Was Stalin a tyrant? Was Comrade Stalin a "classic" tyrant? Stalin in photographs

Enver Hoxha was the first secretary of the Party of Labor of Albania and the permanent leader of his country from 1941–1985. He repeatedly met with Stalin, visited all his dachas, attended meetings of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, knew all the top Soviet leaders - Beria, Molotov, Malenkov, Bulganin, Khrushchev, etc. I.V. Stalin was proclaimed a national holiday in Albania, and the date of his death became a day of mourning. After the XX Congress of the CPSU, where Khrushchev's report on Stalin's "personality cult" was read, E. Hoxha defended Iosif Vissarionovich. This infuriated Khrushchev, and relations between the USSR and Albania were severed. In his book, Enver Hoxha provides unique evidence about the life and politics of I. V. Stalin, as well as about the crimes of Khrushchev. E. Hoxha claims that Khrushchev killed Stalin twice: once in the literal sense of the word, and the second time by discrediting and slandering him after his death. The materials cited by the author are so sharp and revealing for Khrushchev and his followers that E. Hodge's book was banned in the USSR, and in modern Russia it has so far been published only in fragments.

A series: Next to Stalin

* * *

The following excerpt from the book Khrushchev killed Stalin twice (Enver Hoxha, 1976) provided by our book partner - the company LitRes.

All rights reserved. No part of the electronic version of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including posting on the Internet and corporate networks, for private and public use, without the written permission of the copyright owner.

© The electronic version of the book was prepared by Litres (www.litres.ru)

Preface. E. Hodge. Stalin was not a tyrant

The whole life of Joseph Stalin was characterized by a continuous and stubborn struggle against Russian capitalism, against world capitalism, against imperialism, against anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist currents and tendencies that had come to the service of world capital and world reaction. Under the leadership of Lenin and together with him, he was one of the inspirers and leaders of the Great October Socialist Revolution, an adamant figure in the Bolshevik Party.

After the establishment of the new government, it was necessary to wage a stubborn, heroic struggle to improve the economic and cultural life peoples liberated from the yoke of tsarism and foreign, European capitals. In this titanic struggle, Stalin stood firmly on the side of Lenin, he was a front line fighter.

After Lenin's death, Stalin led the struggle for victory and in defense of socialism in the Soviet Union for 30 years. That is why in the hearts of the peoples of the world, love, respect and loyalty to his cause and his personality occupy a special place. That is precisely why the capitalist bourgeoisie and world reaction have an exceptional hostility towards this faithful disciple and outstanding, uncompromising follower of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

Before the body of Lenin, Stalin swore to faithfully carry out his teachings, to put into practice his orders to preserve the purity of the high rank of a communist, to preserve and strengthen the unity of the Bolshevik Party, to preserve and tirelessly temper the dictatorship of the proletariat, to continuously strengthen the alliance of the working class with the peasantry, to remain faithful to the principles of proletarian internationalism to the end. , to defend the first socialist state from the intrigues of internal enemies - the bourgeoisie and landowners, as well as from external enemies - the imperialists, who sought to defeat it, to complete the work of building socialism in a sixth part of the world.

The internal enemies of the Soviet Union - the Trotskyists, Bukharinites, Zinovievites and others - were closely connected with the external capitalists, as they were their henchmen. Some of them were in the ranks of the Bolshevik Party with the intention of taking the fortress from within, distorting the correct, Marxist-Leninist line of this party, headed by Stalin, while some others were outside the party ranks, but in state bodies and plotted, on the sly and openly. frustrated the cause of socialist construction. Under these conditions, Stalin stubbornly carried out one of Lenin's main orders - to resolutely purge the party of all opportunist elements, of all those who capitulated to the pressure of the bourgeoisie and imperialism and to any view alien to Marxism-Leninism. The struggle that Stalin, at the head of the Bolshevik Party, waged against the Trotskyists and Bukharinites, is a direct continuation of the struggle of Lenin, a deeply principled, saving struggle, without which there would be neither socialist construction nor the possibility of defending socialism.

