Military Review

How Khrushchev made "gifts" to the West and significantly worsened the military-strategic position of the USSR

138
How Khrushchev made "gifts" to the West and significantly worsened the military-strategic position of the USSR

N. Khrushchev distinguished himself not only because he dealt a mortal blow to the essence of the Soviet project, caused great damage to the Armed Forces of the USSR, the national economy and finance, but took the first strategic steps to "remove" the USSR-Russia from strategically important territories - on the Baltic Sea, Central Europe, in northeastern China (Port Arthur), on the assignment of the Kuriles. Khrushchev destroyed the good relations of the USSR with China, the DPRK and Albania. And in relations with the allies of the social bloc and the third world countries, which were drawn to Moscow, consumer relations were established, far from pragmatism. For the "friendship" of the USSR, he gave soft loans that could not be repaid, and in the end many of them were simply written off during the Russian Federation. Khrushchev armed allies, transferred military and industrial technologies; built factories, bridges, dams, hydroelectric power plants, etc .; helped in the development of advanced and breakthrough technologies (as the development of the nuclear industry in China); supplied with strategic materials and a variety of goods and equipment; helped in the development of science and education, etc.


Back in the period when Khrushchev did not have full power, he visited China in the fall of 1954 with Mikoyan and Bulganin. The outcome of the trip was the concession to China of all Soviet rights in Manchuria, the loss of Port Arthur and the Far. Stalin was also going to give Port Arthur to the Chinese, but in view of Beijing’s response. It was planned to create joint ventures. Now all the military bases, ports and railways built by Russian and Soviet hands were handed over immediately and unconditionally. Moreover, all previously created joint ventures were destroyed, their assets transferred to the exclusive ownership of China. In addition, Beijing has also received new large loans. The Soviet Union continued to create the industrial and scientific-technical base of China, and had no corresponding benefit from it.

Thus, Khrushchev surrendered those positions in northeastern China (Manchuria) without any pressure on the USSR from the United States, NATO, and China. At the same time, the US-NATO military bases continued to approach the Soviet borders. The then US presidents Truman, Eisenhower, commanders of the American troops in the Far East, McCourtour and Ridgeway recognized that it was the Soviet military presence in Manchuria that did not allow to crush North Korea and invade China (during the American occupation of Taiwan and the Korean war 1950-1953). These "gifts" to the West and China significantly worsened the military-strategic position of the Soviet Union in the Asia-Pacific region. The USSR withdrew from China, while American troops and bases in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan and the Philippines remained. This is not to mention the betrayal of thousands of Russian and Soviet soldiers who died and were wounded during the two wars with Japan.

Almost simultaneously, the Khrushchevites weakened the military-strategic positions of the USSR in the Baltic. This is the Finnish peninsula of Porkkalla-Udd, which is located near Helsinki, in the middle of the Gulf of Finland, opposite Tallinn and not far from Kronstadt. It was leased by Moscow in 1944 for a period of 50 years in accordance with agreements with Finland, confirmed in subsequent treaties and the Peace Treaty with Helsinki 1947-1948. The Soviet naval base was transferred to the area from the Hanko Peninsula, located at the junction of the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Bothnia, that is, west of Porkkalla-Udd. Hanko has been in a Soviet lease since mid-March 1940, and is known for its heroic defense during World War II.

Khrushchev surrendered this strategic position. 19 September 1955 in Moscow signed an agreement between the USSR and Finland on the refusal of the Soviet Union of the rights to use the territory of Porkkala-Udd for a naval base and the withdrawal of Soviet armed forces from this territory. The peninsula was given free of charge, without reciprocal concessions from Finland. The evacuation was carried out in great haste, as during the flight, the defenses were destroyed. The withdrawal of the Soviet troops and the transfer of the Finnish peninsula were completed in 1956. The withdrawal of the USSR from Porkkalla-Udd was accompanied by a sharp and long-term strengthening of the US military presence in Norway, including the Arctic Spitsbergen adjacent to the Murmansk region, and on the Baltic coast of Germany (while Germany joined NATO at the same time).

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

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

We did not have time to digest these Khrushchev initiatives, as new ones appeared. In the spring of 1955, Khrushchev, Mikoyan and Bulganin visited Yugoslavia and restored the "friendship." They unilaterally apologized, the blame for the gap was completely laid on Moscow. The Soviet delegation yielded to Tito on all issues and agreed to considerable economic assistance, in which Yugoslavia, which was then in international isolation, was in dire need. In exchange, the Soviet Union, as in China, received nothing. In addition to assurances of "deep friendship" and "cooperation". The Stalinist foreign policy course, when Moscow firmly defended its interests and knew how to take its own, was forgotten. Belgrade has maintained its “special position”, without joining either the Warsaw Pact or the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. Yugoslavia preferred to conduct a “flexible policy”, benefiting both from cooperation with the Western powers and from the support of the Soviet Union.

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

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

At the same time, they conducted a broad amnesty among collaborators (“Vlasovites”). It was under Khrushchev that the uninitiated Bandera (Ukrainian Nazis) returned to Ukraine-Little Russia. Many of them quickly "recoloured" and began to actively be introduced to leadership positions, passing their harmful and subversive ideology by inheritance, waiting for "better times."

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

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

Khrushchev created the “problem of smoking”. Under Stalin, it was obvious to everyone that the Kuril Islands belong to Russia-USSR. October 19 1956 in Moscow was signed the Soviet-Japanese declaration. In accordance with the Declaration, the state of war that existed between the USSR and Japan since 9 in August 1945 was terminated from the day the Declaration came into force; peace and good-neighborly relations were restored between the two states, the USSR and Japan agreed to restore diplomatic and consular relations, and agreed to continue negotiations on the conclusion of a peace treaty. The most important moment of the Declaration was the fate of Shikotan Island and the Habomai Islands: they were to be transferred to Japan after the signing of the peace treaty. Khrushchev wanted to "bribe" Japan so that it became a neutral state. However, under US pressure, Japan refused to sign a peace treaty, insisting on the transfer of the islands of Kunashir and Iturup. Thus, Khrushchev created the foundation for the requirements of Japan. And now the problem of the Kurils is one of the threats of Russia in the Far East.

It is worth noting that Khrushchev eliminated Victory Day over Japan, which was celebrated on September 3. In early August 1956, a "closed" order of the Central Committee Presidium on the "secret" cancellation of the celebration of Victory Day over Japan took place. As a result, in the USSR and later in the Russian Federation (there is no memorable date in the list of the Days of Russia's military glory in honor of the victory over Japan), they almost forgot and even became “ashamed” of the liberation of North Korea and a large part of China from Japan and restoration historical justice in South Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, CER and Far - Port Arthur. After all, this holiday reminded of the great empire of Stalin and its victories.

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

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

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

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

Why Khrushchev surrendered the position of the USSR in the world?

First, the Khrushchevites did not want to continue the Stalin line to create an independent Soviet civilization, which would be an alternative to the Western project. They wanted to abandon the uncompromising confrontation and become part of the Western World Order. Later, Gorbachev and Yeltsin continued the same line - abandoning their project, socialism, surrendering major positions in the world, disarmament, an open market (financial and economic enslavement of Russia-USSR), etc. By unilateral surrender of the positions of the USSR Khrushchevites (Gorbachevites, Russian liberals ) showed that we are supposedly “ours”.

Secondly, the West, as it is now, was able to promise the "golden mountains". Khrushchev and his supporters were promised "gingerbread and cookies." After Stalin’s departure (murder), the leadership of the United States and England made it clear to the “post-Stalinist” leadership: the capitalist countries want long-term cooperation with the new leadership of the USSR and the CPSU that the Soviet interests in the world will not suffer. But for this, it is necessary to “moderate” the commitment to Stalin and Stalin’s policies, as well as to weaken the Soviet military presence in the Baltic, Central Europe and the Far East. In response, the West will lift various sanctions from the Soviet Union, which will accelerate its economic development. In confirmation of this, the West loosened such sanctions in May 1953 of the year, and in June of the same year refused to help the anti-Soviet forces in the GDR that provoked unrest there.

In the future, the West took a few more steps to meet: in the autumn of 1954, new commercial credit lines were opened for the USSR in the member countries of NATO, Australia and New Zealand; in 1954-1955 the aggression of France against the USSR-friendly North Vietnam ceased; guaranteed neutrality of Austria (which prompted the USSR to withdraw its troops from the eastern part of this country); USSR reparation payments were resumed by the Federal Republic of Germany (they began in 1946 and were interrupted in 1949-1953); 1955 of the year went into the growth of supplies to the Soviet Union of various Western equipment at low prices (the USSR was implanted in the import of Western technologies and equipment.

Obviously, the concessions of the West were secondary, they were easy to roll. In addition, the dependence of the USSR on the West increased. The USSR, on the other hand, was losing military strategic positions, economic opportunities, and so on. What a very high price was paid for, which cannot be quickly restored.

Thirdly, the weakness of Khrushchev’s personality, his petty-bourgeois psychology. He was flattering, the western "partners" patted him on the shoulder, praised him, covered his "peacekeeping" activities in the world media, invited him, treated him.

Fourth, the “anti-Stalinist” predisposition of Khrushchev and many of his colleagues was felt. Pygmies seized upon the throne after the departure of the great leader.
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
"Corn Madness"
Khrushchev against Soviet industry
138 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Igor39
    Igor39 3 March 2016 06: 19
    -41 qualifying.
    Lenin is bad, the successor of Lenin, Stalin is good, the successor of Lenin and Stalin, Khrushchev is bad, Brezhnev is bad, Chernenko is bad, Andropov is bad, Gorbachev Jude. Explain why this Georgian is so loved?
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 3 March 2016 06: 40
      56
      Quote: Igor39
      Explain why this Georgian is so loved

      1. Igor39
        Igor39 3 March 2016 06: 54
        -41 qualifying.
        On which front did he fight? At what military university did he study?
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 3 March 2016 07: 09
          24
          On the tsaritsin front, the white generals who finished military universities and were decorated with orders did not manage to join their forces in southern Russia and Siberia, bent them to the full. Therefore, Tsaritsyn became Stalingrad
          1. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 09: 48
            -9
            Quote: Pissarro
            On the tsaritsinskiy front. Having finished military institutes of higher education and white generals hung with orders, they did not manage to join forces in the South of Russia and Siberia, they bent them to the fullest.

