Military Review

Stalin: Russophile or Russophobe?

213
Stalin: Russophile or Russophobe?Almost the entire ideological policy of Joseph Stalin was determined by changes in his views on the role of the Russian nation in the development of the USSR. In this case, the decisive influence on the Georgian revolutionary Joseph Dzhugashvili had a man whom Stalin, on the one hand, considered to be his Master (with a capital letter), and on the other - whose political views by and large fought all his life. The name of this man is Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin.


Indeed, this sharp contradiction between the two leaders began to take shape immediately after the October Bolshevik coup 1917, reached its apogee at the end of 1922 in the process of forming a new state in the former Russian Empire - the Soviet Union, and then it became sharper, then faded until the death of Stalin.

This contradiction first appeared on 2 (15) in November 1917, when Lenin, in the name of the government of the Russian Republic created by him, personally wrote the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia", where it was actually announced that as a result of the October Revolution in the former Russian Empire it ended the old state, based on the will of the Russian people, and in its place "there remain only the peoples of Russia, enduring and suffering oppression and arbitrariness, to the emancipation of which should be started immediately, liberated ix which should be held firmly and irrevocably. "

The Lenin document left no doubt that from now on, with such a category as the Russian nation, which, by virtue of its objective position, had previously united all segments of the population of Russian society, was finished forever, and now there is only a class of workers and peasants in the country opposed to the class of the world bourgeoisie. This epoch-making novelty of historical significance was enshrined in the following words: the former Russia "must now be replaced by the policy of a voluntary and honest union of the peoples of Russia ... Only as a result of such a union," this epoch-making document emphasized, "workers and peasants of the peoples of Russia can be welded one revolutionary force capable of resisting any attempts on the part of the imperialist-annexationist bourgeoisie. "

In pursuance of the will of the first and second congresses of the Soviets, the Council of People’s Commissars, stated in the Declaration, decided to base its work on the issue of the nationalities of Russia with the following principles:

1) Equality and sovereignty of the peoples of Russia.

2) The right of the peoples of Russia to free self-determination, up to the separation and formation of independent states.

3) Cancellation of all and any national and national-religious privileges and restrictions.

4) Free development of national minorities and ethnographic groups inhabiting the territory of Russia "(highlighted by Lenin).

The document was signed as follows:

"In the name of the Republic of

People's Commissar for National Affairs

Joseph Dzhugashvili-Stalin.

Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars

V. Ulyanov (Lenin) ".

As follows from the text of this hastily, as they say, on the knee of the document written personally by Lenin (a week after the coup), his main goal was to translate Ulyanov-Lenin’s long-time dream of ending the Russian state’s role as the Russian nation people, with this, as he believed, "great-power trash."

Ulyanov-Lenin allowed himself to use this strong emotional-irritable expression only at the end of the 1922 year, just before his death, when the body destroyed by the disease no longer had the strength to restrain his emotions.

But in the critical conditions of a political upheaval, Lenin fully realized that at that moment he could not do it only on his own behalf, could not express his dislike for the Russian people only on his own behalf, and therefore when signing the Declaration Ilyich "hid" behind Dzhugashvili-Stalin, putting his signature first.

Later, the people's commissar for national affairs, his position reflected in the Declaration’s joint text with Lenin, would change more than once, but in principle, Stalin remained a Bolshevik, that is, a true Leninist, throughout his conscious life, and he always played the role of the Russian people in the USSR there will be a restrained, and for the most part, a negative attitude: after all, it was not by chance that the Russians lived no worse than others in their own country before October, but really worse (poorer), compared to others, began to live only after October.

Lenin, as is well known, proceeded from the fact that the Russian people in all centuries in the territory of the Russian Empire was engaged only in oppressing all other peoples, and therefore, during the formation of the Soviet Union, it demanded that the Central Committee of the RCP (b) should guarantees of deliverance from the supposedly "centuries-old oppression" of other nations by the Russians in the form of:

- firstly, the formation within the USSR of the state organization of nations in the form of republics. Including Ukraine, although the Ukrainians have never any statehood in stories did not have.

- secondly, in the right officially set forth in the Constitution of the exit from the USSR of any national union republic.

Stalin, as we know, did not think so and proposed a completely different model of national relations in the USSR created under the vigilant Lenin control: a single and indivisible Russia should remain further in the form of the RSFSR, and its composition as cultural autonomies includes all other nationally organized entities .

By the enormous power of Lenin’s onslaught, Stalin’s idea was not only rejected, but destroyed and destroyed, and the Soviet Union was formed the way Lenin imposed it. And this is despite the fact that even the loyal followers of Lenin recognized that the Union republics within the USSR were constituted from peoples and nations that had never had their own statehood in their history.

In 1920-ies, Stalin was forced to accept all the conditions dictated to him by Lenin regarding the diminishing of the political role of the Russian people in the formation of the Russian national state and at the same time to be tied up to the 1930 year, that "decisive struggle against the remnants of Great-Russian chauvinism is the primary task of our party "because" Great-Russian chauvinism reflects the desire of the obsolete classes of the predominantly Great-Russian nation to regain their lost privileges "(political report of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) Party Congress).

In historical science, the main ideologue in the matter of the materialization of the Leninist position in relation to the historical role of the Russian people in these years was academician M.N. Pokrovsky, whom Lenin himself blessed for this role. It was worth Pokrovsky in 1920 to publish the book "Russian history in the most concise essay," as Lenin immediately read it and 5 of December 1920 sent the academician a short letter:

“Comrade. M.N. Pokrovsky.

Tov. M.N. I congratulate you on your success very much: I greatly liked your new book “Rus [s] and [history] in [o] s [atom] och [Yerke]”. Original structure and presentation. Read with great interest. It will be necessary, in my opinion, to translate into Hebrew [Opeic] languages ​​... ”.

The works of Pokrovsky were not appealing to Stalin, to put it mildly, but knowing about the active support of the founder of the post-October Russian historical school from Lenin, he until the death of Pokrovsky clearly and unequivocally supported his position, for example, the position of the historian that in the USSR not a national state is built, but a state of the world proletariat. So, when German writer Emil Ludwig 13 of December 1931 asked Stalin if he allowed a parallel between himself and Peter the Great, the Secretary General explained without hesitation: no, he does not identify himself with Peter, primarily because Peter the Great created and strengthened the national the state of landowners and merchants, and he, Stalin, sets himself the task "not to strengthen any" national "state, but to strengthen the socialist state, which means international, and any strengthening of this state contributes to the whole of the international working class. "

He did not object to Pokrovsky, at least publicly, also on the question of the historical role of the Russian people.

Pokrovsky clearly proceeded from the fact that the Russian people did not carry in themselves any unifying role in relation to other nations, but was, as Lenin pointed out, a “Russian state” that oppressed all the other nations attached to the Russian state.

So, when the chairman of the CEC of the Georgian SSR, Philip Makharadze (1868 – 1941), known for the conflict with Stalin in 1922 on a question about the federal structure of the USSR, in 1931, had the imprudence to speak about the positive historical relationship between Georgia and Russia, it so aroused Pokrovsky, that he at the All-Union Conference of Marxist Historians immediately took the floor and said: “Great Russian chauvinism is a much greater danger than some representatives of national minorities can imagine. I repeat once again, I think that Comrade Makharadze treats us Russians too indulgently. In the past, we, Russians, - and I am the most purebred Great Russian, which can only be - in the past, we, Russians, are the greatest robbers that you can imagine. ”

Moreover, Pokrovsky laid down the thesis on the basis of the scheme of historical science created by him after the October period that all Russian pre-revolutionary historical science based on the works of B. Chicherin, S. Solovyov or V. Klyuchevsky, who defended the decisive role of the Russian people in the formation and development The Russian national state is the landowner-bourgeois science, which means it is counter-revolutionary.

First of all, Pokrovsky argued, it is such because it lays the foundation of the history of the Russian nation and the Russian national state. Until the end of his days, Pokrovsky struggled to replace the old history of Russia with a new one - the history of the peoples of the USSR. A typical example in this regard: in August 1928, when Pokrovsky planned to convene an All-Union conference of Marxist historians, he included the section "History of Russia" in the conference structure. But after three months, he recollected himself and re-named the section - “The History of the Peoples of the USSR”, explaining this in the following words: “Communist shame saved us from one of the outdated headings. We understood - a little late - that the term "Russian history" is a counter-revolutionary term, one edition with a tricolor flag and "one indivisible". "

Andrei Lvovich Yurganov, a professor at the RSUH, rightly notes on this point: Pokrovsky tabooed a whole field of knowledge about the stages of the development of the Russian nation.

But Stalin was tormented not by “communist shame”, but by something else: he was increasingly worried that the building of the Soviet Union, based on the Leninist principle of erosion of the state-forming role of the Russian people, was accompanied by a frantic political campaign in the press of the Union republics calling for an end to the Great Russian great-power chauvinism and the requirements of a hot iron to burn out the colonialist legacy of Russian tsarism, which is still tenaciously present in the behavior of Russian communists.

But by the beginning of the 1930's. The General Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP (B.) Began to feel that the entire political organization of Soviet society had begun to spread at the national seams.

The communist party apparatus, tightly controlled from Moscow, with its political and ideological activities, of course, rigidly fastened the Soviet political organism throughout the country, but it still did not provide sufficient social solidity.
Here and there, hotbeds of political dissatisfaction with the party’s policies constantly arose. Secretary General is very worried. The existence of Lenin’s own creation, the Soviet Union, was called into question.

It should also be taken into account that during these years Stalin lived under the yoke of complete confidence that the imperialist West was nurturing the idea of ​​an early attack on "the first socialist state in the world of workers and peasants." It was possible to repel such an attack only if the strong social unity of Soviet society was maintained. And what kind of power could provide such unity? Only the Russian national element, whose share in the total composition of the population of the USSR was about 70%. But in order for the Russians to assume such a role consciously, they needed to be told that it was they who were the leading social force of Soviet society.

And the General Secretary began to deploy the ideological boat.

Outwardly, this turn initially looked pretty harmless. 27 December 1929 Mr. Stalin speaks at a conference of agricultural Marxists and raises the question of the "gap between practical success and the development of theoretical thought." This accusation against the historical school of Pokrovsky, which consists in the fact that the theory he proposed no longer meets the needs of the practical construction of a socialist state, was not noticed by anyone, including Pokrovsky himself. In October, 1931, Mr. Stalin wrote a letter "On some questions of the history of Bolshevism," which is published by all Moscow party ideological journals (Bolshevik, Proletarian Revolution, Communist Enlightenment, Fighting Classes).

Having chosen the addressee of his critical remarks a completely third-rate figure - historian A.G. Slutsky (1894 – 1979, from 1937 to 1957 - a Gulag prisoner), which no one had ever heard of in a historical environment before, Stalin actually hit the historians of the Pokrovsky school (and other official historians at that time in the USSR was not), accusing them that they build their works on "paper documents", and not on real deeds and the practice of Bolshevism. The article ended up where a clear conclusion in this regard: "... Even some of our historians - I speak about historians without quotes, about the Bolshevik historians of our party - are not free from mistakes pouring water on the mill of Slutskys and Volosevich [the Course history of the CPSU (b)]. Unfortunately, Comrade Yaroslavsky, whose books on the history of the CPSU (B.), Despite their merits, contain a number of fundamental and historical errors, does not make an exception here. "

It is noteworthy that the Secretary General made an emphasis in these speeches on the thesis that it was the Russian people in the whole history of Russia-Russia who always acted as a unifying force in the formation of the Russian (Russian) state.
Therefore, the general secretary did not target Yemelyan Yaroslavsky (Moses Gubelman) in his articles, but in the Lenin favorite - M.N. Pokrovsky. The latter, however, did not understand this (or did not want to understand). Up to his death (1932), he continued to argue that he faithfully followed Lenin's instructions in the development of Soviet historical science. And his main thesis concerned the assertion that in the history of Russia, since ancient times, the Russian people never carried any unifying mission in relation to other nationalities (peoples).

In the last for 1930 issue of the Marxist Historian magazine, Pokrovsky, in the article "The emergence of the Muscovy state and the Great Russian people," even denied the existence of the "Great Russians": "And who are these" Great Russians ", ... there were no Great Russians at all - Finnish tribes lived in this territory, autochthons, which ... finished their enslavers. "" Already the Moscow Grand Duchy, not only the Moscow kingdom, was the "prison of nations". Great Russia is built on the bones of "aliens", and the latter are hardly comforted by the fact that 80% of their blood flows in the veins of Great Russians. Only the final overthrow of Great-Russian oppression by the force that fought and fights against all and all oppression could serve as a payment for all the suffering that this oppression caused to them. "


Stalin was simply jarred by all this Russophobian orgy inspired by Lenin.

After all, he wrote in black and white in 1913 in his work “Marxism and the National Question”: “In Russia, Great Russians, who had a strong organized noble bureaucracy at the head, took on the role of a unifier of nationalities.”

However, at the beginning of 1930-x directly to fight with the historical school of Pokrovsky, the General Secretary could not yet. And not only because Pokrovsky and his numerous students relied on the direct support of Lenin and held all historical science in their hands until the death of Pokrovsky. And also because Stalin during these years was forced to fight on several fronts at once:

- to ensure personal political survival in a fight with people from the former inner circle of Lenin. And it was not only Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, but also those who personally knew Lenin I.N. Smirnov (“Kolchak winner”, arrested in 1933, shot in August 1936, after a few months his wife and daughter were arrested and shot, although it was under the guarantees of the investigation that they would save their lives counterrevolutionary activity), who threw the phrase “Stalin thinks that no bullet can be found on him” in a narrow circle of like-minded people in 1932;

- to strengthen the social basis of the political system of the USSR and to carry out industrialization, preparing the Soviet Union for the inevitable war with Europe and Japan;

- to substantiate the concept of the possibility of the victory of socialism in one single country under the conditions of a hostile imperialist encirclement and much more, about which no one even had any idea about 1917 in October.

But, nevertheless, as the well-known literary critic and great publicist Vadim Kozhinov (1990 – 1930) noted in 2001-s in his work, “a radical turn has already begun in the country” in the field of ideology.

5 March 1934. The Politburo's decision on this issue appeared, 20 March, the head of the culture and propaganda department of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) A.I. Stetsky and A.S. Bubnov was assigned to prepare a proposal on the composition of the authors of textbooks. On March 29, by the decision of the Politburo, the groups of authors were approved. On the same day, the Politburo adopted a resolution on the introduction of historical faculties as part of universities. To work out a final document, Bubnov was asked to call E.V. Tarle. The two resolutions of the Politburo of March 29 were united and formed the basis of the resolution of the Politburo (and SNK of the USSR) of 15 of May “On the teaching of civic history in schools of the USSR”, the text of which was edited by Stalin himself.