Joseph Stalin understood that victories could be won and defended by efforts, hardships, sweat, struggle. He never showed unfounded optimism in achieving victories and never succumbed to pessimism in the face of difficulties. On the contrary, Stalin showed himself to be an exceptionally mature figure, moderate in his thoughts, decisions, and actions. Being a great man, he managed to capture the hearts of the party and the people, mobilize their energy, temper the fighters in battles and battles and elevate them politically and ideologically, make them capable of performing a great, unprecedented deed.

Stalin's five-year plans for development National economy and cultures have turned the world's first socialist country into a mighty socialist power. Guided by Lenin's propositions on the priority development of heavy industry in the cause of socialist industrialization, the Bolshevik Party, headed by Stalin, gave the country a powerful industry for the production of means of production, a gigantic machine-building industry capable of ensuring the rapid development of the entire national economy as a whole, and all the necessary means, as well as providing indestructible defense. A heavy socialist industry was created, as Stalin said, " internal forces, without enslaving loans and loans from outside. Stalin explained to everyone that when creating a heavy industry, the Soviet state could not follow the path that the capitalist countries follow - to receive loans from outside or rob other countries.

After the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union, a modern socialist Agriculture based on solid agricultural mechanics - the production of socialist heavy industry, and thus the problem of grain and other main agricultural and livestock products was solved. It was Stalin who further developed the Leninist cooperative plan, led the implementation of this plan in a fierce struggle against the enemies of socialism - against the kulaks, the Bukharin traitors, countless difficulties and obstacles, which were the result not only of enemy activity, but also of lack of experience, private property psychology, which had deep roots in the minds of the peasants. The economic strengthening and the raising of the cultural level contributed to the strengthening of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union.

World capitalism saw the Soviet Union as its dangerous enemy, so it tried to isolate it on the international arena, while inside it began to encourage and organize conspiracies of renegades, spies, traitors and right-wing deviators. The dictatorship of the proletariat mercilessly struck at these dangerous enemies. All traitors were judged publicly. Their guilt at that time was confirmed by indisputable evidence and in the most convincing way. Regarding the trials in the Soviet Union in accordance with the revolutionary legislation in the case of the Trotskyites, Bukharinites, Radek, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Pyatakov and Tukhachevsky, bourgeois propaganda raised a great fuss, which further strengthened and systematized its slanderous and humiliating hype against the just struggle of the Soviet power, the Bolshevik Party and Stalin.

What external enemies did not invent, especially against Joseph Stalin, the talented leader of the Soviet Union, whom they called "tyrant", "murderer" and "bloodsucker". All these slanderous fabrications were distinguished by obvious cynicism. No, Stalin was not a tyrant, he was not a despot. He was a man of principle, fair, modest, sensitive and very attentive to people, to personnel, to his employees. That is why the party, the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the entire world proletariat loved him so much. This is how he was known to millions of communists and outstanding revolutionary and progressive figures in the world. Describing the image of Stalin, Henri Barbusse in his book “Stalin” notes, in particular: “He established and maintains contacts with the workers, peasants and intellectual people in the USSR, as well as with the revolutionaries of the world, who have their homeland in their hearts - therefore, more than with 200 million people." And he added: “This perspicacious and witty man, modest ... He smiles like a child ... In many respects, Stalin is similar to V. Ilyich: the same mastery of theory, the same efficiency, the same determination ... There is more in Stalin than in anyone Whatever it was, you will find the thought and word of Lenin. He is Lenin today.

All the thoughts and deeds of Stalin, written and put into practice, are permeated with a red thread of consistently revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist ideas. Not a single mistake of principle can be found in the writings of this outstanding Marxist-Leninist. His cause was in the interests of the proletariat, the working masses, the interests of the revolution, socialism and communism, the interests of the national liberation and anti-imperialist struggle. He was not an eclecticist in his theoretical and political thoughts, he did not allow any hesitation in his practical actions. The one who relied on the sincere friendship of Joseph Stalin was confident in his movement forward, towards a happy future for his people. The one who was cunning could not escape the vigilance and sharp judgment of Joseph Stalin. This judgment had its source in the great ideas of Marxist-Leninist theory, crystallized in his sharp mind and in his pure soul. Throughout his life, even in the midst of hostile storms and hurricanes, he managed to hold firmly and correctly direct the steering wheel of socialism.