            Before declaring something like that, it would be better if you at least familiarize yourself with the chronology of events, how Stalin prevented the military experts (true leaders of the defense) there, with the initial superiority of the Reds, to unfold the OFFensive and as a result was "recalled" and Tsaritsin was surrendered fellow
            1. Pissarro
              Pissarro 3 March 2016 10: 17
              22
              It was while Stalin was there that the whites could not take Tsaritsyn. When, as a result of Trotsky's intrigues, Stalin was recalled from Tsaritsyn to Moscow and he finally stopped "interfering" with military experts, the city was surrendered by the "true leaders of the defense". laughing
              1. Mr. Pip
                Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 10: 42
                -27 qualifying.
                Quote: Pissarro
                When, as a result of the intrigues of Trotsky Stalin, Tsaritsyn was recalled to Moscow

                Trotsky's "intrigue"? belay
                Yes, this idealist and scientist by definition did not know how to intrigue laughing
                And let it be known to you, it was not the "mythical Reds" or "Comrade Stalin" who won the civil war, but quite specific people, namely Trotsky as the head of the Red Army and one of the founders of the USSR and "interfering" military experts in Trotsky's service - and in In the context of all this, Trotsky's derogatory statements about Stalin in "Citizen" more than adequately characterize his real merits in that period as a would-be commander.
                But Stalin needed Lenin there to repress grain, he knew how to repress, he started with banks - he just stuck his nose in a place where he didn’t understand anything and for that received from that very nose from Trotsky.
                1. Pissarro
                  Pissarro 3 March 2016 10: 52
                  25
                  The mythical reds you mentioned who won the civil war have very specific names, and oddly enough for you Voroshilov, Budyonny, Yegorov, three of the first five marshals of the USSR were Stalin's comrades in civilian affairs.
                  But Trotsky knew how to make a sound and insult, and I couldn’t argue. He could also hurt the Caucasian. Therefore, the Lehrub saw him too. But he didn’t beg Trotsky’s merits in the Civil War either. He drove well to the soldiers and the organizer was sensible. Stalin
                  1. Mr. Pip
                    Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 11: 11
                    -13 qualifying.
                    Quote: Pissarro
                    three of the first five marshals of the USSR were Stalin's associates in civilian affairs.

                    And yet, three of the first five marshals were shot.
                    In general, what exactly do you find surprising in the fact that three of the first five marshals were "Stalin's comrades-in-arms" in civilian life, given that they received marshals not in civilian life, but in 1935? request
                    1. Pissarro
                      Pissarro 3 March 2016 11: 18
                      11
                      They were shot much later and for completely different things. Yes, and they could not have received Marshal stars before. Since they were only introduced in 1935. Nothing strange
                      1. Mr. Pip
                        Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 11: 44
                        -10 qualifying.
                        Quote: Pissarro
                        Yes, and they could not have received Marshall stars before. Since they were only introduced in 1935. Nothing strange

                        It is strange that elementary logic is not available to you - the fact that "Stalin's nominees" received marshals in 1935 does not mean that they were the best candidates for these stars both in the civilian world and in the post-war years fool
                        How deservedly they received these stars was more than colorfully shown by the activities of these "commanders" during the Great Patriotic War.
                      2. Pissarro
                        Pissarro 3 March 2016 12: 02
                        15
                        First, they were not Stalin's nominees, they were nominees of the party
                        Secondly, no one disputes their significant contribution to the victory in the Civil War, and they received the Marshall stars deservedly, they do not argue with this even now
                        Thirdly, what can you say bad about their activities in the Second World War? Of the five, three were already in the grave by 1941, only the two remaining can be discussed.
                        Voroshilov did not let the Germans immediately take Leningrad. Not so hot any commander, but there was nothing flawlessly colorful
                        Budyonny brilliantly versed the situation, not a single unit under his command ever got into the boiler. Commanding the Southwestern Front skillfully fought defensive battles and was shot not for military disasters, but for demanding to leave Kiev and save the army. As a result, Budyonny was removed and received largest boiler.
                      3. Mr. Pip
                        Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 12: 39
                        -6
                        Quote: Pissarro
                        First, they were not Stalin's nominees, they were nominees of the party

                        Oh how! That is, Stalin, in your opinion, did not appoint or remove commanders? fellow
                        Quote: Pissarro
                        Secondly, no one disputes their significant contribution to the victory in the Civil War, and they received the Marshall stars deservedly

                        We are now not discussing their contribution to civilian life, but the fact that they were at least not the only ones who made this very "contribution" and the fact that at the beginning of the Second World War it was mainly "Stalin's Friends" who "rose" above all. got their stars deservedly!
                        Quote: Pissarro
                        Commanding the South-Western Front, he skillfully fought defensive battles and was shot not for military disasters, but for demanding to leave Kiev

                        Fuck what a commander!
                        He had a whole front (direction given) outnumbering and arming the enemy, and his first "demands" were to DRAP!
                        Throw an entire republic with millions of civilians to be torn to pieces by the enemy and YELLOW!
                        This of course speaks of his abilities. understand the situation and if without jokes, then the lack of ability to fulfill their direct duties - to lead the defense!
                        Quote: Pissarro
                        As a result, they removed Budyonny and got the largest boiler.

                        The boiler was received because of the mediocre leadership of the troops; otherwise, the boilers do not receive having advantages in technology and human resources!
                        And for the call to "retreat without a fight", in fact, they shoot and anyone else would be shot - but Stalin covered his homies and drinking companions!
            2. tolian
              tolian 3 March 2016 11: 04
              -7
              Written by a "knowledgeable" Jew. It is inconvenient to read .....
            3. bk316
              bk316 3 March 2016 15: 01
              12
              Yes, you contradict yourself in the next lines, then you have Trotsky
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              this idealist and scientist

              then you have it
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              in the civil war won
              1. Mr. Pip
                Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 16: 06
                -8
                Quote: bk316
                Yes, you contradict yourself in the next lines, then you have Trotsky
                Quote: Mr. PIP
                this idealist and scientist
                then you have it
                Quote: Mr. PIP
                in the civil war won

                Yes, idealists are able to win the war and sometimes even sacrifice their beliefs for practical or other reasons (especially when they are smart), but they are no longer able to mess around in undercover intrigues - they usually act in principle openly request
            4. ivanov17
              ivanov17 21 November 2016 20: 37
              0
              Trotsky dragged his kagal to the Red Army. Together with your ancestors
        2. Yars
          Yars 3 March 2016 14: 35
          +4
          Quote: Mr PIP
          Quote: Pissarro
          On the tsaritsinskiy front. Having finished military institutes of higher education and white generals hung with orders, they did not manage to join forces in the South of Russia and Siberia, they bent them to the fullest.

          Before declaring something like that, it would be better if you at least familiarize yourself with the chronology of events, how Stalin prevented the military experts (true leaders of the defense) there, with the initial superiority of the Reds, to unfold the OFFensive and as a result was "recalled" and Tsaritsin was surrendered fellow

          rather you follow the chronology of events
          1. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 16: 11
            -8
            Quote: YARS
            rather you follow the chronology of events

            I explain a brief chronology.
            A man stood (Tsaritsin) and drank vodka (Stalin) then drank it up (Stalin left) and went home but fell (at the feet of the whites) - there was no bottle at the time of the fall (Stalin no longer led in Tsaritsin), respectively CONCLUSION - if the man fell without a bottle in his hands, then the reason for the fall is not in vodka (not in the early politics of Stalin)!
            Well, supporters think that Stalin "did not interfere with the military experts, but led" - but the chief narcologist (Trotsky) cannot be fooled fellow
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 3 March 2016 20: 05
              +1
              What kind of rambling stream of guano?
    2. activator
      activator 3 March 2016 10: 36
      -18 qualifying.
      Russia, USSR, Ukraine, Russia, comrades are on the right path. There were no such states. Although no one is indignant at Russia, because at the given moment it suits everyone. It seems like there were no other republics, and the USSR consisted of one Russia. Here's an example of how history is changing before our eyes, and many more tell me what happened a thousand years ago and as if they themselves were present.
    3. Приговор
      Приговор 3 March 2016 13: 01
      13
      He sent his own children to the war. Would you be able to? Sorry, I’m not going to answer any rather boorish questions on which front I fought and in which university I studied, for obvious reasons. Spit in the soul of a huge number of people who are not indifferent to their history, can only a person low and spiteful.
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 13: 25
        -10 qualifying.
        Quote: Sentence
        He sent his own children to the war. Would you be able to?

        Yes, he sent millions to the war, that he had "children" - did he raise them like ordinary parents who do not sleep at night and change diapers?
        Baba gave birth, nanny is engaged, dad "in the Politburo" sits for days request
        1. Imperialkolorad
          Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 16: 58
          +5
          Quote: Mr. PIP
          Baba gave birth, nanny is engaged, dad "in the Politburo" sits for days

          These are his own children, no matter who washed the diapers.
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 3 March 2016 19: 24
          -4
          Quote: Mr. PIP
          Yes, he sent millions to the war

          And who started this war?
        3. ivanov17
          ivanov17 21 November 2016 20: 37
          0
          It’s you who have seen enough of your idol Yeltsin
    4. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 3 March 2016 17: 53
      0
      As far as I remember, excuse me, my memory is weak, Nevsky, Donskoy, Peter 1 ... Chapay, Budyonny ... And idiots from the military of our universities ... Anyway, you go or checkers?
    5. Dart2027
      Dart2027 3 March 2016 19: 26
      +3
      Quote: Igor39
      On which front did he fight?

      At the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command.
  • Pissarro
    Pissarro 3 March 2016 06: 42
    +9
    For tough upholding of national interests.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 3 March 2016 06: 56
      -16 qualifying.
      Quote: Pissarro
      For tough upholding of national interests.

      What interests? You Stalin recorded in the CP?
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 3 March 2016 07: 03
        20
        Is it difficult for you to understand what are the national interests of the state? Worse than Stalin, no ruler of the USSR defended them in the twentieth century
        1. Nikolay K
          Nikolay K 3 March 2016 08: 56
          +7
          In Russia, the Motherland is associated with a woman. No wonder the most famous image is the Motherland. A true patriot is spiritually close to the Motherland, which means that he is emotionally guided by the most famous female "rule": beats means loves. Therefore, Stalin will always remain the most beloved of a true patriot. smile
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 3 March 2016 10: 04
      -13 qualifying.
      "On the Tsaritsin front." ////

      Exactly the opposite. Stalin ruined the defense of Tsaritsin and was
      recalled by Lenin to Moscow. Without him, the affairs of the military experts, whom Stalin interfered with,
      began to improve.

      "tough defense of national interests" ///

      National interests?
      Recall that in the 20th century, no one left the interests of his country so zealously,
      how Hitler defended his interests - Germany. Even a capacious slogan came up with:
      "Germany above all!".
      He added to his country the great Führer land ... from the Atlantic to the Volga.

      And none of the Germans thanks him - on the contrary, they recall him as a nightmare.
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 3 March 2016 10: 28
        18
        National interests?
        Recall that in the 20th century, no one left the interests of his country so zealously,
        how Hitler defended his interests - Germany. Even a capacious slogan came up with:
        "Germany above all!".
        He added to his country the great Führer land ... from the Atlantic to the Volga.

        And none of the Germans thanks him - on the contrary, they recall him as a nightmare.


        National interests are determined by the result. The result of Hitler's actions was the liquidation of Germany and a national catastrophe. The result of the actions of Stalin was a superpower.
        By analogy, Erdogan, who surrounded Turkey with a ring of enemies as a result of his policy, who killed the economy, found himself in a complete impasse and is already waging war with his people in the east of the country, by no means draws to defend the interests of Turkey, but is its first enemy
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 3 March 2016 10: 33
          0
          Quote: Pissarro
          National interests are determined by the result. The result of Hitler's actions was the liquidation of Germany and a national catastrophe. The result of the actions of Stalin was a superpower.