The testimony of a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee 29 of March was retained by historian S.A. Piontkovsky. Practically, only the Secretary General spoke at the meeting, he writes in his diary, since the others simply were not ready for such an ideological turn. “History,” the Secretary General said, “should be history. We need textbooks of the ancient world, the Middle Ages, the new time, the history of the USSR, the history of colonial and oppressed peoples. Bubnov said, maybe not the USSR, but the history of the peoples of Russia? Stalin says no , the history of the USSR, the Russian people in the past gathered other nations, he started the same gathering now, and then, by the way, he said that the Pokrovsky scheme was not a Marxist scheme, and all the trouble went from the times of Pokrovsky influence. " As the publisher of archival documents of that period, M.V. Zelenov, Stalin was preparing for war and understood that it was necessary to prepare for her and the mass historical consciousness, for which it was necessary to form a new historical ideology, covering the population of the country of draft age, i.e. students and high school students. It was more convenient to do this through school textbooks and university history departments. The figure of Pokrovsky was not replaced by any other authoritative historian; it was replaced by the figure of Stalin. The result of the reform was justified in the war years: the authorities were able to form such an ideology, such an understanding of patriotism, which united all peoples and nationalities in the struggle against fascism. With a change in the mass historical consciousness through cinema and literature, the measures taken gave the desired effect.

As always, reforms were accompanied by a change of carriers of old ideas to carriers of new ideas. If in 1929 – 1930 the old professorship was repressed, then in 1934 – 1936. Representatives of the Pokrovsky School were repressed. Course change in 1938 – 1939 also led to new repressions, because Stalin thought personalistic: a new ideology should be carried out by new people.

At the same time, it is necessary to make one remark: Stalin's position should not be idealized in this regard. It would be wrong to consider Stalin a Russophile or Russophobe. He was what he himself called himself a natsmen for a long time.

It should be borne in mind that the concept of autonomization expressed by Stalin during the formation of the USSR (a single and politically indivisible Russia) should be interpreted least of all as russcentrism, and even more so as Russophilism.

No, of course, Stalin was never a Russophile (although a Russophobe, too). The Secretary General has always been guided by political expediency in his behavior. He has always been, and at the same time, felt himself to be a representative of a small people, who joined (joined) to a great nation and to a great country.

That is, Joseph Dzhugashvili with his mother’s milk perceived as given from above that Russia is a great world power, and the Russian people is a state-forming ethnic substance that for many centuries managed to organize a state with a culture (spiritual, material, intellectual, household) of world importance, and on the basis of this culture, this people (Russian) united dozens of other peoples and their cultures around themselves, without destroying and destroying these past, but, as far as possible, saving them.

As natsmen, Joseph Dzhugashvili keenly felt his Georgian identity, loved his people, which was manifested in his youthful poems, but at the same time he did not reject either the Russian people or the Russian culture. Moreover, already in a revolutionary environment, differing from his inner circle with a deep mind and clear consciousness, he understood that the only (and main) factor ensuring the existence of this enormous education - the Russian Empire - was always the Russian people playing a state-forming role. Unlike Lenin, he understood this very well and therefore advocated the preservation of this people themselves and the form of their natural existence - the Russian state in its unity and indivisibility.

In the newest Russian historiography, there are lovers to assert that Lenin’s Russophobic view of the historical role of the Russian people is not at all Leninist, and this, they say, Trotsky misled him and even it was Trotsky who allegedly tampered with the latest accusations against the “Russians” bullie. "

But the point, of course, is not in speculative attempts to "rehabilitate" the leader of the world proletariat in his Russophobic positions at any cost. You need to analyze facts and only facts. And the latter show that the Stalinist concept of “autonomization” was overthrown by Lenin with a well-defined intention, and the Soviet Union was deliberately created with a colossal power of a mine embedded in its organizational and political foundation, a mine that sooner or later should have torn off, and Russia as a single whole state of the Russian nation to destroy. This mine exploded through 67 years after the death of Ulyanov-Lenin.

But Stalin in politics has always remained a cold pragmatist. When in order to achieve one political goal, which he himself formulated for himself, it was necessary to increase the role of the Russian people — he did it. When it seemed to him that the time had come to do the opposite - he did.

So, in May 1944, Stalin unexpectedly for all gathers in the Kremlin leading historians, sets them the task of developing a new history textbook of the USSR and keeps all this fraternity in Moscow until September. It would seem, why is it all of a sudden? There is a war, the country is choking in the grip of hunger and over-tension from the need to build up all types of weapons, the hardest negotiations with the Anglo-American allies are about opening a second front in Europe, and the leader was suddenly interested in the problems of teaching history. This closed (and it would be more correct to say secret) months-long meeting of historians in the Kremlin, in which all the main ideologists of the CPSU (b) took part, is still covered with an aura of mystery and mystery.

To directly supervise this secret meeting, Stalin on the night of July 12, 1944, suddenly summoned A. Zhdanov from Leningrad. Judging by the archival documents now open, not only Zhdanov, but also none of the staff ideologists of the Central Committee, who led this meeting, could not understand what the leader wanted from them. Stalin himself did not reveal his cards. Apparently, I didn’t want to say openly that we just need to change the accents in covering Soviet history and put at the forefront in the development and strengthening of the Soviet Union, the collective and unifying role of non-Russian, as it was in the official ideology from 1934 of the year, but of the Soviet people. Directly the leader will say about it later, after the war. And especially he will actively begin to implement this thesis after 1948, when the Leningrad Affair begins to unfold.

He will need this in order to introduce another thesis into the minds of citizens of the USSR: in 1941 – 1945, the Red Army soldiers defended not “Mother Russia”, as he told Churchill in 1942, but the Soviet system, that is, he created , Stalin, the political regime.
Zhdanov, in 1944, if he understood something, nevertheless, judging by his behavior, he was unable to reverse himself and write directly in the meeting’s draft resolution that all merits in the development of the USSR belong not to the Russian, but to the Soviet person ...

As you can see, it was not by chance that one of the Stalinist people's commissars, Vyacheslav Molotov, was already deeply post factum; in 1980, he was forced to admit: "The Communist Party could not solve the Russian question, that is, what should be the status of the RSFSR and the Russian nation in the USSR."
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/territoriya_istorii/stalin_rusofil_ili_rusofob_409.htm
213 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 12 July 2016 18: 45
    +23
    It was possible to repulse such an attack only if the strong social unity of Soviet society was maintained. And what power could provide such unity? Only the Russian national element, whose share in the total population of the USSR was about 70%. But in order for the Russians to take such a role consciously, they needed to be informed that it was they who were the leading social force in Soviet society

    Stalin understood this. And I realized very quickly ... The current authorities are trying not to think about it. Or do not want ... Or do not know how ...
    1. Khariton
      Khariton 12 July 2016 19: 02
      +44
      You cannot vulgarize Stalin ... Since Russians are humiliated all over the world, under Stalin there would not have been! He was a statesman ... And he resolved national issues harshly! National culture, etc. developed ... Nationalism-separatism was severely punished! Peace and cohesion was in the USSR! And in the world, such tactics of the USSR had a huge impact .. They looked at us and wondered how such a huge country with 100 different nationalities lived in peace and was still developing rapidly .. The Russians were of course a "cementing nation" ( but no one knew about this) It was not accepted to stick out as a nation ... WE WERE A SOVIET PEOPLE and were terribly proud of it !!!! And now there is blood and deceit and the plunder of the nationalities of the former USSR by the West .. Russia is holding on! hi
      1. PKK
        PKK 12 July 2016 19: 18
        +22
        Stalin was so many goals above all politicians and business executives that no one is still able to understand and evaluate his policies and activities.
        1. Teberii
          Teberii 12 July 2016 19: 35
          +5
          Stalin Russophobe or Russophile, he is a statesman.
          1. moskowit
            moskowit 12 July 2016 19: 51
            +18
            Stalin is the great Patriot of his Motherland! A man who devoted his life to gathering into a single whole the Great Russian multinational empire, which was split into parts by the efforts of the "rootless cosmopolitans". He collected, strengthened and brought to power in all spheres of human activity. Stalin's merit in creating a bipolar, parity world, in which each state found its place ... hi
            1. Inok10
              Inok10 12 July 2016 21: 34
              +13
              Quote: moskowit
              Stalin the great Patriot of his homeland!

              ... what has the Motherland for him within the borders of the Russian Empire, and even more ... he did not forgive 1905, the Kuriles were cut off for the most "samurai, do not spoil", Sakhalin is 100% of the USSR, Port Arthur returned the USSR Navy to the ranks .. the whole of Eastern Europe was under control, Finland not only did not say the word NATO aloud, but was even afraid to think about it ... JV Stalin perfectly understood the importance of the Kaliningrad region and now this has been confirmed, imagine if it were given away as Khrushchev had suggested would the Lithuanian SSR? ... A man with a capital letter, bow at the feet in Russian, as from the centuries to come ... his ideology was separated from the economy ... he understood perfectly well that it was not the business of the pastry chef to sharpen his boots, the trouble would then be ... which was confirmed in 1991 ... hi
              1. Tatyana
                Tatyana 12 July 2016 22: 09
                +1
                Stalin very well understood the situation in the country, well knew those who and why made the revolution. The Russian question arose in full growth not only in the 1917 year, but also under Gorbachev, then under Yeltsin, etc. Here is what was written about the Russian question in the Russian Federation in 1995.

                The development of SOVIET Russia, the world's first socialist state, was twofold - controversial - in nature.
                On the one hand, the Russian people, who believed in the communist idea of ​​the Bolshevik-Leninists, and, being the bearer of a sovereign mentality, really built up socialism on all fronts of social construction throughout the country as a whole of its multinational homeland. As a matter of fact, he had no choice but to do anything. But at the same time, on the other hand, in the former tsarist national suburbs, where feudal relations still prevailed and there was no own national proletariat, power was gained from the Bolshevik-Leninists and under their control by the petty national bourgeoisie and former local feudal lords. National industry was built by the hands of the Russian and Russian-speaking peoples. Moreover, everything that was truly created national during the years of Soviet power in the once backward tsarist national suburbs - national republics - is only the local national party and Soviet bureaucracy, as well as the national creative intelligentsia that serves it (social scientists, writers, artists etc.). This national party and Soviet intelligentsia objectively retained the national bourgeois-feudal mentality not only in relation to their own working people, but also in relation to the Russians who came to “hunch on them” up to the time of the so-called Gorbachev “new thinking”.
                Thus, national problems in the Soviet Union were not only from the very beginning of Soviet power, but also had a national-bourgeois class character in relation to the Russian people. The counter-bourgeois coup in the USSR as a whole only raised national bourgeois deformations that had already taken place from the bottom to the surface during the construction of socialism in Russia, which the Soviet leadership tried not to publicize.
                The question arises: representatives of what nationality initially and during the period of “perestroika” led this process of moving away from the model of classical socialism and why?
                To answer this question, just turn to the documents.
              2. Mareman Vasilich
                Mareman Vasilich 12 July 2016 22: 33
                -3
                Kamrad, the author approaches from a bastard point of view. He separates Lenin from Stalin. This is false, this is fundamentally false. This is the principle of N. Starikov. First, Stalin hit Lenin, separate one from the other. And then slander them one by one. Therefore, Lenin and Stalin are one, one continued the work of the other. The author of nichrome did not read either one or the other. I haven’t reached Lenin completely yet, but I read Stalin for the second time, and it is clearly shown that Stalin was the continuation of Lenin’s cause. Marxism-Leninism.
                1. oldseaman1957
                  oldseaman1957 13 July 2016 03: 04
                  +4
                  Quote: Mareman Vasilich
                  I haven’t reached Lenin completely yet, but I read Stalin for the second time, and it is clearly shown that Stalin was the continuation of Lenin’s cause. Marxism-Leninism.
                  - Stalin is a great pragmatist, and that says it all. He swept aside all the superficial husk of rr-revolutionary ideas, which in their essence were delusional and, for the most part, harmful. He perfectly understood that the state must have a core - the RUSSIAN PEOPLE, which the "genius" Ilyich called "a great-power trash". And he was right. - We are looking at what is happening with the former Soviet republics, who rejected the Russians. - Take the same Ukraine, in which, even under the USSR, gradually, in schools, the Ukrainian nation was elevated and isolated over the "contaminated" Tatar-Mongol invasion of the "Finno-Ugric" Russian. And what did they achieve in the end?
                2. Mavrikiy
                  Mavrikiy 13 July 2016 09: 56
                  0
                  Quote: Mareman Vasilich
                  Kamrad, the author approaches from a bastard point of view. He separates Lenin from Stalin. This is false, this is fundamentally false. This is the principle of N. Starikov. First, Stalin hit Lenin, separate one from the other. And then slander them one by one. Therefore, Lenin and Stalin are one, one continued the work of the other. The author of nichrome did not read either one or the other. I haven’t reached Lenin completely yet, but I read Stalin for the second time, and it is clearly shown that Stalin was the continuation of Lenin’s cause. Marxism-Leninism.

                  Read Stalin carefully. And look into Lenin.
                  At the initial stage, everyone was blamed for the world revolution, and in Russia - permanent.
                  For Lenin-Trotsky, it was brushwood. And Stalin, maybe not right away, but began to build socialism in a single country. Hence the discrepancies with Lenin, but always made himself a faithful Leninist. There was such a time. He is the heir to Lenin and K.
                  The author is unambiguous (+). Well, what did God endure, Stalin endured, and you endure "for the society." And it’s written well.
                  1. Mareman Vasilich
                    Mareman Vasilich 13 July 2016 10: 10
                    -2
                    It was you who inattentively read Stalin. BUT you carefully read Starikov. It is strange to see people who live in this era and begin, over time, to teach the lives of those people who made decisions in real, their environment. This is now divine mice divorced like shit.
                    Hmm, it’s hard in the country with brains.
                  2. Verdun
                    Verdun 13 July 2016 16: 06
                    +1
                    Quote: Mavrikiy
                    Read Stalin carefully. And look into Lenin.
                    At the initial stage, everyone was blamed for the world revolution, and in Russia - permanent.

                    He looked in. And that’s what happened.
                    “The unevenness of economic and political development is the unconditional law of capitalism. It follows that the victory of socialism is possible initially in a few or even in one, separately taken, capitalist country. The victorious proletariat of this country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized socialist production, would have stood up against the rest of the capitalist world, attracting the oppressed classes of other countries, raising an uprising against the capitalists in them, even speaking out if necessary with military force against the exploiting classes and their states. ” (LENIN, MSS, ON THE SLOGAN OF THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE, 1915, v. 26, p. 354, 355)
                    Or more:
                    Stressing the historical regularity of the October Socialist Revolution, Lenin pointed out that in Russia there is “everything necessary and sufficient” for building a complete socialist society (LENIN, PSS, ON COOPERATION, 1922, v. 45, p. 370)
                    It always amazes me how some people try to refute Lenin's ideas without even taking the trouble to read his works.
                3. PHANTOM-AS
                  PHANTOM-AS 13 July 2016 10: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: Mareman Vasilich
                  the author approaches from a bastard point of view. He separates Lenin from Stalin. This is false, this is fundamentally false. This is the principle of N. Starikov. First, Stalin hit Lenin, separate one from the other. And then slander them one by one.