Stalin knew when and to what extent compromises had to be made so that they would not encroach on the Marxist-Leninist ideology, on the contrary, they would benefit the revolution, socialism, the Soviet Union and the friends of the Soviet Union.

The proletariat, the Marxist-Leninist parties, genuine communists and all progressive people in the world found it right, reasonable and necessary to save the actions of the Bolshevik Party and Stalin in defense of the new, socialist socio-economic system and state. The cause of Stalin was approved by the world proletariat and the peoples of the world, because they realized that he fought against the oppression and exploitation that they experienced on themselves. The peoples heard slanderous fabrications about Stalin precisely from the lips of those monsters who organized torture and mass extermination in capitalist society, from the lips of those who were the culprit of hunger, poverty, unemployment and innumerable hardships, therefore they did not believe the fabrications.

While world capitalism was weakening, socialism, as the new order of the future, triumphed in the Soviet Union. Under these conditions, capitalism had to use absolutely all means to deal a deadly blow to the great socialist state of the proletarians, which showed the world the way to salvation from exploitation, so the capitalists prepared and unleashed the Second world war. They restored, supported, armed the Nazis and set them on "Bolshevism", on the Soviet Union, raised them to fight for the realization of the dream of "living space" in the East. The Soviet Union understood the danger that threatened it. Stalin was vigilant, he knew perfectly well that the slander that the international capitalist bourgeoisie concocted against him, claiming that he did not fight against the growing fascism and Nazism, was the usual words of this bourgeoisie and the Hitlerite "fifth column", calculated to deceive the world community and on the implementation of their plans - an attack on the Soviet Union.

The Seventh Congress of the Comintern rightfully called fascism in 1935 the greatest enemy of the peoples under the specific conditions of that time. This congress, on the personal initiative of Stalin, put forward the slogan of a common anti-fascist popular front, which was to be created in each country with the aim of exposing the aggressive and predatory plans and activities of the fascist states and rousing the peoples to their feet against these plans and against this activity, in order to prevent the threat to the world new imperialist war.

Never, at any moment, did Stalin forget about the danger that threatened the Soviet Union. He always waged a resolute struggle and gave clear instructions on how to temper the Party for the coming battles and battles, how to rally the peoples of the Soviet Union with a Marxist-Leninist unity of steel, how to strengthen the Soviet economy in a socialist way, how to strengthen the defense of the Soviet Union with material means and personnel, and arm its revolutionary strategy and revolutionary tactics. It was Stalin who, on facts from life itself, pointed out and proved that the imperialists are arsonists, that imperialism is the bearer of aggressive wars, in connection with which he advised people to be always on the alert and ready to repel any actions of the Nazis, the Italian fascists and the Japanese militarists, who could be undertaken by them together with the rest of the world capitalist powers. Stalin's word was valued like gold, it became a guiding star for the proletarians and peoples of the world.

Stalin invited the governments of the great capitalist powers of Western Europe to create an alliance against the Nazi plague, but these governments rejected such an offer; moreover, they even violated the alliances previously concluded with the Soviet Union, because they hoped that the Nazis would be able to destroy the “seed of Bolshevism”, that the Nazis would pull chestnuts out of the fire for them.

In this serious situation, fraught with great dangers, having failed in his efforts to convince the rulers of the so-called Western democracies of the need to create a joint anti-fascist alliance, Stalin found it expedient to delay the war against the Soviet Union in order to buy time to further strengthen the defense. To this end, he signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. This pact was intended to serve as a "modus vivendi" to temporarily avert danger, for Stalin saw Hitler's aggressiveness, and therefore was prepared to repel it.

Many bourgeois and revisionist politicians and historians assert and write that Hitler's aggression caught the Soviet Union unprepared, and they blame Stalin for this! Meanwhile, the facts reject such slander. It is known that Hitlerite Germany, being an aggressive state, in violation of the non-aggression pact, completely treacherously and piracy took advantage of the strategic surprise and numerical superiority of a huge force of about 200 divisions, its own and its allies, which it threw into a "blitzkrieg", with the help of which, according to Hitler's plans, the Soviet Union was to be crushed and defeated in no more than two months!