          The only difference is that one "superpower" collapsed earlier than the other. But in the end, both bent!
          1. Pissarro
            Pissarro 3 March 2016 10: 37
            16
            Well, about that article, thanks to the efforts of Nikita and his followers, she bent down. Patting her shoulder in exchange for concessions is the direct path to defeat. Nikita began, Marked and the alcoholic finished.
          2. Imperialkolorad
            Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 13: 31
            10
            It’s not at all necessary to keep us as idiots. At the end of Stalin's reign, the USSR was at the peak of power and with incredible political authority. The country was destroyed by his followers, especially Nikita and Misha.
            1. Chisayna
              Chisayna 3 March 2016 14: 24
              +1
              There is nothing more to say.
            2. kalibr
              kalibr 3 March 2016 20: 07
              0
              Why keep someone who is already ... A bad country that can be destroyed by a couple of worthless leaders. They are retired or arrested and tried. Khrushchev was retired, which means ... it was necessary to follow the right course. And who was arrested and tried? And where did the people look, the court, the prosecutor's office, the KGB, you yourself ... You can only assert that an economically healthy society of contented people can be destroyed without a war by some mythical agents "from there." Why didn't we destroy them then? Didn't they want to? But for some reason it didn't work out ... There weren't enough diamonds or gold to bribe. After all, everyone is killing each other for a handful of dollars, huh?
        2. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 10: 51
          -11 qualifying.
          Quote: Pissarro
          The result of Stalin's actions was a superpower.

          Yeah, only Russia, as it was in the rearguard of developed countries under the tsar, remained in the rearguard under Stalin - the standard of living under Stalin did not get better, it even got worse!
          Well, the fact that we had the largest army (and officers with 3 classes of education) and the atomic bomb (praise Beria and his spies) does not automatically make us a "superpower" - to sell grain with a starving population and with money raised from the West and credits to build tanks under Western licenses and Western equipment does not need much mind!
          One must have a mind to do so, so that a nation containing such an army DOESN’T starve at least - but it is starving! And if he was starving to contain such an army, then was this army popular ?! request
          1. Pissarro
            Pissarro 3 March 2016 10: 58
            14
            All of you are talking about sausage and sausage. In your understanding of national interest, is it first of all to distribute sausage to all? Prior to Stalin, there were priority tasks in preserving the state itself in a total hostile environment, creating an army, industry. First you had to survive, save the people, and then think about sausage. If sausage was more important than tanks, then the NEP would be an ideal way out, but Germans who came without tanks would have taken away the sausage. laughing
            1. Mr. Pip
              Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 12: 02
              -11 qualifying.
              Quote: Pissarro
              In your understanding, national interest is, first of all, to hand out sausages to all?

              Why so primitive?
              Let’s include the fact that for any normal person his personal interests are always at least important for him, and this is not only a "mythical sausage" without which it is also VERY BAD (I hope you have ever eaten sausage?!?!?!), For example a good house, a good car, a good vacation by the sea, a good education for children - this is, in the end, an opportunity to sleep well and not worry that "they will come for you" just because they decided to sit on you at work - and all this did not exist under Stalin! fellow
              To be honest, I would add that even under the tsar this was not for everyone, but under the tsar this was at least for a more or less worthy minority - and under Stalin no one at all!
              Quote: Pissarro
              Prior to Stalin, priority tasks were set in preserving the state itself in a total hostile environment

              But it was Stalin who was the culprit of this very "encirclement" - he became impudent "not according to concepts" closer to the end of the Second World War, threw him with payments under Lend-Lease, and so on and so on.
              Quote: Pissarro
              the creation of the army, industry.

              And all this was created mainly on American equipment and technologies and by American specialists - which, as it were, confirms that initially the USSR was not in a "hostile environment", we initially had rather friendly relations with the United States stop
              Quote: Pissarro
              then NEP would be an ideal way out

              Stalin incidentally supported the NEP initially! fellow
              Quote: Pissarro
              only the Germans who arrived without tanks would have taken away the sausage.

              There is an option that what would have been taken away from us if it were not for the American tanks and stewed meat and cartridges and much more that our industry could not produce in the war without American help with materials and goods.
              1. Pissarro
                Pissarro 3 March 2016 12: 29
                13
                But it was Stalin who was the culprit of this very "encirclement" - he became impudent "not according to concepts" closer to the end of the Second World War, threw him with payments under Lend-Lease, and so on and so on.


                Is Stalin to blame for the pre-war encirclement of the USSR? In all these Anglo-French traffic controllers, the Munich conspiracy and the reinforcement of the Reich? The USSR tried in every possible way to prevent this, but the proud Poles preferred to die, but not to help stop Hitler.

                And all this was created mainly on American equipment and technologies and by American specialists - which, as it were, confirms that initially the USSR was not in a "hostile environment", we initially had rather friendly relations with the United States


                We were not surrounded by the US before the war, but by other imperialists. The USSR helped many American enterprises and engineers stupidly survive during the Great Depression with their orders and work. It is not known who needed more

                AMERICAN tanks


                In a third-rate direction, in the wild outback, a Lend-American tank bought for our gold could stick out. If it weren’t for a Lend-Lease, the war would last a month longer, great help laughing
                1. Mr. Pip
                  Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 14: 00
                  -11 qualifying.
                  Quote: Pissarro
                  Is Stalin to blame for the pre-war encirclement of the USSR? In all these Anglo-French traffic controllers, the Munich conspiracy and the reinforcement of the Reich?

                  Conspiracy theories? Have you tried reading anything scientific on history? wassat
                  Quote: Pissarro
                  The USSR tried in every possible way to prevent this.

                  The USSR tried in every possible way to cooperate with Nazi Germany, the last train with grain went to Germany less than 2 hours before the start of the war, and in 1940 (when Germany was already conducting "hostilities" with the "imperialists"), the USSR undertook to supply only oil products to Germany. million tons.
                  Quote: Pissarro
                  but the proud Poles preferred to die, but did not give help stop Hitler

                  Are you talking about the joint division of the polka by Germany and the USSR? laughing
                  Quote: Pissarro
                  The USSR helped many American enterprises and engineers stupidly survive during the Great Depression with their orders and work.

                  Oh how! Well, the benefit is always usually mutual, only the USA would have survived without the USSR - but I wouldn't say that about the USSR, after all, almost all of our military equipment was originally "theirs"!
                  Quote: Pissarro
                  If it weren’t for the land lease, the war would have lasted a month longer, great help

                  Are you already for a whole month ?!
                  Yes, given that they supplied us with fuel at least 20% of our total - this is at least an extra year of war!
                  And given more than 50% of American explosives, then at least all 2 years are superfluous!
                  In general, we would have fought in a measured and slow manner, mainly on horses donated to us by Tuva and Mongolia, because almost all the cars were also American - for example, almost all Katyushas were on American trucks, and those that were ours were licensed.
                  Quote: Pissarro
                  American tank bought for our gold.

                  Lend-lease is an interest-free debt - Stalin did not give the debt, although initially they asked for 10% at least, and this is one of the main reasons why the Americans were so offended by us.
                  And the Shermans, by the way, enjoyed love and respect among our tankers.
                  1. Wheel
                    Wheel 3 March 2016 16: 06
                    +3
                    Quote: Mr. PIP
                    Yes, given that they supplied us with fuel at least 20% of our total - this is at least an extra year of war!

                    A small nuance - all this fuel was eaten exactly by their machinery.
                    But if you calculate how much fuel the fuel trucks ate, transporting gasoline from the Persian Gulf ports to Baku .... (transportation was carried out by the USSR and our gasoline, if any).
                    1. Mr. Pip
                      Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 17: 24
                      -5
                      Quote: Wheel
                      A small nuance - all this fuel was eaten exactly by their machinery.

                      You won’t understand, the war went on for 4 years, and the amount of equipment that ate 20% of all fuel accelerated the victory by only a month! wassat
                      Quote: Wheel
                      transporting their gas from the Persian Gulf ports to Baku

                      Is it just that they skated? And Murmansk? And train compositions?
                      In general, I do not understand how it is possible in your right mind to deny the influence of Lend-Lease on OUR Victory - even the marshals of the USSR admitted this, although it was not desirable for them "on duty" to talk about it request
                    2. Wheel
                      Wheel 3 March 2016 17: 33
                      +3
                      Quote: Mr. PIP
                      You won’t understand, the war went on for 4 years, and the amount of equipment that ate 20% of all fuel accelerated the victory by only a month!

                      I do not need to ascribe other people's sayings.
                      Quote: Mr. PIP
                      Is it just that they skated? And Murmansk? And train compositions?

                      The main flow of fuels and lubricants went through Iran.
                      And yes, it will probably be a revelation for you that gas was not brought to Iran by tankers, and not even in barrels, but in 5 liter (!) Cans. laughing
                      At the ports, a bunch of Persians were busy pouring gas from cans into fuel trucks.
                      Hmm, and railway and water transport imported gasoline was already transported from Baku.
                      Quote: Mr. PIP
                      In general, I do not understand how it is possible in your right mind to deny the influence of Lend-Lease on OUR Victory - even the marshals of the USSR admitted this, although it was not desirable for them "on duty" to talk about it

                      Please poke my nose into my denial of the role of Lend-Lease.
                    3. KaPToC
                      KaPToC 3 March 2016 20: 16
                      +1
                      What side are you to our victory
              2. kalibr
                kalibr 3 March 2016 20: 16
                0
                Stalin himself believed that help was great and constantly rushed the allies to provide it. He emphasized that our failures are directly related to short deliveries. Here at VO all this has already been discussed. But here is the Kursk Bulge ... is this a third-rate direction? But it was precisely there that the heavy Lend-Lease tanks were operating - there were no others. Take a look at the photo: Soviet tanks enter Kursk. And go to the library and open the newspapers Pravda for 11 on June 1944 and read: what, how much and where. The official message of Sov. government. By the way, it coincides with the post-war data. And the land lease was not paid in gold - how much to write about it. Look at the GARF materials ... Gold, fish and much more than what was paid for deliveries of the TOP of the agreed quotas. You should know this and then demonstrate your ignorance here.
            2. Wheel
              Wheel 3 March 2016 14: 51
              +7
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              And all this was created mainly on American equipment and technologies and by American specialists - which, as it were, confirms that initially the USSR was not in a "hostile environment", we initially had rather friendly relations with the United States

              This confirms only your incompetence in questions of history, you forgive ...
              Relations between the USSR and the USA were so friendly that until November 33, there were no diplomatic relations between the countries. laughing
              As for technologies, equipment, specialists, then for those companies that signed contracts with the USSR it was manna from heaven - since 29 in the west there was a certain phenomenon called the "Great Depression", and here they pay with full-fledged gold ...
              Business, nothing personal.
              Especially for you, an example-analogy from today's life: with disgusting relations between the Russian Federation and the United States, Russia supplies there both rocket engines and titanium (both are of strategic importance for "sworn partners".
              1. Mr. Pip
                Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 16: 34
                -3
                Quote: Wheel
                Relations between the USSR and the USA were so friendly that until November 33, there were no diplomatic relations between the countries.

                So what?
                It was the beginning of the 20th century, international law then did not have such strength and importance as it does today.
                And although official relations were indeed "cool" (the United States still initially supported the white movement) unofficial ones bloomed and smelled and were quite friendly.
                And business is actually the root cause of international relations hi
                1. Wheel
                  Wheel 3 March 2016 17: 21
                  0
                  Quote: Mr PIP
                  Quote: Wheel
                  Relations between the USSR and the USA were so friendly that until November 33, there were no diplomatic relations between the countries.