                  -----
                  Vasilić,You are absolutely right!
                  The separation of the Lenin-Stalin case and the opposition of their personalities is a bourgeois weapon against the dictatorship of the proletariat, Bolshevism and Soviet power.
                  Dr. Goebbels was an ardent conductor of this hypothesis, and all the rest were only followers.

                  And you gentlemen minushers, read Stalin "
                  The greatness of Lenin, as the successor of Marx and Engels, in that
                  consists that he was never a slave to letters in Marxism. In their
                  he followed the instructions of Marx, who repeatedly said that
                  Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action. Lenin knew this and, strictly
                  distinguishing between the letter and the essence of Marxism, he never considered Marxism a dogma,
                  but tried to apply Marxism, as the main method, in the new environment
                  capitalist development. That is precisely the greatness of Lenin that he
                  openly and honestly, without hesitation, raised the question of the need for a new
                  formulas about the possibility of the victory of the proletarian revolution in individual countries are not
                  fearing that the opportunists of all countries will cling to the old formula,
                  trying to cover up his opportunist cause with the name of Marx and Engels.
                  ("On the Social-Democratic Deviation in Our Party" v. 8, p. 249.)

                  A person standing in our positions must speak in a firm voice and
                  adamant. In this regard, Lenin is a real mountain eagle.
                  ("Letter from Kutaisi" vol. 1 p. 56)
                  I.V. Stalin.
                4. VadimK
                  VadimK 13 July 2016 11: 34
                  0
                  Starikov denigrates Stalin? Here I lied so lied!
              3. captain
                captain 13 July 2016 12: 02
                +1
                I read the comments of the forum participants and it seems to me that they did not understand that the article is not about good or bad Stalin. An article about the Leninist nationality policy that led to the collapse of the USSR. Lenin was a Russophobe; in his works he insulted and humiliated Russians. He called them Derzhimords ("On the National Pride of the Great Russians") and Great Russian trash. He suggested that all territorial issues be solved at the expense of the Russians ("On the question of nationalities or" autonomization "). He wrote in his works;" .. the death of several million Russian peasants is nothing compared to the world revolution .. " offered to shoot hostages from among the bourgeois and the intelligentsia.
                1. Outsider V.
                  Outsider V. 14 July 2016 10: 04
                  0
                  I just cannot agree with this assessment of Lenin's views. For example, here is a quote from the above-mentioned article "On the National Adequacy of the Great Russians" (1914):


                  "Is the feeling of national pride alien to us, Great Russian class-conscious proletarians? Of course not! We love our language and our homeland, we work most of all to raise its working masses (that is, 9/10 of its population) to a class-conscious life of democrats and socialists. It hurts us most of all to see and feel what violence, oppression and humiliation are subjected to our beautiful homeland by the tsarist executioners, nobles and capitalists. We are proud that these violence provoked a rebuff from our midst, from among the Great Russians, that this milieu Radishchev, the Decembrists, the raznochin revolutionaries of the 70s, that the Great Russian working class created in 1905 a powerful revolutionary party of the masses, that the Great Russian muzhik began at the same time to become a democrat, began to overthrow the priest and the landowner. "

                  And where is Russophobia here?
          2. Orionvit
            Orionvit 12 July 2016 21: 30
            +14
            Stalin always called himself Russian of Georgian nationality.
            But in order for the Russians to take such a role consciously, they needed to be informed that it was they who were the leading social force in Soviet society.
            And what no one knew about this? Lenin did not have a drop of Russian blood, especially Trotsky, and indeed practically none of the leaders of the then Soviet Russia. The Russians have always been the driving force and the core on which everything was held. If someone doesn't understand, face it. After the collapse, all the "proud nation states" immediately turned into beggars, that is, in those who they were before the revolution. For some reason, without the Russians, it doesn't work. All these newly appeared "democracies" and "khanates", in their striving to serve the West and bark at Russia, cause nothing but laughter, bewilderment, or even disgust in a normal person. I agree that there are a lot of problems in Russia, but this is not because the Russians are "not like that", but simply the result of a banal betrayal of the so-called "elite", whose ethnic composition is also very interesting. In general, Trotsky's cause continues to live.
            1. Rarog
              Rarog 12 July 2016 21: 51
              +3
              I fully support. In hell, these women will burn (Lenin, Trotsky and others like them), who have torn apart Russia and the Russian People then, and continue to do so now.
              1. Mareman Vasilich
                Mareman Vasilich 12 July 2016 22: 27
                -5
                What do you even know about Lenin? Only juvenile stupid people hear the ringing and do not know where it is.
                1. Rarog
                  Rarog 12 July 2016 22: 48
                  +9
                  So I understand in front of me a connoisseur who will enlighten me about the division of the Russian People "dreamed" to me into three parts (the results of these "dreamed" decisions we now observe in Novorossia in the rest of Little Russia), will tell about the "love" of the Lenins and Trotsky to my People , about the "care" of these comrades about the kulaks who fed Russia, the Cossacks who defended it, etc. etc. Well, let's see what you yourself know about Lenin.
                2. gavrosh.ru
                  gavrosh.ru 13 July 2016 03: 56
                  +6
                  And in our country, quite a while already, very little is known about anyone - the official position is blurred to complete absence, to read the works of historical figures without special training is not an easy thing. even School Textbooks - finally the Yeltsin Center (at best) or a strange mud, where neither Lenin nor the Russians were.
                  But how May 9, without reverence for the name of the country's leader at that time, passes — I personally do not understand this. Churchill and Roosevelt commemorated unlike more often in the context of the Second World War ....
                  1. weksha50
                    weksha50 13 July 2016 09: 11
                    +1
                    Quote: gavrosh.ru
                    the official position is blurred to complete absence, to read the works of historical figures without special training is not an easy thing. even



                    Well, here you can add one more thing: if you take all the MSS of the works of both Lenin and Stalin, and study them by years of research (which the average layman can’t do), then they are somewhat different from each other ... Something falls out, something (some sayings) fits quietly ...
                    Everything is according to the "laws" of the historical chronicle - depending on the authorities, the approach to coverage of both the history itself and the activities of individuals changes ...
                3. Outsider V.
                  Outsider V. 14 July 2016 10: 07
                  0
                  I am joining. They did not read Lenin (and Stalin), but they were very scolding.
              2. Svidetel 45
                Svidetel 45 12 July 2016 22: 58
                +1
                Well, he had read Slanidze or Mlechin, and now believes that he can judge Lenin or Stalin.
                1. Rarog
                  Rarog 12 July 2016 23: 02
                  +3
                  I didn't say a word about Stalin. I will say more, I respect Stalin. And I hate any liberal "slanids" that Lenin and Trotsky, for me, all these Russophobes are the same to whatever political trends they ascribe themselves to - they are my enemies.
          3. German Titov
            German Titov 12 July 2016 23: 49
            +4
            Correct a little, with your permission. Stalin is not a "Russophobe or a Russophile" = this is a Human Personality in history.
        2. vovanpain
          vovanpain 12 July 2016 20: 59
          +22
          Quote: PKK
          Stalin was so many goals above all politicians and business executives that no one is still able to understand and evaluate his policies and activities.

          It is unfortunate that such people are born once every 1000 years. request
          1. Drzed
            Drzed 13 July 2016 01: 55
            +3
            I can’t vote yet, but your post is a plus
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 12 July 2016 19: 22
        +2
        Article -, on the basis of several theses, the author draws completely illogical conclusions, especially when contrasting Lenin with Stalin. Yes, they had their differences, but by no means on national issues. In fact, both of them were cosmopolitans (under one unifying idea). Otherwise, the Comintern could not even have arisen in thoughts. Their main messages did not allow many small nations to disappear and assimilate, which, unfortunately, they often do not remember about it now.
        1. Asadullah
          Asadullah 12 July 2016 19: 58
          +9
          Article -, on the basis of several theses, the author draws completely illogical conclusions


          Not even the theses, but the statements of third, if not fifth, persons in the system of party building. As in any construction, marriage cannot be avoided. But marriage does not appreciate the fundamental things. The author’s cunning in another, in the wake of a new, old love for Stalin, he wants to usurp the National Bolsheviks. As an election trend, or something. Although I also see a lot from the National Bolsheviks in Stalin, this is different. Stalin used everything to strengthen his power, much, both the International and the apostates from it, if in his years rock-and-roll covered the planet in the seventies, he would have crowned him in proletarian music. This is his difference from the Politburo. Cunning gives birth to flexibility, and the mind, methods of using both.

          The ideology of the article is completely lower than the plinth, because then you need to return to the primary sources not only of Marx and Engels, but also of Kropotkin and Bakunin. And stupidly pull Stalin out of context and wrap in a candy wrapper of the National Bolsheviks, as it is primitive, IMHO.
          1. starogil
            starogil 12 July 2016 21: 14
            -1
            Frank article - foal.
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 12 July 2016 21: 02
          +5
          Quote: Vladimirets
          Otherwise, the Comintern could not even have arisen in thoughts.

          Lenin created it in 1919.
          Stalin dismissed him in 1943.
        3. Svidetel 45
          Svidetel 45 12 July 2016 23: 12
          +9
          But it was Stalin who "slammed" the Comintern, so that Stalin, with all his attempts, can in no way be called a cosmopolitan. A typical example of a cosmopolitan after Stalin is Khrushchev, a follower of Trotsky is faithful, who, according to the precepts of the latter ("Russia, a bundle of brushwood to incite the world revolution") squandered the economic potential of Russia, each Mumba-Yumba was driven material and financial resources if only he declared himself a "Marxist" , gave the territory of Russia - Crimea to Ukraine, offered Kaliningrad to Lithuania, the islands of the Kuril ridge of Japan. And under Stalin, if they did provide assistance, then on a limited scale and with a concrete useful result for the USSR.
          1. Sergej1972
            Sergej1972 13 July 2016 23: 29
            0
            Stalin was just pondering the question of including the former Königsberg and the region around it in either the Lithuanian SSR or the Byelorussian SSR. After conversations with Belarusian leaders and the leader of the Communist Party (b) of Lithuania, Snechkus rejected this idea. As a result, the Lithuanian SSR received only Klaipeda (Memel) with its environs.
          2. Sergej1972
            Sergej1972 13 July 2016 23: 34
            0
            In fairness, it should be mentioned that under Khrushchev the Karelian-Finnish SSR was abolished, and its territory was annexed (more precisely, returned) to the RSFSR as the Karelian ASSR. Plus, small adjustments were made (on the scale of several village councils) of the border between Kazakhstan and the RSFSR in favor of the RSFSR.
        4. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 13 July 2016 10: 11
          0
          Quote: Vladimirets
          Article -, on the basis of several theses, the author draws completely illogical conclusions, especially when contrasting Lenin with Stalin. Yes, they had their differences, but by no means on national issues. In fact, both of them were cosmopolitans (under one unifying idea). Otherwise, the Comintern could not even have arisen in thoughts. Their main messages did not allow many small nations to disappear and assimilate, which, unfortunately, they often do not remember about it now.

          Stalin was not a cosmopolitan, no need to rave. He created a specific state. And the Comintern - you see who created it and who liquidated it, you may not be putting Lenin and Stalin side by side.
        5. Outsider V.
          Outsider V. 14 July 2016 10: 13
          0
          Do not forget that in 1937 many leaders of the Comintern were subjected to repression, and in 1943 it was completely dissolved.
      3. masiya
        masiya 12 July 2016 19: 41
        +7
        "It was not customary to stick out as a nation ... WE WERE A SOVIET PEOPLE and were terribly proud of it !!!! And now blood and deceit are going on and the plunder of the nationalities of the former USSR by the West .. Russia is holding on!" - That's for sure, everything was said correctly, there was no difference between Georgians, Uzbek Yakuts, etc., we talked with everyone on an equal footing, they got married and got married without national signs, how wild it was to see, young guys, refugees in our Gorky from Azerbaijan, he is an Azerbaijani soldier, she is an Armenian housewife, they fled from Sumgait, where they were hidden in the basements, told the horror ... what was happening there, miraculously survived, here is the marked politician in action ...
      4. not main
        not main 13 July 2016 01: 04
        +2
        Quote: Chariton
        The Russians were, of course, a "cementing nation" (but no one knew about it) It was not accepted to stick out as a nation ... WE WERE A SOVIET PEOPLE and were terribly proud of it !!!!

        Yes, we were a SOVIET PEOPLE! But at the everyday level, slogans like: "we feed you" were constantly heard, we see the result now!
      5. Drzed
        Drzed 13 July 2016 01: 49
        +3
        National culture, etc. evolved ...
        But at the same time, there were 15 Academies of Sciences in the USSR, of which 14 were republican and Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
        Guess what was not
      6. gav6757
        gav6757 13 July 2016 02: 36
        +4
        Stalin did a lot for his country and his people, I don’t know if anyone could do more!
        If Joseph Vissarionovich had been at the helm of the state today, not one would have opened her dirty jaws to my homeland.
        Inside the country there would be no corrupt officials and United Russia "telling us the truth" and declaring that we have an average salary in the country of 20-25 thousand rubles (Neverov is the leader of the United Russia faction in the Duma).
      7. Ostwest
        Ostwest 13 July 2016 07: 52
        +2
        It looks like a frontal attack on Stalin, perpetrated by a variety of Russophobes and liberals, failed. Now they have decided to act thinner.
        We should not just forget that all their attempts are aimed at only one thing: the destruction of Russia as an independent and sovereign state. I think that these bacilli, which penetrated into the healthy body of Russia, have created the necessary set of antibodies that can not only reject them, but also neutralize them.
        The example of Ukraine in this matter is very instructive. It is especially funny to quote the nonsense of all the academicians of Pokrovsky that there is no Russian nation, there are remnants of finougres, Mordovians and Chukchi, united in the imperialistic batch that today is a meme in Ukraine.
        But Vova was worse than Vlasov. Another that bastard. Chubais on the harm brought to our country is complete nonsense.
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 12 July 2016 19: 24
      +59
      1942 year Winter. The war is in full swing. Germans rod forward. At the rate of Supreme Commander - a scheduled meeting. Finally, the nasty and not very clear questions to those present marshals and generals are discussed. Disguise. No, the generals know something about disguise - in the winter - white bathrobes, in the summer - khaki. But the Germans are somehow more interesting. Their airfields are not too visible from the air, and the tanks for some reason, are spotty and striped, as is the form of uniforms in some units and units.

