 13: 06
      0
      Quote: serverny
      They were a project of the Stalin period, developed in the framework of providing citizens with affordable housing.

      One thing is a project, another thing is to realize the project.
      1. sdv68
        sdv68 19 February 2016 15: 03
        -1
        Quote: RUSS
        One thing is a project, another thing is to realize the project.
        So it was necessary to implement the Stalinist project, without trying to castrate it.
        1. Chtononibrator
          Chtononibrator 19 February 2016 17: 07
          -1
          Quote: sdv68
          So it was necessary to implement the Stalinist project, without trying to castrate it.

          And all this would drag on for a hundred years, well, nothing is an eternal man, he will live in a hut.
          1. sdv68
            sdv68 20 February 2016 09: 20
            +1
            Quote: Chtononibrator
            And would drag out


            Keyword WOULD


            As if everything were, neither you nor I know. T.ch. you can assume anything. For example, have you heard anything about the Stalinist mortgage at 1% per annum? And she was - http://burckina-faso.livejournal.com/207726.html
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. sdv68
      sdv68 19 February 2016 15: 02
      0
      Quote: serverny
      Were a project of the Stalin period
      A corn-maker, then combined the toilet and the bath and made Khrushchev.
      1. Chtononibrator
        Chtononibrator 19 February 2016 17: 05
        -1
        Quote: sdv68
        A corn-maker, then combined the toilet and the bath and made Khrushchev.

        So now they combine ... ayay reached for the same damn khrushch.
        1. sdv68
          sdv68 20 February 2016 09: 22
          +1
          Quote: Chtononibrator
          So now they combine ... ayay reached for the same damn khrushch.


          Or in super-budget apartments (which many can not afford). Or in the apartments, in addition to the combined bathroom, there is also a separate toilet. And, often, not one.
  • a housewife
    a housewife 19 February 2016 14: 47
    +4
    I love corn in any form - porridge, flat cakes, canned bread, boiled ears, and you can fry it on a fire. So in our south it grows beautifully, why was it planted to the north? So after Khrushchev ordered! But Vavilov highly recommended planting Jerusalem artichoke in the south of the country. There were reasons for that. And where? Because Vavilov is an enemy and a pest, you see. Now this nice plant in the villages in some places in the gardens is available, so - in the form of pampering. In vain. Its height is not less than three meters, for cattle it is completely edible, juicy, nutritious and healthy. Tubers are edible for humans - more watery than potatoes, but they greatly lower blood sugar, many vitamins, and diet. It grows almost like a weed, is not damaged by parasites and diseases. Leaders of the country should listen more often to scientists, specialists, and not to poke their nose into all holes.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 19 February 2016 18: 48
      +1
      Quote: housewife
      Its height is not less than three meters

      The plant is really very interesting! hi
  • rus-5819
    rus-5819 19 February 2016 17: 30
    +2
    corn was sown even in those regions that did not fit this crop due to natural and climatic conditions.

    I, a six-year-old kid, went with a bucket to the feed crusher and picked out not quite empty ears of corn, which God had brought in knows where. From those ears, they peeled the grain and handed it over to the state farm.
    I myself heard the director of our state farm swearing, saying that he had taken a commission to the same corn field from four sides (in order to show the sowing plan).
    I remembered his words for the rest of my life: - "Bl ... !!! Well, our corn does not grow" !!!!
  • Whowhy
    Whowhy 19 February 2016 19: 03
    +1
    My grandfather, a prominent scientist (Vavilov’s student), wrote an article that in the Urals, corn cannot be planted in a wide-row way, as in the south, but square-nested. So she at least ripens on a silo. So they nearly kicked him out of the party, for allegedly speaking out against the party line ... lol
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 19 February 2016 20: 13
      +2
      Quote: whowhy
      My grandfather, a prominent scientist (Vavilov’s student), wrote an article ... So he was almost kicked out of the party because he allegedly opposed the party’s line

      My great-grandfather was "retired" under Khrushchev, the agronomist and the hero of socialist labor was no longer needed - Thank God they did not shoot fellow
      After that, his native collective farm-millionaire was recognized as "ineffective" - ​​I was there 2 years ago (there my grandfather next to my great-grandfather decided to be buried, this is like our "family estate" was before the collective farm) - to go there from the regional center probably at least an hour off-road - not every SUV will pass when the rains are heavy and in winter they don't drive there.
      In general, we got out of the new "jeep", and next to the church that my ancestors built is huge and all fell apart (with my great-grandfather, the service there went until Khrushchev), only the walls are crumbling, and behind it are the graves of my own ancestors (and a little further the main cemetery was all overgrown , only that there are no bones on the ground) - not far from the church is the great-grandfather's house, the whole frame of the first floor is made of stone, the second is wooden already long ago, it was built in the 19th century, but it would have stood if they lived there - there was a strong house, his great-great-grandfather was still building.
      The houses on the collective farm are not small either, people in it lived very well by those standards, but almost all fell apart, and in some people still live - opposite the car there was a yard and there was a bench in the courtyard and above it a makeshift rod made of rusty rims, and a peasant walked by, didn’t even look at us, and deliberately pretended not to notice visitors, he was still wearing Soviet clothes.
      And behind the village there is a field immediately and the tractor is already rotten, but it is sometimes repaired and sometimes driven, there are a few potatoes and rye on the collective farm field - a car arrives and buys, except for the tractor in the village there is no other equipment, as well as the village itself on the map.
      But there are wires to the village (HZ of what capacities) and homemade antennas over some houses, they probably catch a couple of channels - of course there is no gas or water supply - only if they bring the car in exchange for the harvest.
      And so, from around the sixties they have lived there, who stayed - my emotions cannot be expressed in words - it must be me and be there request
      And I have something to dislike Khrushchev in particular, but I won’t do it and it’s even unpleasant to read such one-sided and selective criticism - the head of state needs an objective and comprehensive assessment of his activities, and not one-sided assaults for reasons of subjective predilections request
  • kot312
    kot312 19 February 2016 21: 02
    0
    Nikita is still that pest.
  • abrek
    abrek 20 February 2016 00: 11
    0
    In many ways, he was influenced by a trip to the USA, where corn was one of the main crops. In the years 1955-1962. sown areas for corn doubled. To do this, it was necessary to reduce the crops of other crops.

    Khrushchev first arrived in the United States September 15-27, 1959?
  • antivirus
    antivirus 18 October 2016 14: 26
    0
    Therefore, already in 1962 a regular, and growing, import of grain, including corn, and meat raw materials, began from North America. Russia-USSR planted on imports. But scientists who openly opposed the All-Union Corn Epic, Khrushchev and Khrushchev called “charlatans” and “cabinet bureaucrats”. Therefore, if at the beginning Khrushchev was still trying to report negative trends in the corn campaign (as well as virgin and other campaigns), then soon, due to his tough and narrow-minded position, local leaders not only closed the channel of cautious criticism, but began to report only “ positive".
    Was the conspiracy against Nikita correct? Then Brezhnev did everything badly? "A good thought comes after"