                  So what?
                  It was the beginning of the 20th century, international law then did not have such strength and importance as it does today.
                  And although official relations were indeed "cool" (the United States still initially supported the white movement) unofficial ones bloomed and smelled and were quite friendly.
                  And business is actually the root cause of international relations hi

                  Well, yes, they bloomed and smelled so much that you have not heard of the "gold embargo"?
              2. kalibr
                kalibr 3 March 2016 20: 19
                0
                And when did Amtorg start working? Until 29 or earlier? And when did deliveries to the USSR begin, what could be done - after the crisis or before it?
        3. Imperialkolorad
          Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 13: 34
          +9
          Have a conscience. Stalin 2 times raised the country from ruins. First time after the civil war. The second after the most terrible war in the history of mankind, namely the Second World War. And yes, he also won the Second World War. Times were hard, but cards for a minute in the USSR were canceled earlier than in England. So learn the materiel and do not fool the forum users with a head.
          1. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 14: 30
            -7
            Quote: ImperialKolorad
            but cards for a minute in the USSR were canceled earlier than in England. So learn the materiel and do not fool the forum users with a head.

            Learn the materiel yourself and turn on your head so as not to fool the forum users with a head!
            Have you compared the consumption rates of "meat, milk and vegetables" on these cards in Britain with the consumption of "all this" after the cards were canceled?
            So they differ in the cards, in the USA the "low-income" still use food cards, but many of our citizens would prefer to eat on American cards, and not on Russian rubles - there are more calories in American cards!
            1. Imperialkolorad
              Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 16: 21
              +1
              So do not forget over the territory that the United States, that England did not go through the European Union under the leadership of Adik. Which they fostered so hard.
              1. Mr. Pip
                Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 17: 30
                -4
                Quote: ImperialKolorad
                Which they fostered so hard.

                First of all, they "fostered" the USSR - learn the materiel on whose equipment we fought en masse, from whom we bought licenses and invited specialists.
                Quote: ImperialKolorad
                that England did not go through the European Union under the leadership of Adik.

                England was under siege and fought too, the United States fought with Japan too - and if we had not survived this war, we would definitely not have survived, but also Japan!
                And the fact that Japan did not reach the US coast, and Hitler reached Moscow was a consequence of the exclusively mediocrity of the Soviet command and the terrible combat training of the Soviet troops at the beginning of the war.
                For the sake of completeness, remember where the front line with Germany was in "backward tsarist Russia"!
                1. Wheel
                  Wheel 3 March 2016 19: 29
                  +3
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  They fostered "they are primarily the USSR - learn the materiel on whose equipment we massively fought,

                  Let's not juggle.
                  In the battle of Moscow, the first major operation in which we used the Allied military equipment, less than 1% of the British and American aircraft of the number used were at the front. In 1943, foreign aircraft at the front accounted for about 11%.
                  The share of imported tanks in the 42nd, 43rd years on the fronts did not exceed 8%.
                  Yes, in large numbers, especially in the most difficult times ...
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  who bought licenses

                  Excuse me, what is the crime of buying a license?
                  Not, of course, one could buy a license from Mexico or Argentina, Luxembourg in the end, but what could those Luxembourgs offer?
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  and invited experts.
                  Yeah, inviting specialists is also a crime.
                  Isn’t it that in the 90s and 2000s, users were happy to invite former Soviet specialists?
                  If in the 90s ours went there so as not to die of starvation in Russia, then in the 30s Americans went to the USSR for the same reason.
                2. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 3 March 2016 19: 52
                  0
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  They "fostered" first of all the USSR - learn the materiel

                  Who gave Hitler the opportunity to create an army and surrendered to him the whole of Europe? Learn the story.
        4. user
          user 3 March 2016 14: 20
          +2
          was (and officers with 3 classes of education)


          Three education classes were not prevented by these officers from delivering the whole of Europe to cancer.
          1. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 14: 31
            -7
            Quote: user
            Three education classes were not prevented by these officers from delivering the whole of Europe to cancer.

            That is, in general, in no way prevented? That is, officers do not need higher education at all in principle ?! belay
            1. vladimirw
              vladimirw 3 March 2016 14: 51
              0
              your mood is a colleague, anti-Russian, hang a mattress flag so that you can see where it stinks!
            2. KaPToC
              KaPToC 3 March 2016 20: 24
              0
              It would not hurt you.
        5. vladimirw
          vladimirw 3 March 2016 14: 48
          +2
          Mr! You, as a mister, are reasoning from behind a puddle. How did you calculate your level of life?
          But Beria did not praise spies (by the way scouts), but there was an industry that could manufacture the components of this bomb.
          1. kalibr
            kalibr 4 March 2016 07: 29
            0
            And what's the difference between a spy and a scout?
        6. Chisayna
          Chisayna 3 March 2016 14: 56
          0
          He didn’t have enough sausages. And yet he needed a box of cookies and a barrel of jam. And that’s the whole point of his life.
    3. Ivan Tartugai
      Ivan Tartugai 3 March 2016 11: 45
      +8
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Even a capacious slogan came up with: "Germany above all!".


      Yes, who slogans and whom may surprise.
      As the saying goes, a language without bones can be ruffled, but things are needed, positive results are needed.
      According to slogans, Khrushchev put everyone in the belt.
      What "capacious slogans" have not invented and put forward. Communism alone cannot be counted.
      Here and "The current generation of Soviet people will live under communism",
      and "Communism is just around the corner",
      "Forward to communism by leaps and bounds."
      Everybody can talk, everybody from Khrushchev to Gorbachev talked, but Stalin IV did not chat, he worked, he is a hard worker, as Churchill said: "Stalin took Russia with a plow, but left with nuclear weapons."
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 12: 47
        -8
        Quote: Ivan Tartugay
        as Churchill said: "Stalin accepted Russia with a plow, and left with nuclear weapons."

        And if "nuclear weapons" are deleted, then what will remain without it ?! request
        1. Imperialkolorad
          Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 13: 40
          11
          Quote: Mr. PIP
          And if "nuclear weapons" are deleted, then what will remain without it ?!

          The strongest army, unquestioned authority in the world, 2nd economy. And the most incredible thing for you is the steady improvement in living standards after the Second World War.
          1. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 14: 53
            -8
            Quote: ImperialKolorad
            Strongest army

            One of the strongest - but I would not definitely call her the "strongest", here you can recall both the inability of our equipment to serve in peacetime (the resource was insignificant - it was necessary to redo everything) and the really strongest in the world "aviation" of the United States and dependence of the USSR on supplies of materials and equipment from the USA request
            Quote: ImperialKolorad
            unquestioned authority in the world

            At that time, Stalin and the USSR did not have any "authority" in the world - Stalin was sent even by the communists, starting with Tito and ending with Mao. There is even nothing to say about the leaders of the capitalist countries.
            Quote: ImperialKolorad
            2nd economy.

            Calm down already! We did not have a second world economy!
            Maybe in terms of quantity we were close to the United States in certain positions, then in terms of quality (whether it was the cost of our products, culture and labor efficiency, gross product or per capita roads and their average speed damn) we were at least several times lower, and in terms of some positions (for example, the resource of our equipment) dozens of times!
            At the same time, the economy itself was initially militaristic - if we take the per capita indicators of the same agricultural sector or light industry or (God forbid!) SERVICES, then by these indicators we probably lagged behind all possible capitalist countries at that time!
            Quote: ImperialKolorad
            And the most incredible thing for you is the steady improvement in living standards after the Second World War.

            You probably will not believe it - but in all countries the standard of living is improving from year to year - this is a consequence of a worldwide increase in technology and labor productivity.
            But probably only in our country the standard of living for this century fell (and what is very significant) 4 times, and under Stalin fell 3 times!
            1. Imperialkolorad
              Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 16: 32
              +3
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              One of the strongest - but I would not definitely call her the "strongest", here you can recall both the inability of our equipment to serve in peacetime (the resource was insignificant - it was necessary to redo everything) and the really strongest in the world "aviation" of the United States and dependence of the USSR on supplies of materials and equipment from the USA

              In principle, military equipment has a small resource in relation to civilian ones. By the end of the war, our economy was quite capable of doing without Lend-Lease. And it is not necessary, as you are very fond of comparing warm with soft. I did not say anything about the fleet, but the land army was really the strongest. As for aviation, the Americans still needed to deliver it. Do not forget that the best anti-aircraft weapon is tanks on enemy airfields. You probably haven't heard of Operation Impossible. So - our sworn friends did not dare to her, turned over because they were frightened.
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              At that time, Stalin and the USSR did not have any "authority" in the world - Stalin was sent even by the communists, starting with Tito and ending with Mao. There is even nothing to say about the leaders of the capitalist countries.

              There were problems with Tito, Yugi is always on her mind. And with Mao do not fool people if you are guided by State Department manuals. The Chinese were against the withdrawal of our troops from Port Arthur and the reason for the break with the Celestial Empire was precisely the dethronement of the cult of personality by Khrushchev.
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              Calm down already! We did not have a second world economy!

              It even was, again there were no varieties of sausages so dearly beloved by you.
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              You probably will not believe it - but in all countries the standard of living is improving from year to year - this is a consequence of a worldwide increase in technology and labor productivity.

              Again, all by myself, somewhere I already heard it. Something like this in the materiel, you either specifically swim, or frankly lie.
              1. Mr. Pip
                Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 18: 04
                -4
                Quote: ImperialKolorad
                Military equipment, in principle, has a small resource in relation to civilian.

                Well, in our technology, he was generally small, with such a resource, even conscripts in peacetime did not learn to work on technology.
                Quote: ImperialKolorad
                By the end of the war, our economy was quite capable of doing without land lease.

                Yes, our economy in the last year of Stalin himself, even the most necessary, could not provide enough people!
                And in the first years after the war, people generally starved to death!
                Quote: ImperialKolorad
                Do not forget, after all, the best anti-air means are tanks at enemy airfields.

                Yeah. How many tanks go and how many planes fly request
                Quote: ImperialKolorad
                So - our sworn friends didn’t dare to turn her around for fear.

                The fact that our "friends" did not want war is not a reason for pride, unless, of course, we are completely frostbitten "gopniks" fellow
                Quote: ImperialKolorad
                The Chinese were against the withdrawal of our troops from Port Arthur

                And remind, did we pay them for it? fellow
                Quote: ImperialKolorad
                the reason for the break with the Celestial Empire was precisely the debunking of the personality cult by Khrushchev.

                Called - found a reason! He would have found under Stalin.
                Quote: ImperialKolorad
                there were again no varieties of sausages so dearly beloved by you.

                Yes, the most necessary was not - what a sausage - people ate less meat than vets advise dogs to give!
                Quote: ImperialKolorad
                Again, all by myself, somewhere I already heard it.

                It’s good that they heard, but it’s bad that they didn’t understand anything hi
                1. Imperialkolorad
                  Imperialkolorad 4 March 2016 10: 10
                  +2
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  Well, in our technology, he was generally small, with such a resource, even conscripts in peacetime did not learn to work on technology.

                  And on this meager resource we reached Berlin.
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  Yes, our economy in the last year of Stalin himself, even the most necessary, could not provide enough people!
                  And in the first years after the war, people generally starved to death!

                  I do not comment on stubborn liberalism.
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  Yeah. How many tanks go and how many planes fly

                  You not only do not understand anything in military affairs, but also suffer from a complete lack of rationalization, I am silent about the knowledge of quotes from smart people.
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  And remind, did we pay them for it?