      Comrade Stalin demands that the masking be dealt with urgently and closely, and not anyhow, but strictly scientifically, with serious justification. Like, the idea that green is green is inconspicuous, it does not go down. This is a hedgehog clear. Need something more versatile. Stalin is annoyed. She knocks on the table. Requires immediate action. Generals scratching their heads. Offer to copy the enemy's disguise. Supreme enraged. He needs principle and clarity. How it works and why. And who can do this?

      Carefully squeaking throat, the word takes some freshly baked generalishko. He is from intellectuals. Maybe the parents are scientists, and maybe he himself, in his past life, managed to move science. The general timidly and confusedly reports that there was such a professor Shvanvich at Leningrad University. So he, at one time, headed the department of entomology, until it was dispersed in the early thirties, and was engaged in patronizing the coloring of the wings of butterflies. Maybe he will fit? Stalin hesitates vaguely and demands urgently, today, to bring this Shvanvich to Moscow and deliver him directly to him.

      The generals relieved themselves from the chairs and run to execute orders. Scapegoat found. Even two. Because the initiative, you know ...

      Call to Saratov, where the university was evacuated. No Schwanwich is there and was not. Someone says that he stayed in Leningrad. And there now, of course, the blockade.

      Special flight is ready in twenty minutes. The plane flies into the blockade city. Schwanwich found at home in bed. He does not get up. Chicken broth in the entomologist poured directly on the plane.

      At night he is already at Stalin's. The commander-in-chief peers incredulously at the overgrown face of the professors goner and expounds the essence of the task. A little nodledavshiesya Shvanvich attentively listens and, it seems, even understands something.

      - Well, what, Professor, can help the army and the front?

      “I can,” Shvanvich breathes in response.

      - What does tebe need for this, professor?

      - Three days and two artists ...

      Three days later, Boris Shvanvich reports to the entire Headquarters. He avoids such tricky words as "mimicry" and "the principle of stereomorphism."

      Everything is simple, elegant and affordable. The basis of the concept, if in a nutshell - projecting and highlighting to paint in a dark, shaded and concave - to highlight. The rest is details. Artists, under the guidance of Schwanchich, have already illustrated everything. Seasons and seasons. For clarity, on the table are three-dimensional plaster models, painted so that their shape completely falls apart and flattened.

      Schwanwicz speaks of a “dismembering effect” and general patterns of disguise.

      The generals and marshals are sitting with their mouths wide open.

      A year later, Shvanvich again at a reception at Stalin:

      - Ask what you want, professor ... Good job.

      Shvanvich thinks literally for a second:

      - I want the department of entomology. She was. But now it is not.

      From 1944 to 1955, almost until his death, Boris Shvanvich was in charge of his favorite department.

      Buried at Bolsheokhtinsky. On the grave there is a monument depicting the plan of the structure of the pattern of the wings of daytime butterflies. And - not a single tank. And he is a tank, there is. Just - not visible.

      SOURCES Anatoly Polezhaev
      1. Yura
        Yura 12 July 2016 20: 03
        +13
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        1942 year Winter.

        Andrey Yuryevich, this is a post, I am delighted! The longer you live, the more you understand how little you know - it's about me.
      2. Asadullah
        Asadullah 12 July 2016 20: 06
        +8
        1942 year ...


        Andrew, thank you .... did not know this.
      3. grandson of the hero
        grandson of the hero 12 July 2016 20: 21
        +2
        Thank you very much! Pluses are not enough to thank.
      4. Stas57
        Stas57 12 July 2016 20: 30
        +7
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        1942 year. Winter. The war is in full swing.

        beautiful legend, but no more.

        I advise you to start with
        "Camouflage of Red Army tanks 1930-1945"
        http://www.booksgid.com/hardware/1210-kamufljazh-tankov-krasnojj-armii-1930.html

        http://www.litmir.co/bd/?b=167991





        in fact-
        But actually, in 1941, at the geological and geographical branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the Commission for the Geological and Geographic Services of the Red Army was created, which included Academician A. Fersman - the head of the commission, Academician A. Frumkin, professors I. Gerasimov, K. Markov, E. Lavrenko, Yu. Liverovsky, M. Krylov, B. Zalessky, etc.

        Within the framework of this commission, there was a special group for disguising airfields. From the results of the work of this group, later the birth of landscape science. The group was supervised by the famous geologist Evgeny Krinov, a meteorite researcher. Since meteorites are mainly searched by ring structures, he worked best with aerial photography.

        Also in this group also worked psychologists - Boris Mikhailovich Teplov (head of the laboratory of visual perceptions of the camouflage department of the Military Engineering
        scientific and testing ground of the Red Army) and Krikor Kekcheev. They were engaged in both camouflage and night vision, as well as the perception of pilots. Teplov also later studied the psychology of commanders and officers - a decision-making system, mistakes, psychological stability, etc.

        So if Boris Schwanwich made his contribution, then as one of many.

        In general, this bike once again shows how little people know the history of our science, how it was used in general and especially in war

        http://megakhuimyak.livejournal.com/740735.html
      5. vovanpain
        vovanpain 12 July 2016 20: 36
        +9
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        1942 year Winter

        Andrey Yuryevich, I’m taking off my hat to you, thank you. Regards hi
      6. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 12 July 2016 21: 04
        +3
        According to the recollections of contemporaries, the top Soviet leaders addressed ordinary citizens in conversations with "you", extremely politely and correctly.
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 13 July 2016 23: 23
          0
          I fully admit that the story itself took place. But it seems to me that I.V. is unlikely Stalin communicated with the professor in the manner of a criminal godfather.
      7. Starik72
        Starik72 12 July 2016 23: 03
        0
        Andrey Yuryevich !!! Thank you so much for YOUR comment!
    3. Saburov
      Saburov 12 July 2016 19: 34
      +14
      Well, it’s impossible to call Stalin’s Russophobe exactly what he thought and wrote about the Russian People, for some reason he is actively silent.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. siberalt
      siberalt 12 July 2016 19: 54
      +7
      "... the secretary general began to rock the boat ..."
      Under Stalin, there was no post of General Secretary of either the CPSU (b) or the CPSU, named at the 19th Congress shortly before the death of the leader in 1952. This is our "historical science" laughing A lot of "clumsy" got divorced, however.
      1. Turkir
        Turkir 12 July 2016 21: 00
        +7
        The post of general secretary was established on April 3, 1922 by the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (B.), Elected by the XI Congress of the RCP (b.), As an apparatus position in the secretariat of the Central Committee of the party - however, the corresponding charter was not amended.
        The first party leader to take this position was I.V. Stalin. In 1953, instead of the post of general secretary, the post of first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee was introduced, which in 1966 was again renamed the general secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and officially enshrined in the charter of the Communist Party
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 12 July 2016 21: 15
          0
          See my comment above. The post of Secretary General from 1922 to 1934. The post of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party in September 1953 to allocate the chief of the Secretaries of the Central Committee of the CPSU. In the period from 1934 to 1953, one of the secretaries of the Central Committee was the chief, he was sometimes called unofficially the secretary general. This is Stalin, naturally. As for Khrushchev, he was unofficially abroad and among the party apparatus as the Secretary General, but not since 1953, but after he became the undisputed leader of the CPSU and the Soviet state. But officially, he was still the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. In 1966, the post of Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee was reinstated at the 23rd Congress. Then the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee was renamed the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. The presidiums of the Central Committee of the Communist Parties of the Union Republics were transformed into the Bureau of the Central Committee. And the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine was transformed into the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine. Thus, we had two Politburos - the Union and the Ukrainian.
      2. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 12 July 2016 21: 07
        0
        Such a post officially existed from 1922 to 1934, and it was occupied by just Stalin. Since 1934 he was called the secretary general unofficially. Formally, since 1934, he was one of the Secretaries of the Central Committee. The post of the Secretary General was again officially restored in 1966.
    6. Hagakure
      Hagakure 12 July 2016 20: 25
      +3
      About Stalin ..
    7. redeemer
      redeemer 12 July 2016 21: 15
      0
      this whole article is nonsense. set of words and concepts ...
      and Stalin? .. not grow up to him. not to measure it. don't understand him.
      like Russia. like a Russian person.
      Do you want to understand Russia? Riddle ...
      a matter of being.
    8. KaPToC
      KaPToC 12 July 2016 23: 48
      +3
      Quote: Chicot 1
      Stalin understood this.

      The article was supposed to be titled "Lenin Russophobe or Russophile."
    9. Pitot
      Pitot 13 July 2016 10: 52
      0
      They don’t think, therefore they don’t know how and as a result they want ....
  2. tatra
    tatra 12 July 2016 18: 47
    +18
    Stalin is a Russophile, and all Stalinophobes, including Russians, are Russophobes. All enemies of the Communists need slander against the Communists to justify their crimes against Soviet Russia / the USSR, the Soviet people, captured by the enemies of the Communists of the republics of the USSR and the peoples in them.
    There is NOT a single fact that the enemies of the communists were exposed for "crimes of communism", wherever they lie, or slander the communists, or prove that all the facts that they expose for the crimes of the communists, in all other cases, they justify or "do not notice" that their "philanthropy" in anti-Soviet propaganda is deceitful and hypocritical. The enemies of the communists have proved that for the sake of PROFIT they are ready to justify any crimes of the enemies of the communists.
    1. the villain
      the villain 12 July 2016 19: 51
      0
      Quote: tatra
      All enemies of the Communists need slander against the Communists to justify their crimes against Soviet Russia / USSR, the Soviet people

      Slander will not help them, because, as the popular saying goes: "for a thief and &% # di (lady of super-light morals) to make excuses for a long time" hi
  3. Revolver
    Revolver 12 July 2016 18: 53
    +23
    Many tried to hang all sorts of different labels on Stalin, but in fact nothing stuck except for the "personality cult." Yes, there was a cult, but there was also a personality whose scale has yet to be appreciated by history. Stalin is not any "phil", "fob", "ist", or whatever, all these terms are too small for such a person. Stalin is Stalin.
    1. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 12 July 2016 19: 00
      +16
      Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (under this name he entered and will live in our minds) was a statesman. He was a tambourine who you are (city or country man), what your merits are (a distinguished revolutionary veteran from the Leninist Guard or a freshly baked pioneer), what nationality you are and how old you are. The only question he posed was how do you perform duties at your post and do you correspond to him.
      At least all I read comes down to this.
    2. Monos
      Monos 12 July 2016 19: 39
      +19
      Quote: Nagan
      Yes, there was a cult, but there was a personality,


      There is another persistent myth about the "bloody tyranny of Stalin."
      Here is the statistics:
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 12 July 2016 21: 17
        0
        How many people were sentenced to death in the United States during this time period? And how many of them are for state crimes?
    3. the villain
      the villain 12 July 2016 19: 59
      +9
      Quote: Nagan
      Many tried to hang various labels on Stalin.

      Yes, but the labels do not hang on Stalin, because he
    4. Orionvit
      Orionvit 12 July 2016 22: 11
      +1
      We do not yet understand the greatness of Stalin's personality. Much we do not know, much is still classified, even more perverted and slandered by liberal "historians". Although he called himself a loyal Leninist all his life, until in the 30s he wiped out the "old Leninist guard" and the Trotskyists as a result of the purges, he could not normally deal with the affairs of the state. The last nail in the coffin of the world revolution, he hammered when he dismissed the Comintern. But I probably didn't clean it well. The unbeaten Trotskyists, permanent revolutionaries and especially their descendants, under liberal banners, are again trying to destroy Russia. This virus is inherited. The clearest example is the Gaidar family. Starting with the fiery revolutionary Arkady Gaidar, they went on to his descendant Yegor, who did everything to destroy the USSR, and now to Maria, who went to Ukraine and openly declared her hatred of Russia. So the worms in the head are hereditary, and when they say that an apple does not fall far from an apple tree, they mean that. Stalin knew this very well. In the meantime, he is being labeled as "bloody tyrant", "villain", "monster", it is necessary at the state level to rethink the role of JV Stalin in history. Although, the best indicator of a role in history is when a person dies and the whole country cries. My father told me that it was so, everyone cried.
      1. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 12 July 2016 23: 29
        +1
        And by the way, the well-known to all of us Yegor Gaidar and his daughter Maria have no blood relationship to the fiery revolutionary Arkady Gaidar - Arkady Gaidar was married for the second time to a Jewish woman (I don’t remember the name and surname, and I took her already with a small child , the future father of Yegor, who appropriated for himself (for obvious reasons) the name of Gaidar.
    5. Vitaly72
      Vitaly72 13 July 2016 00: 13
      -1
      Here I am, years old, but I still don’t understand the expression “cult of personality” in my head, only the cult of voodoo is spinning and “do not make a cult out of food” Oh, Bender
  4. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 12 July 2016 18: 55
    +7
    As for me now, and at any moment, in a multinational state, such as the Russian Kingdom and the Russian Empire, what the Soviet Union was, and now the Russian Federation is, this is the beginning of the poisoning of the tree of statehood. I am Russian, my friends are Ukrainians, Georgians, Yakuts, Buryats, Chechens and Ingush, and many others, people living in the Great Russian country. We and only we, together and amicably, in spite of not any differences, can and should support the bonfire of our country.
    Every nation has stories, tales, and legends boiling down to a broom. Either we will be unbending, friendly and striving for a better future together, or we will, as African princes of 14-18 centuries, trade each other for the amusement of customers.
    1. ALABAY45
      ALABAY45 12 July 2016 19: 03
      +1
      "... how African princes of the 14-18 centuries trade with each other for the amusement of buyers ..."
      Is this a direct allusion to some kind of "state" ?! Careful, colleague ... belay"I haven't died yet" .... am
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 12 July 2016 19: 08
        +3
        This is explicitly said about most of Europe, but in particular about Africa. Yes, yes - you can hide behind political correctness and a muzzle with a brick. But damn it, seriously think that the whites came on the ship and ran across Africa catching blacks?
        1. ALABAY45
          ALABAY45 12 July 2016 19: 29
          +8
          Alas, now, everything is on the contrary ... Black people come, though on boats invented by "whites" and they catch whites ... Women, mostly! wink political correctness? Ask Europe ?!
          1. Shadowcat
            Shadowcat 12 July 2016 20: 55
            -2
            Which one - spread your legs and have fun, this one.
            In fact, the old adage - how it comes around - will respond in action. In 20-40 years it will be a complete Auschwitz to them. And drove a new one.
            They don’t want to somehow remember their own - they sold their own for a bunch of beads and a bottle of fiery water. The root of evil is "They don't want to remember about ...", think over these details and draw conclusions.
            Here, honestly, (prepare your anal engines) I believe that Akhmat A. Kadyrov is in some way the hero of the current state. Yes, exactly so, especially the question of nationality raised.
            As far as I am acquainted with his biography, he, at first, spoke for the Chechens, for the Muslims of the Caucasus. Nothing of the kind - a shepherd defends his flock. But years later, he realized that defending this herd, he more strongly substituted him under the wolves and other predators. Thinking a little, he decided that it was easier for the predators to resist a larger flock and returned to us.
            (I think that many have already broken up reaching the borders of the solar system, and for the elite even to Alpha Centauri) This is the whole point - to find the root and sort it out. To put up (yes, this is the most difficult. But do not confuse humility and forgiveness. For example, take a partner from Turkey. After his apologies, did the compelled put up with the incident? Yes, because the state needs it (or does everyone want to get even more than 200?) Forgiven? Well , some jerked - yes, but most (and we will count the chickens in the fall) I hope not. The state ... I don’t think either. I hope the analogy is clear.) And continue to build on it further, it may earn mutual forgiveness.