But what really happened is known. The "blitzkrieg", which was successful everywhere in Western Europe, failed in the East. The Red Army, possessing a very strong rear, using the support of all the peoples of the Soviet Union, during its retreat bled the enemy’s forces and finally pinned them on the spot, then launched a counteroffensive and crushed them with a series of subsequent blows, forcing Nazi Germany to accept unconditional surrender. The decisive role of the Soviet Union in the defeat of Nazi Germany, the destruction of fascism in general in the Second World War.

How could Hitler's plan of "blitzkrieg" against the Soviet Union fail and how could the latter play such a big role in saving mankind from fascist slavery without comprehensive preliminary preparation for defense, without iron strength and steel vitality socialist system that survived the most severe and greatest test of the Second World War? How can these victories be separated from Stalin's exceptional role both in preparing the country to repulse imperialist aggression, and in the defeat of Nazi Germany and in the historic victory over fascism? Any attempts by the Khrushchevite revisionists to separate Stalin from the party and the Soviet people in connection with the decisive role of the socialist state in achieving this victory are shattered by historical reality, which no force can not only erase, but even dispute or overshadow.

The struggle of the peoples of the Soviet Union, led by Stalin, led to the liberation of a number of countries and peoples from Nazi slavery, contributed to the establishment of a people's democratic system in many countries of Eastern Europe, caused an upsurge in the national liberation, anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggle, thereby contributing to the disintegration and crash colonial system, the creation in the world of a new alignment of forces in favor of socialism and revolution.

Khrushchev, without a twinge of conscience, called Stalin a "closed" person who allegedly did not understand the situation in the Soviet Union and the world situation, a man who allegedly did not know where the Red Army formations were deployed and allegedly controlled them only according to the school globe!

Meanwhile, even such leaders of world capitalism as Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, Eden, Montgomery, Hopkins and others were forced to recognize Stalin's indisputable merits, although they did not hide their hostility to Marxist-Leninist politics and ideology, as well as to Stalin himself. I read their memoirs and saw that these leaders of capitalism speak respectfully of Stalin as a statesman and commander, they call him a great man, "endowed with an amazing strategic sense", "unprecedented ability to quickly catch problems." Churchill said about Stalin: “... I respect this great and outstanding person… Very few people in the world could understand in such a way, in a few minutes, questions that we spent many months on. He caught everything in a second."

The Khrushchevites sought to create the illusion that it was not Stalin, but they, you see, who led the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union against Nazism! Meanwhile, everyone knows that at that time they took shelter under the shadow of Stalin, to whom they sang hypocritical hymns, declaring: “We owe all our victories and successes to the great Stalin,” etc., etc. at a time when they prepared to undermine these victories. Genuine hymns that came out of the heart were sung by glorious Soviet soldiers who, with the name of Stalin on their lips, fought for their homeland in historical battles.

Despite the covert and overt attempts by internal and external enemies of the Soviet Union to undermine socialism after the Second World War, it was the correctness of Stalin's policy that set the tone for great international problems. The country of the Soviets, incinerated by the war and leaving 20 million people on the battlefields, was restored with amazing speed. This enormous work was done by the Soviet people, the Soviet working class and the collective farm peasantry under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party and the great Stalin.

Stalin was a true internationalist. He carefully took into account the peculiarity of the Soviet state that it was founded as a result of the unification of many republics, consisting of many peoples, many nationalities, therefore state structure he perfected these republics, observing equality between them. With his correct, Marxist-Leninist policy on the national question, Stalin was able to nurture and temper the fighting unity of the various peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Standing at the head of the party and the Soviet state, he contributed to the transformation of the "prison of peoples", which was the old royal Russia, to a free, independent and sovereign country, where the peoples and republics would live in harmony, friendship, unity and in conditions of equality.

Stalin knew the nations and their historical formation, he knew the various features of the culture and psychology of each people and approached them through a Marxist-Leninist prism.

The internationalism of Joseph Stalin was clearly manifested in the relations built between the people's democratic countries, which he considered free, independent, sovereign countries, close allies of the Soviet Union. He never imagined these states as being politically or economically subordinate to the Soviet Union. This was the correct, Marxist-Leninist policy pursued by Stalin.