                  This is the tenth question - but the base in a strategically important place was lost.
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  Called - found a reason! He would have found under Stalin.

                  You were caught on an outright lie, and you are carrying some kind of heresy.
                  Quote: Mr. PIP

                  Yes, the most necessary was not - what a sausage - people ate less meat than vets advise dogs to give!

                  This does not cancel your desire for a sausage to sell everything and everything.
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  It’s good that they heard, but it’s bad that they didn’t understand anything

                  It is you, time after time, that heresy is bearing that all good things under Stalin itself happened. And who after that didn’t understand anything?
            2. Imperialkolorad
              Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 17: 07
              0
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              But probably only in our country the standard of living for this century fell (and what is very significant) 4 times, and under Stalin fell 3 times!

              At what point was it considered straight after the civil? I am at a loss to say anything about this. What little things write 7-40 times.
          2. kalibr
            kalibr 4 March 2016 07: 34
            -2
            In 1953, in Leningrad, one worker had 6 washing days a year! On average ... In the villages, at least in some places there were baths ... And then there was "a steady rise in life."
    4. iouris
      iouris 3 March 2016 14: 55
      +1
      National interests of the USSR? Officially, "before the victory of the revolution in Germany" the USSR was an intermediate product and resource of the "world revolution." The official ideology of the USSR is communism, not nationalism. That is why the actions of all post-Stalinist leaders should be analyzed for compliance with official ideology, and not "national interests." Based on the result, the "world revolution" turned out to be the initial capitalist accumulation and industrialization of countries that became markets for TNCs.
      In the modern world, national interests no longer exist. Only TNCs, that is, world capital, have interests.
    5. Rubon
      Rubon 3 March 2016 20: 42
      0
      But yours is not true, I met a German in the states, he was in the SS at the age of 17 Hitler Jugend, a machine gunner, spoke of Hitler with respect, and also spoke very well of Comrade. Stalin! hi
    6. Rubon
      Rubon 3 March 2016 20: 42
      0
      But yours is not true, I met a German in the states, he was in the SS at the age of 17 Hitler Jugend, a machine gunner, spoke of Hitler with respect, and also spoke very well of Comrade. Stalin! hi
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 3 March 2016 06: 48
    +5
    Quote: Igor39
    Lenin is bad, the successor of Lenin, Stalin is good, the successor of Lenin and Stalin, Khrushchev is bad, Brezhnev is bad, Chernenko is bad, Andropov is bad, Gorbachev Jude. Explain why this Georgian is so loved?

    Where's the sequel? Yeltsin is bad, and Putin is good so far, but I think not for long ...
  • atos_kin
    atos_kin 3 March 2016 09: 09
    +6
    Because He is Russian!
  • uskrabut
    uskrabut 3 March 2016 09: 38
    13
    In Russia, dear, not Georgians love, in Russia, the Leaders are loved and respected, whose merits to the country are undeniable. For his desire to bring the USSR to the forefront in the world, for upholding the interests of the state in all spheres, for Victory, for restoring devastation, for not being shy about shaking the country's top officials and really punishing them, for creating a national idea and a lot for what else.
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 10: 13
      -6
      Quote: uskrabut
      For his desire to bring the USSR to the forefront in the world

      I didn’t. According to the CX, we did not even catch up with the RI indicators for the main positions.
      Quote: uskrabut
      for upholding the interests of the state in all areas

      There was no universal free education under Stalin, there were no universal pensions, the people lived poorer than under the tsar - but he really defended the interests of the state, but that was it a popular state ?!
      Did anyone feel better in it ?!
      Quote: uskrabut
      for victory

      Well, and what is his personal contribution to the Victory?
      Do you think he was better versed in the art of war than the "military experts" who were shot by him?
      Quote: uskrabut
      that he was not shy about shaking the country's top officials and really punishing them

      This is called "political repression" - those who did not agree with the policy were "punished", those who did not agree very fairly.
      Again, Korolev - sat, Tupolev - sat, Rokossovsky - sat and miraculously survived, and you can continue indefinitely.
      Is that okay in your opinion ?!
      Quote: uskrabut
      and a lot for what else.

      Yes, as you come up with "why else" be sure to write!
      1. Imperialkolorad
        Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 13: 45
        +7
        Quote: Mr. PIP
        Do you think he was better versed in the art of war than the "military experts" who were shot by him?

        Well, as if in 44-45, the pace of the offensive of our army was higher than that of the Wehrmacht in the 41st. Well, of course the generals and soldiers on their own, and even against the will of the leader, did these "outrages"
        Quote: Mr. PIP
        Yes, as you come up with "why else" be sure to write!

        There really is a lot more to add, but you and others like you just hiss like hell and sprinkle with saliva mumble the mantra: repression, lack of sausage, military losses, poor political opponents, it’s a pity that you didn’t give up to Hitler ...
        1. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 15: 03
          -3
          Quote: ImperialKolorad
          Well, as if in 44-45, the pace of the offensive of our army was higher than that of the Wehrmacht in the 41st. Well, of course the generals and soldiers on their own, and even against the will of the leader, did these "outrages"

          Well, I don’t remember exactly by kilometers now, but "as it were" in 44-45 the German economy was depleted and the resources necessary for the war were almost exhausted, but we initially had more of them, plus the Allies helped us with resources - that is, "the retreating the side "had a weaker economy.
          But in the first years of the war, we had no problems with resources - that is, the "retreating side" did not have a weaker economy.
          And you are Stalin-Stalin! fellow
          Quote: ImperialKolorad
          mumble the mantra: repression, lack of sausage, war losses, poor political opponents, it’s a pity that they did not give up to Hitler

          You are confusing me with someone; my family has defended the homeland since imperial times.
          1. Imperialkolorad
            Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 16: 34
            +4
            Quote: Mr. PIP
            And you are Stalin-Stalin!

            All by itself, all by itself. Hitler is incomprehensible to you somewhere has exhausted its economy. Is it not in the fields of Stalingrad and the Kursk Bulge? Do not forget that the most populated and developed part of the country lay in ruins.
            1. Mr. Pip
              Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 18: 10
              -3
              Quote: ImperialKolorad
              Hitler is incomprehensible to you somewhere has exhausted its economy.

              We also depleted it, but initially we had more resources and helped us.
              Quote: ImperialKolorad
              we have the most populated and developed part of the country in ruins.

              Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states?
              And I thought that I live in Russia - is that what you think it turns out - Stalin specially built up and developed primarily the national suburbs ?! belay
          2. Imperialkolorad
            Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 16: 36
            +2
            Quote: Mr. PIP
            You are confusing me with someone; my family has defended the homeland since imperial times.

            Are we talking about one homeland? I'm afraid at least your grandfather would be ashamed of your verses.
            1. Mr. Pip
              Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 18: 13
              -3
              Quote: ImperialKolorad
              I'm afraid at least your grandfather would be ashamed of your verses.

              Most importantly, my great-grandfather, who died under Stalin with great-grandmother from hunger, I certainly can not be ashamed hi
          3. KaPToC
            KaPToC 3 March 2016 20: 32
            +1
            The Third Reich, with its allies, exceeded the Soviet Union's industrial potential four times, and twice as population, it was surprising that the USSR was able to defeat in general.
  • Sergey777
    Sergey777 3 March 2016 10: 10
    +4
    Quote: Igor39
    Igor39 (7) RU Today, 06:19

    Lenin is bad, the successor of Lenin, Stalin is good, the successor of Lenin and Stalin, Khrushchev is bad, Brezhnev is bad, Chernenko is bad, Andropov is bad, Gorbachev Jude. Explain why this Georgian is so loved?


    Igor, on the topic "Explain why this Georgian is so loved" you can argue a lot.
    Think for yourself, at least a little. Which country or rather, in what condition was it when Stalin came to power and what it was after him, and what the subsequent leaders did. In Soviet times, there was such a joke -
    People decided to build a train. the path to communism, well, they decided it means they did it, and now the train went, it goes, it goes, bam the driver looks at the rails over - what should I do? He drops into the carriage to the main and reports - Vladimir Ilyich the rails are over, what to do. He answers - Urgently organize a subbotnik, attract especially ideological party members and continue the path. Okay, the train went on. But the rails are over again, what should I do? Again, the driver jumps into the carriage to the main and reports - Iosiv Vissarionych the rails have finished what to do. He gives the command, the perpetrators to be shot, those who disagree on the nightingales, but the path continues. Let's go, the rails are over again, the report is again - Nikita Sergeevich what to do, that one - Close the cooperatives, sow corn, plow virgin soil, but continue on the path. Okay, the train seemed to go. But again the rails were over, again the report - Leonid Ilyich what to do, the answer - How do you close the windows and swing the car.
    Here's a joke that went around in the early 80s of the last century. I think everything is said there!
  • Imperialkolorad
    Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 13: 24
    0
    For the fact that he was really a patriot of his country.
  • Yars
    Yars 3 March 2016 14: 33
    +3
    Quote: Igor39
    Lenin is bad, the successor of Lenin, Stalin is good, the successor of Lenin and Stalin, Khrushchev is bad, Brezhnev is bad, Chernenko is bad, Andropov is bad, Gorbachev Jude. Explain why this Georgian is so loved?

    You should teach a good story!
    Stalin did not continue the policy of Lenin, Lenin divided the nations and Stalin reunited!
    In fact, having heard the name of Khrushchev, everyone should immediately mean the following things:
    1. Poisoning Joseph Vissarionovich
    2. For the poisoning of Stalin Khrushchev, Churchill was awarded an award
    3. The launch of the mechanism of the collapse of the USSR
    4. Executions and repressions (during the so-called "thaw" all crimes of the Trotskyists were attributed to Stalin)
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 3 March 2016 17: 47
    0
    Quote: Igor39
    Lenin is bad, the successor of Lenin, Stalin is good, the successor of Lenin and Stalin, Khrushchev is bad, Brezhnev is bad, Chernenko is bad, Andropov is bad, Gorbachev Jude. Explain why this Georgian is so loved?

    Probably because he, the Russian Georgian, did the most for the country and people. However, if you have a question, then the answer is not for you.
  • goncharov.62
    goncharov.62 3 March 2016 18: 27
    0
    Explain why they love this Georgian so much? "-" I am Russian of Georgian origin! "To what other leaders of the USSR are these words applicable? (Georgian-variable term).
  • AK64
    AK64 3 March 2016 20: 57
    0
    Explain why this Georgian is so loved?

    For the fact that he was not a communist, in the Trotskyist-Leninist sense of the word.
    (That is, when, in the words of Trotsky, "the Russians have sacrifice yourself ")
  • Bayonet
    Bayonet 4 March 2016 06: 58
    +1
    Quote: Igor39
    . Explain why this Georgian is so loved?

    You will not get a clear explanation, because all this is at the level of conditioned reflexes smile
  • serg2108
    serg2108 22 November 2016 18: 40
    0
    Stalin is more respected in Russia for his deeds, the fact that he took control of the country "with a plow, left with an atomic bomb" and developed industry. "The rest of the people, only lived on what he created themselves could not improve at least somehow life in the country and the country, for example, the same Brezhnev ruled for quite a long time. and Gorbachev had to prescribe 9 grams of lead a long time ago hi
  • valent45
    valent45 3 March 2016 06: 20
    10
    Khrushch messed things up - he made "gifts" to Ukraine - the main thing was Crimea.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 3 March 2016 08: 40
      +7
      His reign can be put in one short phrase: the satellite launched good and economics negative .
      1. weksha50
        weksha50 3 March 2016 12: 37
        +2
        Quote: Nagan
        His reign can be put in one short phrase: launched satellite and economy


        !!!