            No, categorically, lowering me to drink.
          2. Sergej1972
            Sergej1972 12 July 2016 21: 21
            -3
            Mostly, it’s not the black who come, but the dark-skinned white. Arabs, Afghans, however, are Caucasians. They are no darker than many native French, Spaniards, and Portuguese. Blacks are commonly called blacks all over the world. Plus, sometimes they are called some of the peoples of Hindustan, whose representatives, not being Negroids, have a very dark skin color.
            1. ALABAY45
              ALABAY45 12 July 2016 22: 33
              +2
              Well, now, raped women in Germany and Sweden will feel much better ... smile Still, "dark white", not so disgusting, probably ...
    2. Orionvit
      Orionvit 12 July 2016 22: 43
      +3
      These stories about eternal friendship between peoples, tell someone else. And also stories about "great sovereign Russian chauvinism." Russians have always been distinguished by their loyalty and tolerance towards other peoples, both during the time of tsarist Russia, and especially during the times of the USSR. At least one people on the territory of the Russian Empire (as opposed to, for example, America), disappeared? On the contrary, all have retained their national identity, language, culture, and territory of residence. But after the collapse of the USSR, after the natural genocide of the Russians in almost all former national republics, after all these wars and conflicts, filth and humiliation, someone wants the Russians to pretend that nothing happened. Some nationalities, the innate kindness of the Russians, were perceived as "weakness", they made a mess at the very least, and now they are offended. All these "fraternal peoples" have already spoiled all relations so much that I hope they will not see any kindness to themselves. It was not the Russians who started it, but many in the world already see that the Russians will have to finish it. As they say, they harness for a long time, but then they go quickly.
  5. EvilLion
    EvilLion 12 July 2016 18: 59
    +1
    A bolt was successfully put on "Mother Raseya" in the First World War. Because it is impossible to separate this very "Mother Russia" from the state that it forms; by the beginning of the 20th century, this state had turned from a mother into an evil stepmother. Similarly, they put on the USSR with its ideology, since as a state it ceased to meet the demands of the population. Yes, then it was really bad, but I don't really want to go back to the USSR of the 80s. So in 41-45 they defended not only "Mother Russia", but also the existing system, the achievements of which are still used by the whole world.

    Lenin could have thought of anything, the fact is that the Republic of Ingushetia purged the war and, after the tsar’s abdication, was already falling apart with the proclamation of sovereignty wherever possible, Lenin nevertheless collected these pieces. And yes, without Donbass Ukraine would now be like big Moldova in the center of Eastern Europe and all would not care for it. Such is the opposite of being, namely, a piece of historical Great Russia, stuck in the Ukrainian SSR, now allows us to count on getting to the borders of the 1939 year, when the final liquidation of the remnants of the Ukrainian state will take place.

    Further, Lenin died in the 1924 and since then nothing has worried him in the Mausoleum, and Stalin then had to solve concrete problems of the state’s survival for 30 for years, and not philosophize about the equality of the Russian engineer from Leningrad and the shepherd in the mountains of the Caucasus.

    Well, about the RSFSR, Molotov is right, after Stalin she was assigned the task of feeding everyone, as a result, at first she was a beggar, and then the former "fraternal" republics became beggars, when it turned out that there was no one to work except for the Russians.

    And why? Yes, because it was openly stating the truth that the unity in the unification of nations that are so different in number and level of education cannot even smell.
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 12 July 2016 21: 24
      +1
      The Ukrainian SSR included not parts of historical Great Russia, but parts of historical New Russia and Slobozhanshchina.
  6. newcomer
    newcomer 12 July 2016 19: 00
    +2
    Stalin said: “after my death, on my grave, enemies will make a garbage bin. but the wind of history will ruthlessly smash it.
    1. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 12 July 2016 19: 05
      +1
      Post - visual aid "How to make a turnip."
      It seems to be on the topic, it seems, and on the mood of the majority, but in essence nothing to do with the discussion. Just for the truth and quotation quoted with a clever look.
      Mine is for you, colleague.
  7. Basil50
    Basil50 12 July 2016 19: 02
    +3
    In comparison with AND IN STALIN, all subsequent ones are petty and insignificant, hence the attempts to downgrade the scale of the individual. It’s a pity that they don’t strive to develop the country, but try to justify themselves and their failures by inventing * sins * for the great builders VLADIMIR ILYICH ULYANOV-LENIN and JOSEPH VISSARIONICH Dzhugashvili-Stalin ..
    1. ava09
      ava09 12 July 2016 19: 40
      +1
      The scum that erupted to power after the death of Stalin had as its main goal the destruction of the USSR, the blackening of the Personality - an instrument to achieve the goal ...
  8. Dr. Bormental
    Dr. Bormental 12 July 2016 19: 03
    +4
    Well, everything will begin now !!! wassat I feel that we are once again on the eve of a grand skirmish !!!! angry
    My friends! Odnoforumane! Remember that this is our story and we don’t change it. Respect each other before swearing! drinks And now to battle laughing
    1. Khariton
      Khariton 12 July 2016 20: 38
      -3
      Quote: Dr. Bormental
      Well, everything will begin now !!! wassat I feel that we are once again on the eve of a grand skirmish !!!! angry
      My friends! Odnoforumane! Remember that this is our story and we don’t change it. Respect each other before swearing! drinks And now to battle laughing

      In a dispute (mate)))) truth is born ... Sometimes you need to feel pain in order to recover later! Is the doctor right? Well, the drafts are bare ... They’re coming!
      The film "Chapaev" is on the forum ....))) laughing bully
  9. avvg
    avvg 12 July 2016 19: 04
    +9
    Stalin himself said that he was not Georgian, but Russian, of Georgian origin. And this, in my opinion, says it all.
  10. tatra
    tatra 12 July 2016 19: 08
    +3
    Quote: Dr. Bormental
    Well, everything will begin now !!!

    Unfortunately, not one of the Stalinophobes is capable of honest, objective discussion. Always only lies, slander, hypocrisy, insults.
    1. Dr. Bormental
      Dr. Bormental 12 July 2016 19: 11
      0
      it is always so ... brace yourself)) they will also say about you ... hi
    2. The comment was deleted.
  11. Khariton
    Khariton 12 July 2016 19: 10
    +16
    These are the words of truth, and we understood it now as never before (who lived in the USSR) ... But it’s too late, alas!
    1. rabbi's pais
      rabbi's pais 12 July 2016 19: 20
      +1
      Quote: Chariton
      These are the words of truth, and we understood it now as never before (who lived in the USSR) ... But it’s too late, alas!

      That's right Mikhan. What kind of a Man was. A father of nations, not that hellish liberoid scum that, with their filthy deeds and words, will rob his merits before our country. At the same time, they themselves did not create anything, but destroyed it.
  12. ALABAY45
    ALABAY45 12 July 2016 19: 10
    0
    Colleagues! If Stalin, having mastered the Internet, would have read our comments, analyzed, gave "appropriate instructions", where would you and I be ?! belay Personally, I didn't say anything about Comrade Stalin! Loose, fuck ...! wink
    1. Khariton
      Khariton 12 July 2016 19: 45
      -1
      Quote: ALABAY45
      Colleagues! If Stalin, having mastered the Internet, would have read our comments, analyzed, gave "appropriate instructions", where would you and I be ?! belay Personally, I didn't say anything about Comrade Stalin! Loose, fuck ...! wink

      Yes, just comrade Beria and SMERSH ADMINS were ...! Calculated who sits on sites during working hours (there are many of them) and sent them to people's construction sites, amid the uterine rumble of the "world community)" public goods "and there are not enough workers. bully
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 12 July 2016 20: 00
      -1
      Quote: ALABAY45
      where would we be ?!

      Yes, about half of the writers here would find a place in the camps, and some to the wall. They wouldn’t take me, but only because of geography - there’s no way to arrest me abroad, and sending a team with an ice ax is not the same amount.No. In general, I advise anyone: first, carefully look at the portrait of Stalin, and then look at yourself in the mirror. Well, what led to thoughts?what
      1. Khariton
        Khariton 12 July 2016 20: 25
        -4
        Quote: Nagan
        Quote: ALABAY45
        where would we be ?!

        Yes, about half of the writers here would find a place in the camps, and some to the wall. They wouldn’t take me, but only because of geography - there’s no way to arrest me abroad, and sending a team with an ice ax is not the same amount.No. In general, I advise anyone: first, carefully look at the portrait of Stalin, and then look at yourself in the mirror. Well, what led to thoughts?what

        Nagant you sit there abroad and sit ... You remember about the ice ax, well done! You are not ours already "skurvenny" some ... And you feel resentment towards the Motherland and anger, towards those who live there and are proud of Russia! We survive on evil for everyone ... And we despise people like you .. (they used to envy us out of naivety, just like you ..) Come to us and you will see all the contempt .. Even if you have a bag of money (which is unlikely ..)))) Rest the revolver .. And boast in America that you are Russian (they will pour it for free or they will stuff your face ..))) Sorry for you!
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 12 July 2016 21: 29
          +3
          Quote: Chariton
          You are not ours already "skurvenny" some ... And you can feel resentment towards the Motherland and anger towards those who live there and are proud of Russia!

          There would be an insult, I would not write here but on a censor or that type. And there is no malice either, although sometimes objectivity hurts the patriots. Well, this thing is this - for the idiots all that is not praise is anger. Something like this.
        2. Anglorussian
          Anglorussian 12 July 2016 21: 35
          -1
          I feel sorry for you!
          Pity yourself, Alcopatriot ..
      2. ALABAY45
        ALABAY45 12 July 2016 20: 29
        +2
        An insignificant "enemy of the people" - a small ice ax, "nano" ...! wink You, there, "purely because of geography" do not relax very much ... We have tentacles, all over the world! soldier And, regarding the mirror ... I looked, and was glad good : a strong strong-willed look, a cunning and crafty squint, life experience, indicated in the strong-willed folds of the cheeks and a cold gleam in the eyes in relation to the "petty liberal bastard", ensuring the death of these ... I'll go and cut red wine .. Another similarity!
    3. evil partisan
      evil partisan 12 July 2016 20: 24
      0
      Quote: ALABAY45
      Personally, I didn't say anything about Comrade Stalin!

      But meant yes . I fixed winked . The time will come - let's move am . But you can always agree repeat ...Your suggestions? wink
      Hello suspect! drinks
      1. ALABAY45
        ALABAY45 12 July 2016 20: 47
        +5
        Hello, "Ural tablet-eater" is a rare species! (Type: small "freeloaders", class: "small fixers", detachment: "gantazhists", family: "contractualists", genus - "crest-like", type: for now, for residence) .Brother, you want a drink ?! I have fermented cloudberries with honey, honeysuckle with cinnamon, polished! good This, frankly, is some kind of fairy tale ... drinks
        1. evil partisan
          evil partisan 12 July 2016 21: 02
          +1
          Quote: ALABAY45
          I have cloudberries with honey fermented

          Nothing wrong. At night, about 15 times you run into the yard and take everything away at your fingertips yes.
          Quote: ALABAY45
          This, frankly, is some kind of fairy tale ...

          There will be a fairy tale when the next day you will put the "birdhouse" in order after the night races ... repeat
          1. ALABAY45
            ALABAY45 12 July 2016 21: 13
            +1
            Boy! Wimp! tongue When, for the first time, I "run away", on the third day in the intensive care unit you will wake up and read the sign on the pale old man's leg: "Nesting diarrhea! Do not approach ...!" It will be bad for me, without you ... crying
    4. weksha50
      weksha50 12 July 2016 20: 40
      -2
      Quote: ALABAY45
      Colleagues If Stalin, having mastered the Internet, would have read our comments, analyzed, gave "appropriate instructions", where would you and I be ?! Personally, I didn't say anything about Comrade Stalin! Loose, fuck ...!


      There was such a release in "Yeralash", when the pioneers, having "conjured", suddenly summoned the spirit of Stalin ... One of them, dumbfounded, said to the chief "conjurer": "You are a stupid person, you still called Lavrenty Palych before the company."

      What ??? The rustle and order would be brought ...