Imperialists, Khrushchevites and all other enemies accused Stalin of dividing zones of influence after the Second World War by entering into an agreement with former anti-fascist allies - the United States of America and Great Britain. This accusation, like the others, was thrown into the dustbin by time. After the Second World War, Stalin, with exemplary justice, defended the peoples, their national liberation struggle, their national and social rights from desires. former allies on the anti-fascist war.

The enemies of communism, starting with the world bourgeois reaction and down to the Khrushchevites and all other revisionists, tried by all means to overshadow and distort all the high qualities of this great Marxist-Leninist, all his clear thoughts and correct deeds, and to denigrate the first socialist state created by Lenin and Stalin .

The Khrushchevites, these new Trotskyites, Bukharinites, Zinovievists and Tukhachevskys, perfidiously encouraged a sense of arrogance and superiority among the people who took part in the war. They encouraged privileges for the elite, paved wide way bureaucratism and liberalism in the party and state organs, trampled on the real revolutionary norms, and they succeeded gradually in planting defeatism among the people. They presented all their atrocities as the consequences of "severe and sectarian behavior, as well as the method and style of work" of Stalin. This insidious act of those who acted on the sly, served to swindle the working class, the collective farm peasantry and the intelligentsia, to set in motion all the dissidents who had hidden up to that time.

They told dissidents, careerists, and corrupted elements that "real freedom" had now arrived for them, and that Nikita Khrushchev and his group had brought them this "freedom". This was setting the stage for the destruction of socialism in the Soviet Union.

These vile things surfaced shortly after Stalin's death, or rather, after Stalin's assassination. I say “after the assassination of Stalin” because Mikoyan himself told us that he, along with Khrushchev and his company, decided to carry out an assassination attempt and kill Stalin, but later, as Mikoyan told us, they abandoned this plan. It is a known fact that the Khrushchevites were looking forward to Stalin's death. The circumstances of his death are unclear.

In this regard, the question of the “white coats” remains an insoluble mystery - the trial of the Kremlin doctors, who, during Stalin's lifetime, were accused of trying to kill many leaders of the Soviet Union. After Stalin's death, these doctors were rehabilitated, and this was the end of the matter. And why was this case hushed up?! Was the criminal activity of these doctors proven when they were tried, or not? The question of doctors was hushed up because if the investigation had been continued later, if they had dug even deeper, it would have led to clean water much would reveal many crimes and many conspiracies of disguised revisionists headed by Khrushchev and Mikoyan. This could also explain the unexpected death of Gottwald, Beirut, Foster, Dimitrov and some others in a short period of time for curable diseases. So the real reason could be proven unexpected death Stalin.

Khrushchev and his group, in order to achieve their base goals and implement plans to fight Marxism-Leninism and socialism, silently and mysteriously eliminated many of the main leaders of the Comintern one after another. Thus, among others, they attacked and discredited Rakosi, who was removed from his post and exiled to the remote steppes of Russia.

Nikita Khrushchev and his accomplices, in the "secret" report that they delivered at their 20th Congress, slandered Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin and tried to humiliate him in the most disgusting way, with the most cynical Trotskyist methods. Having compromised some of the cadres in the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Khrushchevites decently used them, and then gave them a kick, liquidated them as anti-party elements. The Khrushchevites, led by Khrushchev, who condemned the "cult of Stalin" in order to cover up their subsequent crimes against the Soviet Union and socialism, exalted the cult of Khrushchev to the skies.

Cruelty, deceit, treachery, meanness of character, imprisonment and murder, which these high-ranking workers of the party and the Soviet state themselves had in their blood and entered into practice, they attributed to Stalin. During Stalin's lifetime, it was these people who sang magnificent praises to him in order to hide their careerism, their unsightly goals and deeds. In 1949, Khrushchev called Stalin "a brilliant leader and teacher", he said that "the name of Comrade Stalin is the banner of all the victories of the Soviet people, the banner of the struggle of the working people of the whole world." Mikoyan assessed the works of Stalin as "a new, higher historical stage of Leninism." Kosygin said that “we owe all our victories and successes to the great Stalin,” etc., etc. But after his death, they spoke differently. It was the Khrushchevites who stifled the voice of the party, stifled the voice of the working class and filled the concentration camps with patriots; it was they who released from prison the vile traitors, the Trotskyites and all the enemies whom time and facts exposed as opponents of socialism and agents of foreign capitalist enemies, which, however, they themselves again proved by their struggle as dissidents.