        Captively, concisely and accurately ... good
      2. Koshak
        Koshak 3 March 2016 17: 43
        +1
        Quote: Nagan
        His reign can be summarized in one short phrase: launched the satellite and the economy.

        Continuation of this phrase: and planted not only corn No.
  • Ozhogin Dmitry
    Ozhogin Dmitry 3 March 2016 06: 21
    +3
    Print a series of revealing and revealing articles about Lenin and his comrades who have done much more trouble and killed many more people.
    1. Igor39
      Igor39 3 March 2016 06: 31
      0
      And I would like a series of articles about the efforts under Stalin. Destruction of 5 columns 36-39, the Finnish war 39-40 and so on.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 3 March 2016 08: 50
        +7
        Quote: Igor39
        And I would like a series of articles about the breakthroughs under Stalin
        like "throw more shit, we can at least a four-thread stick"? The shit-throwers cannot understand that Stalin is out of their reach, he went down in history, and with all the desire it cannot be canceled or changed. You can, of course, try to distort, but these attempts so far have come out somehow crooked and short-lived. And yet - who throws shit, he gets soiled in it himself, so you don't wash off at once, and the smell from them, to put it mildly, is not very No. negative
      2. Wheel
        Wheel 3 March 2016 13: 28
        +2
        Quote: Igor39
        And I would like a series of articles about the efforts under Stalin. Destruction of 5 columns 36-39, the Finnish war 39-40 and so on.

        Well, Duc, what is the question - write, spread it out.
      3. Chisayna
        Chisayna 3 March 2016 14: 35
        +4
        A list of "fiery revolutionaries" with an obligatory list of their merits in civil society, decossackization, execution of the royal family. Real names, who is from where, so that everyone knows about the merits of "fiery revolutionaries"
  • magician
    magician 3 March 2016 06: 52
    +8
    no matter what the history of Russia is, we must know it in order to prevent mistakes of the past. The results of errors appear in the present and, oddly enough, in the distant future.
    1. weksha50
      weksha50 3 March 2016 12: 41
      0
      Quote: wizard
      The results of errors appear in the present and, oddly enough, in the distant future.



      Hmm ... Nobody has yet canceled, denied the spiral development of history ...

      But he also did not cancel the sayings: The smart learns from mistakes, repeats them ...

      There is always a choice ...
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 3 March 2016 07: 02
    -12 qualifying.
    I understand that the author hates Khrushchev, for what, but what would he like in contrast to the foreign policy of Khrushchev? For example, a rebuke towards concessions to Finland. What is bad then? Finland was the most friendly country of all the capitalist countries for us, built ships for us, supplied engines, bought our weapons, and there were lines for Finnish consumer goods. It was necessary to mess with her and threaten a new invasion? What did the author want?
    Finland, Austria, Japan, in concessions to which the author reproaches Khrushchev during the Soviet era, were good trading partners of the USSR ...
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 3 March 2016 07: 12
      10
      To spoil relations with China, create a territorial dispute with Japan and make a bunch of unilateral concessions to the enemy is the "pinnacle" of foreign policy laughing
      1. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 3 March 2016 09: 03
        +1
        All that you write about is the look of the average man. Unilateral concessions seem so when you do not know the whole undercover political struggle. Take for example today's Belarus. We have invested so much in it free of charge and in the form of bad loans, that it is quite possible to draw analogies with Yugoslavia. But now we believe that we are investing not in vain. But time will pass and a simple layman will forget what political interests we had in Belarus, but there will remain the numbers of millions of tons of oil and gas delivered to this country on the cheap.
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 3 March 2016 10: 22
          +6
          Unlike present-day Belarus, which is our military-political ally and enters into the same economic space with us, Yugoslavia was not a member of the Warsaw Treaty or the CMEA. An example is not appropriate. In the first case, we at least understand what we are paying for. In the second only zero
          1. 0255
            0255 3 March 2016 11: 49
            +1
            Quote: Pissarro
            Unlike present-day Belarus, which is our military-political ally and enters into the same economic space with us, Yugoslavia was not a member of the Warsaw Treaty or the CMEA. An example is not appropriate. In the first case, we at least understand what we are paying for. In the second only zero

            The "alliance" of Belarus is "Russia give money". As soon as the time comes to repay the debt, the state media talk about how bad the Russian Federation is.
            1. Pissarro
              Pissarro 3 March 2016 12: 12
              +4
              Any vassal asks for suzerain's help. Israel draws from the United States, Georgia in full support from mattresses, Assad on the content of Russia and Iran, Armenia receives weapons and energy resources at preferential loans and for Russian prices. Belarus behaves typically for a satellite. Loyalty is bought exactly in this way. You can be indignant as much as you want, it’s a real policy. Russia supplies Belarus, the military-political and economic ally of Russia. It doesn’t happen differently. For Ukraine, gas prices and utilization of their enterprises were also directly related to the degree of loyalty to Russia. Alternative- aneksiya.Do not want to contain the satellite annex it and contain your province. The cost will be more expensive, but there will be more manageability, like Crimea
  • parusnik
    parusnik 3 March 2016 07: 20
    +8
    on assignment of the Kuril Islands... The Japanese divorced Khrushchev here .. and threw it .. And the USSR almost lost the Kuril Islands and the coolest question remains open so far .. The agreement has been signed .. but ratified .. on our part ..
  • Belousov
    Belousov 3 March 2016 08: 01
    +8
    Khrushchev’s foreign policy is painfully similar to Gorbachev’s and Yeltsin’s - leaving for all positions, one-sided gifts, and in return only patting on the shoulder and promising cookies. am
  • Million
    Million 3 March 2016 08: 12
    14
    And Putin yesterday warmly congratulated Gorbachev on his birthday! He said he did a great deal! But you omit Khrushchev here. There isn’t him already, and his descendants have been living in the USA for a long time
    1. atos_kin
      atos_kin 3 March 2016 09: 16
      +8
      It is a pity that Putin does not read.
      1. venaya
        venaya 3 March 2016 09: 54
        0
        I note that the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin once published his article here at VO, so it is quite likely that he sometimes reads. The post of president of the Russian Federation is very responsible, I think that he often has to say not everything that he wants to.
        1. atos_kin
          atos_kin 3 March 2016 10: 43
          0
          Quote: venaya
          President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin once here, at the VO, published his article

          What is your evidence? (with)
          1. venaya
            venaya 3 March 2016 10: 56
            +1
            Proof of? I left two of my comments on this article, if it’s interesting, I’ll look in the archive. It is a pity that you were not able to view all the articles, especially such a landmark one.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 3 March 2016 09: 39
    0
    "The pygmies fell to the throne after the departure of the great leader." ////

    And it always happens. Great leaders do not tolerate around them
    someone smart with independent thinking. And eliminate them.
    Pygmies remain.
    1. venaya
      venaya 3 March 2016 10: 40
      +7
      "A first-class leader selects first-class subordinates. Second-class leader selects third-class subordinates"- this principle fully applies to the selection of outstanding personalities under Stalin. Suffice it to recall such giants as ministers Gromyko, Kosygin, People's Commissar for Education Potemkin Vladimir Petrovich, and Stalin's textbooks, according to my information, are especially appreciated in Israel. By the way, even in the city formed in 1977 Kiryas-Joel, it is 100 km from New York and founded by the Satmar Hasidim, there is an exclusively separate teaching of boys and girls, this was also proposed by V.P. Potemkin.In contrast to the Stalinist People's Commissars, it is enough to name one surname of Minister Kozyrev under Yeltsin to even slightly compare the level So your assumption about Great Leaders is absolutely opposite to practice and can be easily attributed to either disinformation or simply chutzpah.
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 11: 25
        -1
        Quote: venaya
        Commissar of Education Potemkin Vladimir Petrovich

        Potemkin Vladimir Petrovich received a higher education under the tsar father, entered the CPSU (b) under Lenin - but those who entered the CPSU (b) under Stalin and under Stalin received education and made a career, they then formed the "backbone" of the Khrushchevskys and then Gorbachev's reforms fellow
    2. Imperialkolorad
      Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 13: 49
      +3
      Beria, excuse me, pygmy? Just do not need these lamentations about 37 years and a bunch of raped women.
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 15: 11
        -5
        Quote: ImperialKolorad
        Just do not need these lamentations about 37 years and a bunch of raped women.

        I will not.
        Beria supposedly wanted to carry out "perestroika" without waiting for 1985. Still, being a smart and rational person, he perfectly understood all the disadvantages of the Stalinist economy and that the country would not last long without reforms.
        And by the way, being from a poor peasant family, he received a higher education under the tsar-father - the parents sold half of the house and a kidney to give "secondary special" - and he himself paid for the higher and the maintenance of his parents by working as a trainee in an oil office hi
  • uskrabut
    uskrabut 3 March 2016 09: 40
    11
    The more the West praises our state leaders, the worse they are.
    Indicator x ... sti leadership - praise of the West. This is a litmus test.
    1. iouris
      iouris 3 March 2016 20: 29
      +1
      The West is very flexible. Sometimes he can scold you to be happy.
      Lenin wrote that "the criterion of personality is the actions of the individual, social facts."
      Gorbachev’s personality criterion is the destruction of the world socialist system, the bourgeois counter-revolution, which led to the change of ownership despite.
      Yeltsin’s personality criterion is the collapse of the USSR, seven-bankers, turning the country into a raw materials appendage of the United States.
      After Yeltsin, nothing has essentially changed.
  • Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 3 March 2016 10: 25
    -3
    Alexander Samsonov once again poured bile on Khrushchev, and in the comments again "who I love more, Stalin or Khrushchev."
    Both Stalin and Khrushchev - this is our story. And she (the story) is not black and white!
    But, frankly lying in the article and distorting the facts, ugly!
    In any international union, sit "suzerain" and "vassals". Naturally, the vassals need to be fed. By the way, as a result of such feeding, both Indians and Afghans still remember the USSR with fondness.
    All decisions were made in a specific historical, military-political and economic environment. This must be remembered, and not nostalgic for the failed victory of world socialism at the cost of tens of millions more lives of our citizens.
    Our bases are in China and Finland. They were on lease. Just in case, one had to pay for them, and keep military contingents. And the camp was only recovering from the Second World War. Troops from Austria withdrew under the guarantee of non-aligned and neutral status of the state. In 1954 - 1955, prisoners of war were returned not only to Germany, but also to the GDR! Not a word about that. I had a friend Erich Mainik. Until 1954, he was in captivity (he served in the combat units of the SS) worked in the mines of Donbass. And after returning 25 years he served in the police of the GDR. These former prisoners of war formed the backbone of the NNA and the GDR police.
    There were no American bases on Svalbard. According to the 1920 agreement, the year is a demilitarized zone. Again a lie.
    N.S. Khrushchev personally made many strategic mistakes. No wonder he is called a voluntarist. But there is no need to lie and distort the facts, comrade Samsonov!
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 10: 56
      -7
      Quote: Army 2
      But there is no need to lie and distort the facts, comrade Samsonov!