      PS I represent his conversation with Obama, Merkel, Hollande and other riffraff on the phone ... And better - on Skype ... To - eyes to eyes ...
      1. ALABAY45
        ALABAY45 12 July 2016 21: 04
        0
        Phone, you say ...?! I have, from such a scenario, pity for P.A. Poroshenko is not earthly! (I, a Christian, after all ...) "Hello, Comrade Poroshenko ...." belay
        1. your1970
          your1970 12 July 2016 22: 58
          -1
          Hello, comrade Poroshenko .... "-I think the formula" citizen "is more appropriate here (in the context of" let's pass! ") ...
  13. EvilLion
    EvilLion 12 July 2016 19: 13
    0
    But Stalin was a Soviet citizen, and reasoning about small-town Nazism and the nationality of the head of state is the lot of small-town Nazis with a complex of national inferiority.
  14. Altona
    Altona 12 July 2016 19: 14
    +3
    It is difficult to comment on anything on the article itself. It is necessary to climb in all works on the national question and pull out theses from pre-war works, pre-revolutionary, post-war and all that. I can say the following. The Civil War was a war for the reunification of territories and a battle with the national princes. Because the class issue was resolved pretty quickly, the nobility was suppressed and thrown abroad. But they fought for a long time with the forest brothers, the Basmachs, the Makhnovists and Petliurites, the White Finns and others. As a result, when appointing to positions or elections to representative bodies, the "percentage" principle and quotas were observed. That is, how many Russians, Jews, Ukrainians and other nationalities should be. With the Jews, as I understand it, such a story usually happens that they "privatize" entire areas and industries. They "occupy" science, literature, cinema, music, that is, they create nepotism and parochialism, rejecting other nationalities. Therefore, in fact, they were not allowed in such an amount in which they wanted to pour into warm places. Such was the personnel policy. So nepotism and nepotism, widespread now, is the result of not only the wrong personnel policy, but also the national one.
    1. firefighter
      firefighter 12 July 2016 20: 13
      0
      Judging by your review, you know what to write about. I was born later. BUT!!! Joseph was right in almost everything. And it makes no sense to discuss it, because some (many) of his ideas are still relevant.
  15. Bramb
    Bramb 12 July 2016 19: 14
    0
    After the title you can not read.
    It's the same as asking the author: "Have you stopped drinking vodka in buckets in the morning?"
    Too shallow, castrated question for a great man. For the author - just right.
    Under Stalin, people like the author would not be allowed to access the Internet: let the toilets scuff, do their own thing.
    1. firefighter
      firefighter 12 July 2016 20: 16
      -2
      Milaaai !!! And then from what pot did you talk about Stalin?
  16. Dr. Bormental
    Dr. Bormental 12 July 2016 19: 15
    +15
    And I don’t know what I mean about Comrade. Stalin to say ... my grandfather served at 38, then the whole war passed, and how Stalin died, my grandfather cried from grief .. what can I comment on here?
    1. Observer2014
      Observer2014 12 July 2016 20: 13
      +5
      Dr. Bormental (5) RU Today, 19:15
      And I don’t know what I mean about Comrade. Stalin to say ... my grandfather served at 38, then the whole war passed, and how Stalin died, my grandfather cried from grief .. what can I comment on here?
      Bravo! On my mother’s side, my grandfather was one of those repressed. But damn it. Until the last days, my grandfather respected Stalin! And the portrait kept him.
    2. firefighter
      firefighter 12 July 2016 20: 21
      +2
      Hello dr! I am always happy to read your comments. In this case, I agree with you on all 1000 ...
    3. Hagakure
      Hagakure 12 July 2016 20: 35
      +1
      I am familiar with one grandmother, a physician who worked under Stalin somewhere in the north, as a doctor. Here's what she once told me - when the news came that Stalin was dead, hefty balts cried before my eyes - men working on logging ...
      1. firefighter
        firefighter 12 July 2016 20: 48
        +3
        I live with those Balts and their descendants in the same village. opinion about Stalin is far from unambiguous. Do not speak for everyone.
  17. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 12 July 2016 19: 15
    +1
    Vissarionitch is not on you, he would explain to you ...
  18. Observer2014
    Observer2014 12 July 2016 19: 21
    +5
    Stalin: Russophile or Russophobe?
    Stalin is the era! Stalin is the man who stood at the helm of the country with a plow and left with the atomic bomb! Weak at least something close to accomplish ?!
    1. firefighter
      firefighter 12 July 2016 20: 51
      -3
      minus for the bomb. There were many other merits
  19. thinker
    thinker 12 July 2016 19: 23
    +5
    So many words, the answer is obvious -
    ... I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people because they have earned in this war and earlier earned the title, if you like, of the leading force of our Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country ...
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%
    D0%B9_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4!
    1. Gunxnumx
      Gunxnumx 13 July 2016 07: 36
      +1
      Comrades, let me raise another last toast.
      As a representative of our Soviet Government, I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, above all, the Russian people. (Stormy, prolonged applause, cries of "Hurray")
      I drink, above all, for the health of the Russian people because it is the most prominent nation of all the nations that make up the Soviet Union.
      I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people because they have earned in this war and earlier earned the title, if you like, of the leading force of our Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country.
      I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people, not only because they are the leading people, but also because they have common sense, general political common sense and patience.
      Our government had many mistakes, we had moments of desperate situation in the 1941-42 years, when our army retreated, left our native villages and cities of Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, the Leningrad Region, the Karelian-Finnish Republic, left because it didn’t there was another way. Some other people could say: you did not live up to our hopes, we will set up another government that will conclude peace with Germany and provide us with peace. This could happen, keep in mind.
      But the Russian people did not agree to this, the Russian people did not compromise, they showed unlimited trust in our government. I repeat, we had mistakes, the first two years our army was forced to retreat, it turned out that they did not master the events, did not cope with the situation. However, the Russian people believed, endured, waited and hoped that we would cope with events.
      It is for this trust in our government that the Russian people have shown us, thank you very much!
      For the health of the Russian people!
      (Stormy, long unceasing applause)

      Great reception in the Kremlin in honor of the Victory. May 24, 1945

      Dear Thinker, I fully share your post. Sorry for the repeat, just pressing Ctrl + C, could not resist CTRL + V)))
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 14 July 2016 13: 46
      0
      By the way, Khrushchev is depicted on the right hand of Stalin, between Kalinin and Bulganin. And to the left of Stalin, Molotov and Zhdanov.
  20. russkiy redut
    russkiy redut 12 July 2016 19: 25
    +3
    Stalin is one of the greatest statesmen and patriots of his country. He didn’t stuff his pockets, even refused the hero’s star. This is a real man! I respect him immensely!
  21. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 12 July 2016 19: 25
    +3
    I tried to rewrite history at least a million times, but the events that have already passed can not be changed. It’s not even what Stalin was, but how the people knew and remembered him. Stalin was far from honey, but then life was not sugar. If we know that the people won the Patriotic War under the leadership of Stalin, then the history of the past will not change or whether it will be the same. I think that everyone decided for himself what place in the life of the country Stalin played. We don’t know much, not all archives are open, but the fact that Stalin in the history of our country was far from an ordinary person to dispute makes no sense.
  22. iliitchitch
    iliitchitch 12 July 2016 19: 25
    +2
    "The old state, based on the will of the Russian people, has ended its existence ..." Oh, is it? Ilyich was cunning. So I see how Nicholas Dva Veche gathers with the people to consult. Where there the Russian people were present at the feast during the plague of the decayed nobility and the talkers-raznochintsy? There were one or two Russians among them, and there were only a few. And comrade Stalin always acted really according to the situation, and therefore won. Russophile or Russophobe - the question itself is incorrect. But many letters are a plus.
    1. firefighter
      firefighter 12 July 2016 20: 57
      -2
      Nicholas was far from, but Joseph Vissarionych shit is also not appropriate. Each time has its own LEADER! Putin is not an angel either, but he is OUR PRESIDENT! Who disagree substitute a face for spitting
  23. t118an
    t118an 12 July 2016 19: 30
    +10
    Svetlana Alliluyeva; “Father fell in love with Russia very much and deeply, for life. I don’t know a single Georgian who would have forgotten his national traits so much and would have loved all Russian so much. Even in Siberia, his father really fell in love with Russia: people, language and nature ... ”(from her book“ Twenty Letters to a Friend ”)
    .......
    At a banquet on the occasion of the Victory, he raised a toast to the Great Russian people, and not to the Soviet, because he understood that in a multinational state there should be a center of gravity holding other nations and nationalities in its orbit. He was neither a Russophile nor a Russophobe, he was the man that Russia and the USSR needed. He was in demand in history, he was the leader of a multinational state. His deeds speak for him.
    ..................
    We do not have the right accents in the teaching of history. 1917 the coming to power of Lenin, Trotsky and others, who were chosen for us in the West. These people did not need our country. They came to rob her. From the beginning they did it, but from the end of the 20s the situation changed in Stalin's favor. A turning point occurred, this period ended in 1937-1938, when the proteges of the West were destroyed. Regarding how Stalin treated Russians ... And how do Russian citizens feel about this greatest politician of the 20th century? Current politicians use his name for speculation. Praise, but do the opposite, not as he did. Not to mention that his name is not immortalized in any geographical name. This is not even the main thing. The country still exists at the expense of created by him and thanks to him. But everything he has done is destroyed or destroyed today. And the political adventurer lies in the mausoleum on Red Square ... This is the essence of our modern politics
    1. weksha50
      weksha50 12 July 2016 20: 48
      0
      Quote: t118an
      And the political adventurer lies in the mausoleum on Red Square ... This is the essence of our modern politics


      "" 2) The right of the peoples of Russia to free self-determination, up to the separation and formation of independent states. "...
      Union republics within the USSR are constituted from peoples and nations that never in their history had no statehood.

      Here it is, a bomb ...

      “His main goal (the October coup) was to translate into reality the old dream of Ulyanov-Lenin - to put an end in Russia with the state-forming role of the Russian nation, the Russian people, with this, as he believed, "great-power trash". Ulyanov-Lenin allowed himself to use this strong emotional-irritable expression only at the end of 1922, already before his death, when the organism destroyed by the disease no longer had more strength to restrain emotions ”...
      "It is no coincidence that one of the Stalinist People's Commissars Vyacheslav Molotov, deeply after the fact, in 1980, was forced to admit:" The Communist Party was never able to solve the Russian question, that is, what should be the status of the RSFSR and the Russian nation in the USSR "" ...

      Ahem ... Honestly, in old age it is somehow uncomfortable to read this ...
      Although, honestly and cynically, even now Russian in Russia is not the master ... It is annoying, however - it is ...
      1. MrK
        MrK 12 July 2016 21: 39
        -1
        Quote: weksha50
        “His main goal (of the October coup) was to make the old dream of Ulyanov-Lenin come true - to put an end to the state-forming role of the Russian nation, the Russian people in Russia, with this, as he believed,“ great-power trash

        Do not stupid respected, and read the work of Lenin.

        Lenin could not at all consider all Russians as "fools" and "idiots", since he considered himself Russian. Lenin remarkably formulated his attitude to Russia in the article “On the National Pride of the Great Russians”: “Are we, Great Russian conscious proletarians, alien to the sense of national pride? Of course not! We love our language and our homeland, we are working most of all to raise its working masses (i.e., 9 / 10 of its population) to the conscious life of democrats and socialists. It’s our most painful thing to see and feel what kind of violence, oppression and bullying our beautiful homeland is subjected to the royal executioners, nobles and capitalists. ”

        If the Leninist weksha50 read this famous work by Ilyich, he would see that Lenin had the word “we Great Russian Social Democrats”, “we Great Russian workers,” etc.
        1. weksha50
          weksha50 12 July 2016 21: 55
          -2
          Quote: mrark
          Do not stupid respected, and read the work of Lenin.



          Are you talking to me ? Or to the author of the article?

          Either you read the article inattentively, or you didn’t understand that in my comment I quoted it ...

          No need to sarcastically call me a "Leninist" ... Understand the article and its author first ... Or have you read the article at a gallop across Europe?
  24. Dr. Bormental
    Dr. Bormental 12 July 2016 19: 33
    +8
    What are we discussing here? The largest war known to mankind has been won under the leadership of Comrade. Stalin .... what other arguments are needed?
    1. iliitchitch
      iliitchitch 12 July 2016 20: 44
      -3
      Quote: Dr. Bormental
      What are we discussing here? The largest war known to mankind has been won under the leadership of Comrade. Stalin .... what other arguments are needed?


      And what is typical, he stayed in Moscow and held the Parade on November 7, 1941. The turning point was in the war. I believed because - we will resist. Russophobe, they say here, or Russophile? Juggling with words. For the sake of a catchphrase, it’s not a sin to kick up, if only it sounds like that, or what? Puffs with journalism is not in its best manifestation. Do not label great people, these are not energizer sneakers. "The wind of history blows trash from the grave" gradually. Stalin said that.
  25. old pioneer
    old pioneer 12 July 2016 19: 37
    +6
    To argue on the topic: "Who was Stalin," you first need to remember everything that our grandmothers said about him, and who was lucky, then the grandfathers (mine, both, for the Motherland, for Stalin gave their lives). If only I asked the question that became the heading of the article, to my Grannies (the Kingdom of Heaven), then I would have been blown in full for both .... Phil, and .... Foba!
    1. firefighter
      firefighter 12 July 2016 20: 39
      -2
      And not just a rake, but in full !!! I am in the same situation, but I do not even want to think that there was something bad. History cannot be viewed from this point. Stalin-was, Putin-is, Pupkin will, why write history? History writes itself, and we can only rejoice, IF REMAINED IN IT. And Joseph Vissarionovich remained. Let's be jealous or agree
  26. newcomer
    newcomer 12 July 2016 19: 40
    +2
    ShadowCat, my comment has disappeared, I am writing again. mercy for gifts, turnips with fi. pardon, my comment apparently did not reach your aesthetic level. so the willers, even the churchill, said that he, Roosevelt and Stalin were the last great statesmen in history, after them there would be only dwarfs. and what happened after the leader’s death, with his name and his role in history, I’m not afraid to say the whole world does not correspond to his prediction of his own grave? about his role in the victory in the great Patriotic, I generally keep quiet. the fact that according to the results of the voting, Stalin took first place among the most powerful and beloved by the people leaders, does not correspond to his foresight? and it was Stalin who made the USSR such that half the ball was sincerely loved, the other half feared and respected. I will not write for long: science, technology, development of the state - all this is Stalin, the leader of the peoples.
    1. old pioneer
      old pioneer 12 July 2016 19: 45
      -2
      Great comment, only "Shift" drinks lacks
  27. Dora2014
    Dora2014 12 July 2016 19: 45
    0
    We are all indebted to Stalin for not being able to protect him from the vile lies of perestroika. And the first Khrushchev slandered him. Crest.
    1. sherp2015
      sherp2015 13 July 2016 13: 11
      0
      Quote: Dora2014
      We are all indebted to Stalin for not being able to protect him from the vile lies of perestroika. And the first Khrushchev slandered him. Crest.

      Perlmutter is his real name, your Khrushchev
  28. SNIF
    SNIF 12 July 2016 19: 45
    -11%
    Russians miss a strong hand. Vladimir Vladimirovich does not pull on the role of a real dictator-bloodsucker. But we really want to go back! - to the gulag, sharashok, informers and black craters)
    1. Dr. Bormental
      Dr. Bormental 12 July 2016 19: 52
      +3
      Mmmmmmm handsome! You have not been here for a long time ... We do not want to go back, in the sense in which you write. We need order and stability. Yes, we are not perfect in this regard, but we strive for this, unlike you, Ukrainians.
      With love from St. Petersburg ..
      You know, I even pushed for you, so as not to be deleted ... I would like to talk ... do you mind?
      1. SNIF
        SNIF 12 July 2016 20: 20
        -2
        AND? How? Is there stability? Vladimir Vladimirovich provided for 16 years? How do you strive for this - announce your actions, please. Really curious
        1. Dr. Bormental
          Dr. Bormental 12 July 2016 20: 41
          0
          Quote: SNIF
          AND? How? Is there stability?