      And you are not the first to write it here, but you still lie and distort!
      And you are right when you write that history is "black and white" and "black stripes" under the same Stalin will be even more than under Khrushchev - and Khrushchev's voluntarism from Stalin's voluntarism was not much different, an apple does not fall far from an apple tree, but " virgin soil "from" collectivization "only differed in that under" virgin soil "at least nobody was shot, even though thanks to Khrushchev for that!
      1. Imperialkolorad
        Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 13: 50
        +2
        I will answer briefly. Under Stalin, there was a cult, but there was a personality ...
        1. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 15: 17
          -1
          Quote: ImperialKolorad
          Under Stalin there was a cult, but there was also a personality

          There was no personality, especially comparing with the same Trotsky or Lenin - and he was a personality only if against the background of the faceless Soviet bureaucracy that swallowed freedom and revolution.
          1. Imperialkolorad
            Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 16: 13
            +2
            Quote: Mr. PIP

            There was no personality, especially comparing with the same Trotsky or Lenin - and he was a personality only if against the background of the faceless Soviet bureaucracy that swallowed freedom and revolution.

            Putting a "political prostitute" higher is so liberal. After all, Trotsky, with his idea of ​​a permanent revolution, was ready to use Russia as fuel for this very revolution. Without a doubt, the good for the country is the removal and subsequent elimination of Bronstein.
            ZY I'm not at all surprised that you are a fan of Leiba Davidovich. After all, no matter how paradoxical it is, his banner was picked up by the States no less beloved by you. They also bring chaos and destruction all over the world, but not with revolutionary motives, but for the so-called "democracy". Although the real goal is the hegemony of the financial behind the scenes.
    2. atos_kin
      atos_kin 3 March 2016 11: 00
      +3
      Quote: Army 2
      N.S. Khrushchev personally made many strategic mistakes. No wonder they call him

      This phrase contains your entire "article". It is truthful and short, but A. Samsonov writes in more detail for those who still do not know everything and (or) are in the voluntary captivity of specially created myths.
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 3 March 2016 10: 41
    +1
    The article confirms the point that Perlmuter was the family name of this figure.
  • crasever
    crasever 3 March 2016 11: 11
    +8
    They left Austria in 1955 and received Hungary in 1956. Through the Austro-Hungarian border, there were many then and whom, not quite peaceful and democratic, to the rebels arrived ...
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 12: 07
      -6
      Quote: crasever
      came from Austria in 1955 and received Hungary in 1956.

      And what did these Hungary give us ?!
      Did we receive currency or products from them annually, or maybe the Czechoslovak Skodes were massively accessible to Soviet residents then, as they are available to us now ?!
      1. Imperialkolorad
        Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 13: 52
        +7
        Tin, what is the level of education of the current liberals. From Hungary we received Ikarus massively enough.
        1. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 15: 29
          -4
          Quote: ImperialKolorad
          From Hungary we received Ikarus massively enough

          So what?
          Under trade agreements, buses arrived in CMEA countries, Algeria, Mozambique, Tanzania and other African countries, as well as Indonesia, North Korea, Cuba
          Next:
          In the 1970s and 1980s, Europe’s largest and now a small private bus manufacturing company
          Therefore, I ASK ONCE AGAIN - what did these Hungary give us USEFUL besides the fact that we bought buses from them, which, apart from us and the third world countries, were not needed by anyone, and therefore the company almost closed after the collapse of the USSR.
          1. Imperialkolorad
            Imperialkolorad 3 March 2016 17: 04
            +3
            USEFUL they gave that they were the buffer in case of a mess. Why do all empires try to spread their influence over a large territory.
      2. Wheel
        Wheel 3 March 2016 13: 56
        -1
        Quote: Mr. PIP
        or maybe the Czechoslovak Skodes were massively accessible to Soviet residents then, as they are available to us now ?!

        From 62 to 65, my father had a Skoda 1202 - a slop car, heavy, with a weak engine and a constantly flying gearbox.
        1. Mr. Pip
          Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 15: 32
          -3
          Quote: Wheel
          From 62 to 65, my father had a Skoda 1202

          Skoda's co-worker also had one, but the question was about whether they were to us massively availablelike volkswagen for example in western europe hi
          Quote: Wheel
          heavy tank with a weak engine and a constantly flying gearbox.

          And since then, practically nothing has changed, at the Passat itself, the DSG died in due time laughing
          1. Wheel
            Wheel 3 March 2016 16: 32
            +3
            Quote: Mr. PIP
            Skoda’s co-worker also had one, but the question was about whether they were available to us in large quantities, like a Volkswagen for example in western Europe

            Well, so until the mid-60s there were no problems with buying a car in the USSR (excluding the Volga), this is the year since the 65th there have been lines.
            Hmm, I really didn’t understand your idea of ​​the availability of Skoda for a Soviet citizen, why was it needed? The car is rubbish (this is also confirmed by the fact that the majority of Skoda used as ambulances disappeared almost instantly, leaving no trace in the memory.)
  • Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 3 March 2016 11: 22
    +6
    Yes, such is the historical role of Khrushchev - a traitor to the Soviet and Russian Fatherland!
    Conclusion - never back down the west!
  • Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 3 March 2016 11: 30
    +3
    Khrushchev is accused of reducing the army. But was it wise to keep in a peaceful army of 5,8 million people. And this is in the presence of nuclear weapons.
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 3 March 2016 11: 37
      +5
      there are well-established mechanisms for reducing the army, this is a long process that allows officers to resign, reduce enrollment in military universities, reduce the military service of soldiers, etc. The way Khrushchev did this is nothing but a mockery of the army.
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 12: 55
        -1
        Quote: Pissarro
        there are well-established mechanisms for reducing the army, this is a long process that allows officers to resign

        This is not the case you remembered about "Repression in the Red Army 1937-1938" ?!
        laughing laughing laughing
        Quote: Pissarro
        The way Khrushchev did this is nothing but a mockery of the army.

        Calm down already!
        The way practically all reforms were carried out in the USSR, in their bulk, cannot be called "mockery of the people"! laughing
    2. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 12: 50
      -3
      Quote: Sergej1972
      But was it wise to keep in a peaceful army of 5,8 million people.

      In addition, we do not forget that many of the officers became them during the war years, having behind them a couple of "parish" classes and a short "commander courses".
      It’s scary to imagine how such "commanders" later led their subordinates, and even in peacetime.
    3. Tambov Wolf
      Tambov Wolf 3 March 2016 12: 54
      +6
      When under Khrushchev, newly repaired and new aircraft were cut, workers and women at the plant cried, saying that the enemies of the people had come. And how much was rejected from commissioning the latest technology? And the thoughtless reduction of the army? No wonder the word "voluntarism" became abusive under Khrushchev, like liberalism in our time.
  • Grigorievich
    Grigorievich 3 March 2016 11: 46
    +7
    When the army was reduced, thousands of officers were left to their own devices. My father was among them, but he had 25 years of service and retired, which after some time (at the request of the workers) was cut from 80% of salary to 50%, and if got a job, then the salary and pension should not exceed the amount received in the army.
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 3 March 2016 13: 01
      -1
      Quote: Grigorievich
      As the army contracted, thousands of officers were left to their own devices. My father was among them.

      My grandfather was among them - initially he was called up in 1940. He went as a mechanic to a factory.
      But here they already wrote:
      1. The size of the armed forces was indeed excessive.
      2. A lot of officers have passed "short courses" and simply did not correspond to the proud title of "officer".
      3. Pensions were cut because there wasn’t as much money as was necessary to pay.
      4. And with 25 years in general and without "layoffs" it's time to fire, if not a general!
  • Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 3 March 2016 11: 59
    +3
    It is not necessary to exclude, but it is not necessary to exaggerate the role of Khrushchev, the 20th Congress, etc. in the aggravation of relations with the PRC. After all, whatever you say, the policy of the "Great Leap Forward" and then (already during the reign of Brezhnev in the USSR) the "Cultural Revolution" were largely adventures, which after 1979 was recognized by the leadership of the CPC. And a number of actions of the PRC on the world stage in the late 50s-60s. were really provocative, adventurous. If Khrushchev's opponents, Stalinists like Molotov, were in power, they would still be forced to criticize China's domestic and foreign policies of that period.
    Why do we have many illusions about the attitude of the Chinese leadership towards Stalin? In fact, in the PRC already under Mao, the official position was "Stalin was 70% right, 30% wrong." And, criticizing Khrushchev, and then Brezhnev, including for denigrating Stalin's memory, the Chinese, nevertheless, spoke a lot and openly about Stalin's mistakes both in domestic and foreign policy. In particular, the policy of the USSR in Xinjiang in the 30-40s. considered wrong. And the PRC never seriously believed in the fact that Bukharin, Rykov, Radek, Trotsky, and a number of figures repressed in the 30s were agents of imperialism and foreign intelligence services.
    Only Albanian Hojaists were absolutely positive towards Stalin and Stalinism. However, even Khoja in his memoirs noted that some negative aspects in the USSR were noted already in the last years of Stalin's life. In particular, he noted that a number of Stalin's comrades-in-arms, such as Malenkov, Mikoyan and a number of others, lived in luxury, behaved like capricious barges, and representatives of small countries were treated with a feeling of neglected superiority. Of Stalin's associates, he positively evaluated only Molotov. But, as you know, Molotov himself already in the early 50's. He was not among the closest proxies of Stalin. And although Khoja does not directly blame Stalin, he nonetheless hints that the bourgeoisie of the Soviet elite and the separation from the common people were noticeable in the last years of Stalin's life.
    In general, Maoism and Stalinism are largely different directions in the communist movement. Both the "policy of the great leap forward" and the "cultural revolution" did not fit not only into the Khrushchev-Brezhnev, but also into the Stalinist schemes. And the PRC's domestic and foreign policy was largely determined by the alignment of forces in the CPC leadership. And neither Stalin (at least since the 40s), nor Khrushchev, nor Brezhnev could really influence the position of the CPC leadership. Mao and his supporters completely controlled the army, the state apparatus and would not tolerate any external influence on them. Even those Chinese communists who condemned some of Mao's actions, nevertheless, with all due respect to the merits of the CPSU (B) -KPSU and the experience of building socialism in the USSR, to the Soviet people, were not going to become "younger brothers", satellites of the USSR on the model of the countries Of Eastern Europe.
  • weksha50
    weksha50 3 March 2016 12: 34
    +2
    The article is ambiguous, I would say it is biased ...

    By no means do I want to skaz otom that Nikita is white and fluffy ...
    Moreover, my childhood passed during his reign, and I already do not eat corn (I still do not eat in any form) and the so-called "Trans-Baikal bread" for 16 kopecks, which we boys called "crying plasticine" (squeeze - and some moisture comes out, and the form from compression also remains), given out, though not by cards, but (!!!) by lists for a family (I don't remember how much per person) - and this is in the Kuban, always called the granary Russia - I still remember ...

    But the conversation is not about that ...

    It is not for nothing that Ernst sculpted the monument in the form of two halves - black and white ...

    "Disrupting" the army, and specifically, first of all, the aviation and the navy (they cut practically new planes and ships), he destroyed them for the sake of the development of space and future Strategic Missile Forces ... But he could, due to the squalor of his mind (as a slave and the clown, and remained) and cover up programs for the development of space research, as well as the development of thermonuclear weapons ...