          There is stability, we have not become worse off. For the wallets held on a little, it's true, but within reason. Well, about "strive" here, in St. Petersburg, for example, meat has become cheaper, chicken, eggs ... agricultural farms are developing, so. I'm just at the philistine level ..
          1. SNIF
            SNIF 12 July 2016 21: 01
            -1
            Who is for what - and you are for food. I'm talking about the stability of the political system, you tell me about the eggs. England has a new prime minister, have you heard? Do you think they will change something from this? - no. Democracy, s. Working institutions of power. Now imagine, Vladimir Vladimirovich will glue the flippers together, God forbid, he will tear you up for another hundred years. Imagine what kind of races and behind-the-scenes games can start and what it can get? And, as they say, "a new broom sweeps in a new way" - a new person will come and, well, again time zones change. Best case scenario. How does such a pyramid system, based on the top on one person, correlate with your desires for stability and some kind of mythical striving for it?)
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 12 July 2016 21: 04
              +3
              Quote: SNIF
              In England, the new prime minister, have you heard? Do you think something will change from this? - not. Democracy s. Functioning Institutions of Power

              The problem is that the institutions of power are not created in a year or in ten. How many coups did England have before a stable system emerged?
              1. SNIF
                SNIF 12 July 2016 21: 18
                -3
                And how much? But are they being created in Russia? Really?) Or is there another authoritarian regime in it - with the king and the company? You, by chance, are not preparing another coup to establish the institutions of power?) - otherwise, look, you can earn money from the tsar’s oprichniks)
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 12 July 2016 23: 07
                  0
                  Quote: SNIF
                  But are they being created in Russia? Really?) Or is there another authoritarian regime in it - with the king and the company

                  I will tell you a secret that has not been a secret for a long time - in England, as well as in the USA, there are the most authoritarian regimes, and their entire democracy is nothing more than an outrageous myth.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. firefighter
        firefighter 12 July 2016 20: 27
        0
        Dear Dr. Bormental! In vain you are tossing beads. Kobanchik better with garlic.
        1. Dr. Bormental
          Dr. Bormental 12 July 2016 20: 48
          0
          Come on .. smile He does not swear ... he has his own opinion ... we must listen .. hi
        2. The comment was deleted.
      3. weksha50
        weksha50 12 July 2016 20: 52
        0
        Quote: Dr. Bormental
        You know, I even pushed for you, so as not to be deleted ... I would like to talk ... do you mind?



        Doctor, something looks like masochism ... Do you need it? laughing hi
        1. Dr. Bormental
          Dr. Bormental 12 July 2016 21: 03
          0
          It’s good to listen to your opponent ... don’t listen and just blame him ... stupid ... this is not our style smile hi
          1. weksha50
            weksha50 12 July 2016 21: 57
            -1
            Quote: Dr. Bormental
            Listening to your opponent is good ...


            So this is a smart opponent ... And the evil troll?
            So - a masochist ... laughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. old pioneer
      old pioneer 12 July 2016 19: 54
      +4
      SNIF ?, and SNUF and SNAF catch up? am The three of you grunt more fun .. Well, late, - now Dr. Bormental is dissecting everyone ..
      1. Dym71
        Dym71 12 July 2016 20: 58
        +1
        Quote: old pioneer
        SNIF ?, and SNUF and SNAF catch up?


        Inseparable friends, since childhood! laughing
        And in childhood, SNAF, SNIF and SNUF wanted to become a cosmonaut, a cosmonift and a cosmonuft
    4. ALABAY45
      ALABAY45 12 July 2016 20: 02
      0
      Russians, in the know ?! About "back" ..?! More accurately, with terms!
    5. MrK
      MrK 12 July 2016 21: 44
      0
      Quote: SNIF
      But we really want to go back! - to the gulag, sharashok, informers and black craters)


      For thieves, bandits and 3.14 bastards - yes.
  29. ovod84
    ovod84 12 July 2016 19: 54
    -1
    What is the title of the article and the article itself in general ......
  30. firefighter
    firefighter 12 July 2016 20: 07
    -1
    Let me disagree! It is impossible to vulgarize Stalin, it is impossible to ... because all the rulers of the USSR, except for him, lived on the principle of capitalism, pushing us about socialism. The old mustached Georgian was thinking about the UNION, and not about nationality. And he has an antipode. Although also ambiguous
    1. Dr. Bormental
      Dr. Bormental 12 July 2016 20: 16
      0
      Quote: fire nick
      And he has an antipode

      I also wanted to write about the antipode ... a strange story ... two leaders raised their countries out of poverty, raised them to the "cosmic" level and faced their heads ... and, it seems to me, both wanted only good for their country and nation. .. personally, in this strange story I don't understand anything at all ...
      1. the villain
        the villain 12 July 2016 21: 04
        +1
        Quote: Dr. Bormental
        two leaders lifted their countries out of poverty, raised them to the "cosmic" level and clashed their heads ...

        There is a version that the foreheads of them, still pushed ... hi
    2. The comment was deleted.
  31. friend of animals
    friend of animals 12 July 2016 20: 13
    -15%
    Stalin's careerist and opportunist, an unprincipled and cruel man, destroyed all political rivals, and then all ideological communists. There were only dogs faithful to the owner. It is difficult to say whether he was a Russophobe, but such questions could be known to his close circle.
    1. Dr. Bormental
      Dr. Bormental 12 July 2016 20: 20
      +2
      You have a suitable nickname ... do you support Ukraine?
      1. friend of animals
        friend of animals 12 July 2016 20: 27
        -5
        That is, there is nothing to say in essence? So trace his political career and the number of ruined people.
        1. Dr. Bormental
          Dr. Bormental 12 July 2016 20: 55
          +1
          I understand that it is useless to argue with you. I am not a Stalinist, not a communist. And my family also suffered from his repression. However, thanks to this man, we won the most terrible war of mankind. Is he, and we do not deserve respect?
          1. friend of animals
            friend of animals 12 July 2016 21: 15
            -7
            Not thanks to this person, but thanks to the courage and dedication of our people. And Stalin made his "contribution" when he collaborated with Hitler's Germany and did not respond properly to warnings of an attack.
            1. vovanpain
              vovanpain 12 July 2016 21: 19
              +13
              Quote: friend of beasts
              And Stalin made his "contribution" when he collaborated with Hitler's Germany and did not respond properly to warnings of an attack.

              Both on, well ka dear from this moment in more detail, please. belay
              1. friend of animals
                friend of animals 12 July 2016 21: 23
                -7
                The history textbook will be more detailed.
                1. vovanpain
                  vovanpain 12 July 2016 21: 26
                  +10
                  Quote: friend of beasts
                  The history textbook will be more detailed.

                  You yourself, my dear, answered your question-
                  Quote: friend of beasts
                  friend of animals Today, 20:27 ↑
                  That is, there is nothing to say in essence?
                  You have nothing to say, nude nude, thickly troll "Your Friend" fellow
                  1. friend of animals
                    friend of animals 12 July 2016 21: 45
                    -3
                    I did not get personal, unlike the previous "comrade". If you do not know about the treaties between Germany and the USSR before and after the partition of Poland, as well as about the order not to allow provocations on the border with Germany, then you need to turn to your school textbook. Not to mention the unpreparedness of the Soviet army for war.
                    1. 79807420129
                      79807420129 12 July 2016 21: 55
                      +15
                      Quote: friend of beasts
                      If you do not know about the agreements between Germany and the USSR before and after the partition of Poland, as well as about the order to prevent provocations on the border with Germany, then you need to turn to the school textbook.

                      Dear you didn’t get banned in Google, you’ll find out a lot of interesting things. yes You can also look into the textbook. hi
                      1. friend of animals
                        friend of animals 12 July 2016 22: 21
                        -4
                        And then what, this is the failure of the leadership of these states. Let their fellow citizens judge this. From this action of Stalin became more correct?
                      2. Rarog
                        Rarog 12 July 2016 22: 25
                        +2
                        And in your opinion, is it wrong to try to protect (at least delay the moment) the country from war by any possible means? Especially after when all the other countries have already done this?
                      3. friend of animals
                        friend of animals 12 July 2016 23: 40
                        -5
                        Did it help those countries? Half a year, a year, and the same result. But Stalin decided that this would not happen with the USSR, and they would share Europe with the Germans. The fact remains, it was a terrible miscalculation, and the country was not ready for war.
                      4. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 13 July 2016 20: 52
                        +1
                        Quote: friend of beasts
                        Half a year, a year, and the same result

                        That's just thanks to the postponement succeeded:
                        a) at least somehow prepare for war.
                        b) prevent the appearance of Germany, England, France and the USA against the USSR as a single bloc.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. firefighter
        firefighter 13 July 2016 05: 41
        0
        I agree with Bormental. You, my friend, apparently started a history textbook on cigarettes. One person cannot be guilty of system errors
  • The comment was deleted.
  • the villain
    the villain 12 July 2016 21: 11
    -1
    Tell me, is the surgeon also cruel and unprincipled? It often hurts the patient! Or he cuts out appendicitis for the sake of a career, adapted, you know ...
    1. friend of animals
      friend of animals 12 July 2016 21: 33
      -4
      Demagogy, these things cannot be compared.
      1. the villain
        the villain 12 July 2016 22: 20
        +1
        Quote: friend of beasts
        Demagogy, these things cannot be compared

        From what? There are abscesses on the body of the state, which must be opened and sanitized.
  • MrK
    MrK 12 July 2016 21: 46
    +1
    Quote: friend of beasts
    Stalin's careerist and opportunist, an unprincipled and cruel man, destroyed all political rivals, and then all ideological communists.


    Who then destroyed the country?
  • sherp2015
    sherp2015 13 July 2016 13: 13
    0
    Quote: friend of beasts
    Stalin's careerist and opportunist, an unprincipled and cruel man, destroyed all political rivals, and then all ideological communists. There were only dogs faithful to the owner. It is difficult to say whether he was a Russophobe, but such questions could be known to his close circle.

    Is your last name accidentally not Zuckerman?
  • ochakow703
    ochakow703 12 July 2016 20: 23
    0
    Minus set only for the title of the article. No need to climb with a pig’s snout in the elite row. Well, not yet born a man who could give an assessment to Stalin. And the commentators are our sofas ... and they won the war, and they made a vigorous bomb, and they lifted the country from ruins ... You, pigeons, just turn on your brain, imagine for a second that instead of Stalin in the 41st, some Gorbachev , Yeltsin, Brezhnev ... Answer write?
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 12 July 2016 21: 30
      +1
      It’s not entirely correct to put Brezhnev on a par with the other two figures mentioned.
      1. ochakow703
        ochakow703 13 July 2016 08: 40
        0
        I agree, craved for emotions.
  • Stas57
    Stas57 12 July 2016 20: 24
    0
    what is the argument? -Soviet Man!
  • Atlant-1164
    Atlant-1164 12 July 2016 20: 29
    +2
    Stalinophobes now need to beware. it is profitable for them to slander him. and EBN and Gorbachev to make them idols and role models for young people. and so far they have succeeded.
    1. friend of animals
      friend of animals 12 July 2016 20: 34
      -5
      They are all creatures; a good person cannot come to great power. Only the pressure of law and public opinion can prevent such people from taking a walk.
  • taseka
    taseka 12 July 2016 20: 31
    +2
    People governing the state have always been preoccupied to a greater degree with the art of shaping the worldview of their people — building the levers of government from these masses out of their interests!
  • Prince of Pensions
    Prince of Pensions 12 July 2016 20: 35
    +1
    That would be as if he did not treat Stalin badly at that time, but you cannot blame him for Russophobia in anything. Where would we be now if such a person were a Russophobe?
  • Art777
    Art777 12 July 2016 20: 40
    +3
    I don’t really know a single real person whose relative would be repressed. Hence the conclusion, a little exaggerated and Solzhenitsyn, and the current buggers in power ...
    Joseph Vissarionovich - was needed right then, in that place, and precisely by such means!
  • Bator
    Bator 12 July 2016 20: 42
    +4
    According to a certificate prepared in February 1954 by Prosecutor General R. Rudenko, Minister of Internal Affairs S. Kruglov and Minister of Justice K. Gorshenin, for the period from 1921 to February 1, 1954 he was convicted of counterrevolutionary crimes by the OGPU collegium, “triples »NKVD, Special Meeting, Military College, courts and military tribunals 3 people, including 642 people sentenced to death.This is for thirty one years. This is the end of the Civil War, this is the era after it. This is four years of a terrible war with Hitler. This is the period after the Second World War. This is a fight against gangs of Bandera and forest brothers. This includes Berry and Yezhov, and other bloody executioners. Here are the traitors of Vlasov. Here are deserters and looters. Self-shooters. Alarmists. Participants in the gangster underground. Nazi accomplices who shed blood. This is the "Leninist Guard", which destroyed a great country to the joy of the enemies of Russia. Here Zinoviev and Kamenev. Trotskyists in this number. Figures of the Comintern. Traitor and traitor Tukhachevsky, who was about to arrange a military coup. The executioner Bela Kun, thousands of drowning officers in the Crimea with stones on their necks. A multifaceted figure, polysyllabic.
    If you divide the total number of executed by the number of years, you get less than 22 people a year. A lot of? Of course. But let’s not forget what years it was. And there are no tens of millions executed. This is exactly a deliberate lie. Remember this number: 642 980 people. It was. It is necessary to know and remember
  • Bator
    Bator 12 July 2016 20: 43
    +2
    About the allegedly repressed command staff of the Red Army from May 1937 to September 1939 in the amount of 40 thousand people. It was such a round figure that the Spark magazine (No. 26, 1986) called for the first time, followed by Moskovskiye Novosti and others. Where did this figure come from? But from where.
    The fact is that on May 5, 1940, the head of the Main Directorate of Personnel of the People’s Commissariat of Defense, Lieutenant General E. Schadenko, presented to Stalin a “Report on the work of the department” for 1939. It stated that for 1937-1939 36898 commanders were dismissed from the ranks of the Red Army. Of these, 1937 people were laid off in 18. (658% of the headcount of the commanding and political personnel), in 13,1 1938 people were laid off. (16%), in 362 9,2 people were laid off. (1939%).
    The motives were as follows: 1) by age; 2) for health reasons; 3) for disciplinary offenses; 4) for moral instability; 5) were fired for political reasons 19 106 (of which, after complaints filed and checks made, 9247 were reinstated in 1938-1939); 6) was arrested, that is, repressed, there were 9579 people of the commanders (of which 1457 was restored in 1938-1939).
    Thus, the number of officers arrested in 1937-1939. (without the Air Force and the fleet), is 8122 people. (3% of the total number of comm staff for 1939). Of these, about 70 were sentenced to death, shot 17 - basically the highest, for example, two of the five marshals (Tukhachevsky for organizing a Trotskyite military conspiracy, Yegorov for participating in espionage, preparing terrorist attacks and participating in the revolutionary organization), another Marshal Blucher was arrested for participating in the military a fascist conspiracy, which led to unjustified losses and the deliberate failure of the operation on Lake Hasan, but died in prison. Also, for similar especially dangerous crimes, 5 out of 9 commanders of the 1st rank (Belov, Yakir, Uborevich, Fedko, Frinovsky) and other representatives of the “fifth column” were shot.
    “... The Wehrmacht just betrayed me, I perish at the hands of their own generals. Stalin committed a brilliant act by arranging a purge in the Red Army and getting rid of rotten aristocracy "(from the interview of A. Hitler to the journalist K. Shpeydel in late April 1945)
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 12 July 2016 21: 33
      0
      You have the wrong numbers on the number of soldiers sentenced to death. And the percentage correctly calculated not from the total number of command personnel, but from the highest command staff.
  • zenion
    zenion 12 July 2016 21: 04
    0
    How did the author manage not to quarrel Stalin with Marx and Engels, but along with Plekhanov? Something was missing. This must certainly be discovered in the supplement.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 12 July 2016 21: 08
      +4
      I don’t know about Stalin personally, but Plekhanov reacted negatively to the revolution, and called the April theses of Lenin nonsense
  • Axis
    Axis 12 July 2016 21: 12
    +2
    "I am Russian of Georgian origin" (c) I.V. Stalin
  • Verdun
    Verdun 12 July 2016 21: 15
    +1
    Lenin, as you know, proceeded from the fact that the Russian people in all centuries in the territory of the Russian Empire was engaged only in oppressing all other peoples,
    After this passage, the author stopped reading the article. He gets acquainted with the discussion on the divergence of views of Lenin and Stalin of a man who is not even close to the works of Ulyanov-Lenin, I see no reason. The ideas of internationalism, which underlie the theory of communism, in no way intersect with the fabrications of oppression by one nation of others. Articles of this kind are written by nationalists trying to drag their theories to the history of Russia.
  • gammipapa
    gammipapa 12 July 2016 21: 33
    +3
    From the article, the conclusion should be as follows - Lenin is very bad, and Stalin is a little better?
    I will say right away for me Stalin is a rather respected person and the title of father of the people was given to him very deservedly.
    As for the denigration of Lenin in recent times (especially), a sensible person will never begin to harass him indiscriminately. Man was just a lump that turned the world upside down, therefore both slandered and lodges are replicated and imposed as truth. Have you ever seen and heard? No one grandmother in the bazaar said.

    A good example - even in our small town there is a monument to Lenin, well-groomed, flowers grow around. And his time does not age, a relevant man. Fathers and grandfathers were worse than you and me? As history shows, monuments to bad people do not last long
    1. tatra
      tatra 12 July 2016 21: 42
      0
      EVERYONE who is against Lenin and the October Revolution on the territory of the USSR, which resulted in the large-scale development of centuries-old Russia and a social state for the people, 'those a priori are those who are for the anti-Soviet coup of 1985-1991, which resulted in the transformation of the USSR republics into poor, backward, dying out raw material appendages and sales markets, with through and through useless thieves' power, with a high mortality rate of the people, with a huge gap in the income of the people, sold to foreigners.
      This is an axiom.
  • tatra
    tatra 12 July 2016 21: 54
    -2
    Quote: Rarog
    I fully support. In hell, these wives (Lenin, Trotsky, and others like them) tore apart Russia and then continue to do so now.

    You, pathologically deceitful, cowardly enemies of the Communists, slander the Bolshevik Communists in order to justify YOUR numerous crimes.
    1. Rarog
      Rarog 12 July 2016 22: 12
      +2
      What is the lie? In the nationality of Trotsky, Sverdlov, berries or Lenin (certainly not Russian)? Or maybe in their relation to the Russian People? Or maybe in their actions in relation to the Russian people? Follow the words, you are our emotional, or even a liar and a coward manages to be called, even attributed some crimes (funny), probably the Internet is brave!?! To drip less on the screen, they would ask how I feel about the communist past of Russia as a whole - positively, and this despite the fact that most of my ancestors are from the Cossacks. I suppose it’s not worth reminding what proportion fell to them, precisely thanks to those Russophobes that I named above.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 13 July 2016 09: 51
        0
        Quote: Rarog
        To drip less on the screen, they would ask how I feel about the communist past of Russia as a whole - positively, and this despite the fact that most of my ancestors are from the Cossacks.

        And your ancestors from the Cossacks in which army fought? Krasnov - for the white, or Budenny - for the red?
        1. Rarog
          Rarog 13 July 2016 13: 31
          -1
          And for the whites and the reds (mainly those who were younger and succumbed to propaganda about equality and fraternity, and a brighter future), but dispossessed everyone, even the one who was awarded for services to the new government in the civil war was sent to the camp that one.
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 13 July 2016 17: 26
            0
            Quote: Rarog
            even the one who was awarded for services to the new government in the civil war after that was exiled to the camp.

            Both the case and the false libel were exiled to the camp. My grandfather’s brother, an ideological communist, in the 37th thundered into the Gulag. Some well-wisher tried. They should have shot him, but such a fate passed him. And he spent 20 years in the Gulag - until 1957. When he was released and rehabilitated clean. That's just, unlike some, he did not start to bile about his innocently ruined life. But he went and recovered in the Communist Party. He did not see any other way to build a better life for himself and his descendants.
  • tatra
    tatra 12 July 2016 21: 56
    -3
    Quote: tim00
    he protected the Russian people from complete extermination by the executioners of the Sverdlovsk-Trotskyists by mercenaries of international zionofascist moneylenders

    Well, why is this nonsense?
  • tatra
    tatra 12 July 2016 22: 24
    -3
    Quote: Rarog
    What is the lie?

    You’ll either put on your underpants or take off your cross. Either you, like anti-Soviet criminals, will slander the Bolshevik Communists, or you are a normal person.
    What you can write to prove your words is a priori anti-Soviet lies and slander.
    Well, let alone nationality to be presented as "charges of crimes" is generally outright nonsense.
    1. Rarog
      Rarog 12 July 2016 22: 38
      +2
      Those. all those who do not share your communist ideas are crazy people !? Did I understand you correctly!?

      Anything that does not fall under your sugary fantasies about the activities of Trotsky, Sverdlovsky, berries and others like them - lies and slander ?! Right again ?!

      Can you show me where I put the equality between nationality and crime? Or maybe my fault is that in the initial period of the formation of Soviet Russia, most of the people of a certain nationality were in power, who, by the way, both in words and deeds showed their "kind" attitude towards my People?
      1. Chisayna
        Chisayna 12 July 2016 22: 54
        +1
        As you mentioned, for these "people" of a certain "nationality," the mere mention of Stalin makes them salivate.
      2. tatra
        tatra 12 July 2016 23: 01
        -2
        Here, as ALWAYS, the enemies of the Communists will first lie, and then begin to get out.
        You, if you insist so stubbornly, then PROVE and substantiate your words with facts "These zhi.am (Lenin, Trotsky and others like them) burn in hell, who tore apart Russia and the Russian People then, and continue to do so now."
        And WITHOUT eternal for the enemies of the Bolshevik Communists, lies and slander and bydlyatskogo rudeness
        And why then did you become attached to the Jews-Bolsheviks, why are you for the kulaks, whom the people themselves called the "world eaters" who ripped open the bellies of the food detachments, whose entire "fault" was only that they wanted, in the conditions of the food blockade by the enemies of the Communists, the townspeople did not starve to death?
        1. Rarog
          Rarog 12 July 2016 23: 19
          +1
          What people called them that, the one who did not want to work, but only to take away from those who wanted and knew how to plow the land? We will take everything away, kill everyone, and divide the loot ?! My grandfathers and grandmothers told me how these "comrades" dragged the last out of the house.

          Why am I for fists? Yes, because I am a descendant of the Orenburg Cossacks, who, in addition to defending their homeland, also managed to keep a strong economy - the backbone of the state, which the Trotsky, Sverdlov tried to break down in the first place ...

          Yes, to whom I explain, it’s clear from your previous quotes that you live by the principle that who is not with you is against you ... in the best traditions of fascism, it is therefore strange to observe your supposedly left-wing political views.
          1. tatra
            tatra 12 July 2016 23: 28
            -3
            Just do not need me your rudeness, insults, and verbiage. You got out of the rationale and evidence against the Bolsheviks.
            The essence of people on the Web can be recognized by one comment, even by one word, such as "guards", "quilted jackets".
            You have now proved that you are a Russophobe-cosmopolitan, inhuman egoist. Such as you, the enemies of the Communists, do not care about the people in the Russian Empire, and the people in the republics of the USSR you have seized, and you hate the Soviet people.
            For you, there are only rich parasites, like you, the enemies of the Communists, who have enriched due to the robbery of the republics of the USSR you captured and the peoples in them, and only rich parasites in the Republic of Ingushetia, from the Romanovs to the fist.
  • VICTOR-61
    VICTOR-61 12 July 2016 22: 34
    +1
    Thanks to Stalin, they created a nuclear bomb in the shortest possible time. And we owe it to him first of all, under his strict control. And then the US MATRUSNIKI could throw us with nuclear bombs, they had such a plan
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander 12 July 2016 22: 40
    +3
    The author walked precisely and convincingly through Russophobe Lenin, and Stalin, as again rightly noted the author, his faithful student. yes
    In general, of course, Russophobia in the "land of the Soviets" simply went off scale, and this was in fact a RUSSIAN state! Immediately visible-"people's" was power...
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 13 July 2016 10: 02
      -3
      Quote: Aleksander
      In general, of course, Russophobia in the "land of the Soviets" simply went off scale, and this was in fact a RUSSIAN state! It is immediately evident that the "people's" power was ...

      What kind of "land of the Soviets" are you talking about? And what kind of "Russophobia"? About those in your fevered imagination? In the USSR, the Russians, with the "Russophobia" that you are writing about, lived in the Baltic and Central Asian republics, and with the Ukrainians there were also normal relations. I guess that for people like you, the word "internationalism" is an empty phrase. But I would like other people reading your comments, and the comments of others, if I may say so, "Russophiles", to understand that the USSR was destroyed by the efforts of people like you. Because in a multinational state, any statements about the advantages of one people over others are destructive and they lead to interethnic problems. And such "Russophiles" hate Lenin because he perfectly saw their nationalist essence and fought them in every possible way.
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 13 July 2016 12: 38
        +1
        Quote: Verdun
        the word "internationalism" is an empty phrase

        Internationalism was only in the inflamed and crippled brainless propaganda brain of people like you.
        As the communist power weakened, so the Russians were cut out and expelled from Central Asia and humiliated in the Baltic states.
        Quote: Verdun
        But I would like other people reading your comments, and the comments of others, if I may say so, "Russophiles", to understand that the USSR was destroyed by the efforts of people like you.

        Wishlist will have to calm down: your time is over. yes
        The Soviet Union (Russia) was destroyed precisely by the Communists stupid politics artificial growing never existed "nations" (ukronatsiya lol ), "republics", national cultures "," national literatures ", who carefully raised the" national elite "-modern Nazis in the" academies "(they are ALL from the USSR).
        Personally, I defended the USSR, but commies-u bastards betrayed.
        Quote: Verdun
        And such "Russophiles" hate Lenin because he perfectly saw their nationalist essence and fought them in every possible way.

        Lenin fought for the embodiment of his delusional ideas, born of an insanely diseased brain, as he himself cynically declared: " Interestingly PARTICIPATE IN EXPERIENCE"(he did experiments on people, crazy), Why hate him, sick .. request
        By the way, why did such a perfect collapse laughing "muhanizm"? It seems they killed, they killed, they imprisoned, they imprisoned, they lied, they lied, they taught, they taught monopoly only to my little rash-no! did the communist power collapse without a sound, only did Puck publish? lol
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 13 July 2016 14: 12
          -2
          Quote: Aleksander
          Wishlist will have to calm down: your time is over.

          This is your time running out. And you are afraid of this, trying to recklessly powder your brains with future generations and delay the inevitable.
          It was the communists who destroyed the USSR (Russia) with their stupid policy of artificially growing "nations that never existed."
          The Soviet Union collapsed like you. Abundantly sow the seeds of national hatred for the sake of achieving their own benefits - this is your task.
          As the communist power weakened, so the Russians were cut out and expelled from Central Asia and humiliated in the Baltic states.
          Do you think that power in these regions can be returned by declaring to their residents "I am Russian, and you are nobody"? I have had occasion to communicate with imperfections talking about Russian nationalism and celebrating Hitler's birthday. I don’t presume to imagine something more stupid and disgusting ...
          1. Aleksander
            Aleksander 13 July 2016 21: 47
            0
            Quote: Verdun
            This is your time running out. And you are afraid of this, trying to recklessly powder your brains with future generations and delay the inevitable.

            That is, NOT over, you yourself acknowledge. yes And you -No longer and naturally will not never .
            As for my lies (what is it, by the way): think about why your fucking comm-power was afraid of its short life like FIRE OTHER opinions, views, points of view? Why EVERYTHING that you justify today, this dumb power did SECRET: Holodomor 32-33 (no one in the world knew about 7 million dead), decrees on dispossession of kulaks, great terror 37, etc. -What was she afraid of, if everything is "right"? Why was one stupid "True", one stupid the consignment, one stupid ideology?
            Quote: Verdun
            Do you think that power in these regions can be returned by declaring to their residents "I am Russian, and you are nobody"? I happened to communicate with imperfections discussing Russian nationalism and celebrating Hitler’s birthday. I can’t pretend to imagine something more stupid and disgusting ...

            Who would doubt your social circle ...
            It is already impossible to return anything, because EVERYTHING was destroyed by your stupid power. Or do you undertake to assert that the communist power (by no one and as uncontrolled), which raised all these "republics" (never existed), is not responsible for the massacre of the Russians? in your opinion, the Russians themselves are to blame, poorly internationalized?
            The massacre of Russians, today's Nazi Rumna, is the collapse of the de-bogged nat policy of the Bolsheviks.
            1. Verdun
              Verdun 14 July 2016 11: 10
              0
              Quote: Aleksander
              The massacre of Russians, today's Nazi Rumna, is the collapse of the de-bogged nat policy of the Bolsheviks.
              Since I came to Topvar not at all to communicate with sick people, there is only one option in your respect - a black list.
  • gg.na
    gg.na 12 July 2016 22: 44
    -1
    Stalin: Russophile or Russophobe?

    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh what... mmmmmmmmmm what..., oooo winked... I think so what..., Russophilophobic nat it was him! Although FIG knows him request I was not at that time, I won’t say anything. But the fact that there was order in the country, yes! His hand was iron, even a steel damn!
    1. Erg
      Erg 12 July 2016 23: 21
      +2
      Stalin was not of this world ... No offshore, no yachts, no islands, no planes, real estate and other things. For him, such tinsel did not mean anything. A strong state and a happy people with a goal is His vector. Stalin - This is a phenomenon.
  • Svidetel 45
    Svidetel 45 12 July 2016 23: 49
    +3
    Stalin Russophobe? I do not know what Stalin was up to there in 44, but in 45 at the celebrations dedicated to the Victory, he raised a glass of wine and made the first toast to the glory of the Russian people.
    And I also came across information that W. Churchl, the sworn "partner" of the USSR, in the circle of his entourage called Stalin a "Russian nationalist."