    Which of our rulers openly threatened the whole world with Kuzkin’s mother ??? This required either courage, or, excuse me, great nonsense ... However, it was necessary to the place and to the advantage ...

    Yes, it brought a lot of harm ...

    However, in the continuation of his commentary on the article - why was Andropov and Chernenko still toppled into one pile ???

    Andropov, most likely, would be able to restore order in the country ... However, he rules - I don’t remember already - a year or a year and a half, and then for the most part being in a hospital bed ... By the way, there are a lot of rumors about the causes of his illness and death but precisely rumors ...

    Chernenko ??? Yes, the patient Konstantin Ustinich, to whom a legal counsel-psychiatrist-therapist could easily rivet incapacity, and who was taken by the presidium’s table by his arm was appointed by the gray cardinals from the Politburo, who wanted to lead the country behind him with his name ... A sick man old ...

    Brezhnev ... "Stagnation, swamp" ... And I will say this: his years (supposedly his - after all, the rule of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee), we, the Soviet people, although we lived poorly and uncleanly, but these were the best years from the modern history of the USSR ...

    Correctly, someone up there, in the comments, said: this is our country, this is our history, and they need to be treated with respect, and not fill up with shit ...

    PS Although I repeat: Nikita (and not only him, but also his descendants) brought much less good to the good people of the USSR than bad ...
    1. bk316
      bk316 3 March 2016 15: 08
      +4
      You are right for everything 100 about Brezhnev and about Andropov and about Chernenko.
      Just many who have not seen this, but many who have forgotten.
      And stagnation we would now have such stagnation as 60-70.

      And about Nikita, a voluntarist, he was also a close-minded person (which is often combined), but according to the law of large numbers (and the USSR was a huge country and her talents were unmeasured), he regularly pearl.
  • Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 3 March 2016 12: 39
    +1
    And what was to be expected from the enemy of the people? I remember zadolbali corn and chemicalization. And Khrushchev rations? A bucket bag with the family name in which there are small bags with cereals, a queue for bread from three in the morning. As Brezhnev came, the whole tyulka and the mess ended right away. So now, take away the gynecological liberals, the mess will end and retire and develop grandmothers right away and thieves with speculators will be transplanted right away.
  • vladimirw
    vladimirw 3 March 2016 13: 00
    +3
    I read some comments and found on our patriotic website a bunch of stubborn liberalists who believe that Stalin personally shot 20 million. What a horror!
    1. 0255
      0255 3 March 2016 14: 42
      +1
      In fact, there were repressions under Stalin, people were imprisoned only in this way. Still alive are people who have seen Stalin's times, who can tell about those times. My grandfather told me that a convinced communist could sit down on an anonymous denunciation from a neighbor. The communists in the Gulag quickly "broke down" when they were imprisoned by the government, of which they were supporters.
      Yes, Stalin industrialized the USSR, then restored the USSR after the war in record time. But a lot of people were destroyed.
      People, if I admit that Stalin raised the country and that at the same time he destroyed a bunch of people, am I liberal or not? laughing
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 4 March 2016 07: 08
        +1
        Quote: 0255
        Yes, Stalin industrialized the USSR, then restored the USSR after the war in record time. But a lot of people were destroyed.

        So the question arises - the people for the state or the state for the people?
  • serverny
    serverny 3 March 2016 16: 06
    +2
    Quote: 0255
    at the same time he destroyed a bunch of people

    Depends on what you mean by "a bunch of killed" - Solzhenitsyn's tens of millions or 700 thousand documented by declassified archives of the NKVD / KGB for the entire period of Stalin's rule, including defectors, spies and traitors during the Second World War.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 4 March 2016 07: 06
      0
      Quote: serverny
      Depends on what you mean by "a bunch of killed" - Solzhenitsyn's tens of millions or 700 thousand documented by declassified archives of the NKVD / KGB during the entire period of Stalin's rule

      Even if 700000, is that a trifle? In some dwarf states, the population is smaller.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 4 March 2016 14: 38
        0
        Quote: Bayonet
        Even if 700000, is that a trifle?

        Not a trifle. But there are two details.
        Firstly, if 700000 were shot, by the way less, but let there be a rounded number, then it does not follow from this that they were innocent people. That is, they came across such, but how many were shot for the case?
        Secondly, given the fact that it was a time when the country gathered together after the war and the demolition of the existing system, as well as the Second World War, this is far from a lot
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 4 March 2016 17: 26
          -1
          Quote: Dart2027
          Considering the fact that this was the time when the country gathered together after the war and the demolition of the existing system, as well as the Second World War, this is not much

          The forest is cut - chips fly? Tell me honestly (what I doubt) would you like to be a sliver? hi
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 4 March 2016 23: 15
            0
            Quote: Bayonet
            Tell me honestly (what I doubt) would you like to be a sliver

            No, I didn’t want to. Like no one else. But let me ask - where did you see a system of justice that would never have made mistakes? How many times this has been said - yes, of course, this is not very good, but no one was able to offer a clear alternative. Or become a victim of any Bandera, you personally enjoy it? I doubt it very much.
  • Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 3 March 2016 17: 30
    +1
    The article is useless! Continuation of RUNNING the past of YOUR (or?) Homeland. And most importantly, instead of showing how EBN GENERALLY DESTROYED the army and industry and the village and the defense industry are not present, the author writes letters about Khrushchev, in which psi.n.d.s.s.n. I just pissed from fear! And now? And the RF is not a penny! So who should be criticized or ridiculed? The author is silent! Because the shtsykun is afraid that they will get him too! But the dead Khrushchev is not afraid of anyone! So the "current wiseacres" water it.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 3 March 2016 18: 16
    0
    "Notable maize scientist H." largely because of his short-sightedness, combined with illiteracy and lack of strategy, he "caved in" in front of "foreign friends" beyond measure. Only his spotty follower Gorbachev in the 80s surrendered more interests of the USSR. The clearest example is when an unsuccessful person in power, without a structured state scheme for limiting voluntarism, ruins the country. fool
  • Grigorievich
    Grigorievich 3 March 2016 19: 06
    +1
    [quote = Mr. PIP] 2. A lot of officers took "short courses" and simply did not correspond to the proud rank of "officer". [/ Quote]
    The officers who went through the war did not correspond to the proud rank of an officer? [Quote = Mr. PIP].

    [quote = Mr. PIP] And with 25 years in general and without any "reductions" it's time to fire, if not a general! [/ quote]
    This is not calendar, but along with the front-line.
  • vlad568
    vlad568 3 March 2016 20: 10
    0
    In the defeat of the White forces, Stalin played an extremely important role. At his suggestion, the red forces were rearranged secretly. In the most threatening direction, in the Sadovaya area, he proposed to deliver the main blow.
    The overwhelming superiority of the artillery and military potential of Tsaritsyn’s defenders was ensured on this sector of the front. The unexpected powerful fire of artillery batteries concentrated on a narrow section of the front stunned the whites.
    Immediately, armored cars and trucks with machine guns were introduced into the battle, cavalry rushed. Armored trains fired at the quivering and retreating enemy.
    The defenders of Tsaritsyn repulsed the onslaught of the second enemy encirclement.
    On these busy days of Tsaritsyn’s defense on October 3, Stalin and Voroshilov sent a telegram to Lenin demanding that the Central Committee discuss the issue of Trotsky’s actions threatening the collapse of the Southern Front.
    On October 6, Stalin again went to Moscow, on October 8, by a decision of the Council of People's Commissars, Stalin was appointed a member of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic, and on October 11 he returned from Moscow to Tsaritsyn.
    In the confrontation with Trotsky, Stalin did not lose. His authority as one of the leaders of the Bolshevik party and the Soviet state not only strengthened, but also increased significantly.
    On October 18, 1918, Stalin telegraphed to Lenin about the rout of the Krasnov troops near Tsaritsyn. On October 19, Stalin left Tsaritsyn for Moscow, where new affairs of great state importance awaited him.
    On October 24, 1918, Stalin sent a greeting to the defenders of Tsaritsyn. Addressing Voroshilov, Stalin wrote:
    “Tell them that Soviet Russia will never forget their heroic deeds and reward them deservedly. Long live the brave troops of the Tsaritsyn Front! ”
    In November, the troops of the Tsaritsyn Front went on the offensive and threw the enemy away from the city.
    In 1918, the Red Tsaritsyn survived.
    “The heroic epic of Tsaritsyn’s defense thwarted White’s plans to break through to Moscow”
    The operations of the troops of the Tsaritsyn Front, developed and carried out under the leadership of Stalin, were a valuable contribution to the military art of the Red Army.
    There are many positive assessments of the activities of Stalin during the defense of Tsaritsyn in 1918. Among them, the opinions expressed by one of Stalin's ardent opponents F.F.Raskolnikov, who met with Stalin in the summer of 1918, cannot but arouse undoubted interest:
    "Stalin was everything in Tsaritsyn: authorized by the Central Committee, member of the Revolutionary Military Council, leader of party and Soviet work ... He, as always, resolved all issues collectively, in close contact with local institutions, which impressed him and further strengthened his unquestioned authority"
    Stalin's stay in Tsaritsyn in 1918 was not just an episode of the severe class struggle, but laid the foundations for comprehending the secrets of the turbulent economic, military and international politics.
  • Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 3 March 2016 20: 20
    0
    How Khrushchev made "gifts" to the West and significantly worsened the military-strategic position of the USSR

    Khrushchev is an uneducated mediocrity in intellect, a narcissistic tyrant with initiative in character, and a disguised svidomo in ideology! Our misfortune is that the long-established and still existing national system, so to speak, of training and promotion of personnel to leading positions up to the head of the country allows such OUTSTANDING personalities to come to power even at the highest level, and after his departure, there is nothing left to count. the fruits of his "ACHIEVEMENTS"!
  • Governor
    Governor 3 March 2016 20: 47
    +1
    I’m not afraid to ask, if Khrushchev is bad, then what Putin? Although the answer is clear ... In our country, a new cult of personality and all that.
    And here is another interesting question. If Comrade Stalin is such an ingenious leader (in many respects it was), then why didn’t he create a system of change of power in time? After all, this is the basis of the future of the country!

    A strange fashion in general to scold a person who did not break the country, but rather developed himself. Still, under Khrushchev the USSR was and nobody was going to ruin it. Far from the worst leader.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 4 March 2016 00: 34
      0
      Stalin simply did not have time to create a system of change of power, everything was already ready for this. According to Khrushchev, one thing can be said, not an unambiguous politician, looking at all the materials one gets the impression that he was guided not by reason but by emotions.
  • Dok133
    Dok133 4 March 2016 00: 29
    +1
    If it were not for the revolution of 1917, Russia would continue to expand, and there would be no problems either in the Baltic, or in central Europe, or by the way with Turkey (due to the absence of that very Turkey), or in the Far East.
    It seems to me that in the very depths the retreat began not in 1953, but in 1917, when the Russian people changed their beliefs from Orthodoxy to false communist ones. Comrade Lenin was convinced that "Russia is a prison of peoples", and he drew these boundaries of the union republics, on which then the USSR collapsed.
  • surrozh
    surrozh 4 March 2016 04: 15
    0
    No, all the same I will join the "Air Defense", maybe at least there will be order in the country in the future.