It was the Khrushchevites who conspiratorially and mysteriously "tried" and condemned not only Soviet revolutionaries, but also many people from other countries. In my notes, I wrote about one meeting with Soviet leaders, where Khrushchev, Mikoyan, Molotov and some others were present. Since Mikoyan was about to go to Austria, Molotov, as if jokingly, said, addressing him: "Be careful not to brew" porridge "in Austria, as you brewed it in Hungary." I immediately asked Molotov: “Well, did Mikoyan make “porridge” in Hungary?” He answered me: "yes" and then said that "if Mikoyan goes there again, he will be hanged." Mikoyan, that latent anti-Marxist cosmopolitan, answered him: "If they hang me, then Kadar will be hanged too." But even if both of them were hanged, then intrigues and meanness still remain immoral phenomena.

Khrushchev, Mikoyan and Suslov first took under the protection of the conspirator Imre Nagy, and then convicted and secretly executed him somewhere in Romania! By what right did they treat a foreign citizen like that? He, although he was a conspirator, was to be judged only by his state, and no foreign laws, courts, or penalties were allowed against him. Stalin never allowed such actions.

No, Stalin never did that. He judged traitors to the party and the Soviet state openly. The crimes committed by them were openly shown to the Party and the Soviet people. You will never find in Stalin such mafia methods as you find in the Soviet revisionist leaders.

The Soviet revisionists resorted to and continue to resort to such methods against each other in their struggle for power, as is done in any capitalist country. Khrushchev seized power with a putsch, and Brezhnev deposed him from the throne.

Brezhnev and his accomplices removed Khrushchev in order to save revisionist politics and ideology from the discrediting and exposure that were the result of his extravagant deeds, his utter nonsense. He did not in the least reject Khrushchevism, the reports and decisions of the 20th and 22nd Congresses, where Khrushchevism is embodied. But Brezhnev showed himself so ungrateful towards Khrushchev, whom he used to exalt so much, that he did not even find a hole in the Kremlin walls where his ashes could be put when he died! By the way, the Soviet people and the world community were never informed about the real reasons for Khrushchev's deposition. In official revisionist documents, the "primary cause" has always been "old age and deteriorating health"!!

Stalin was not at all what the enemies of communism called him and are calling him names. On the contrary, he was principled and fair. Depending on the circumstances, he knew how to help the erring and expose them, to encourage and celebrate the special merits of those who faithfully served Marxism-Leninism. Cases with Rokossovsky and Zhukov are known. When Rokossovsky and Zhukov made a mistake, they were criticized and removed from their posts. But they were not rejected as incorrigible, on the contrary, they were warmly helped, and at the moments when it was found that these cadres had already reformed, Stalin nominated them for posts, awarded them the rank of marshal, and during the Great Patriotic War entrusted them with extremely important tasks on the main fronts of the war against the Nazi invaders. The way Stalin acted could only be done by a leader who was clear and who put into practice the principle of Marxist-Leninist justice in evaluating the work of people, with their positive sides and mistakes.

After Stalin's death, Marshal Zhukov became a tool for Nikita Khrushchev and his group; he supported Khrushchev's treacherous activities against the Soviet Union, the Bolshevik Party and Stalin. Finally, Nikita Khrushchev threw out Zhukov like a squeezed lemon. He did the same with Rokossovsky and many other key personnel.

Many Soviet communists were seduced by the demagogy of the Khrushchevite revisionist group and thought that after Stalin's death the Soviet Union would indeed become a real paradise, as the revisionist traitors began to ring. They announced with pomp that communism would be established in the Soviet Union in 1980!! But what happened? The opposite happened, and it could not have been otherwise. The revisionists seized power not for the prosperity of the Soviet Union, but to bring it back, to transform it, as they had turned it into a capitalist country, to subordinate it to economic world capital, to conclude secret and open agreements with American imperialism, to subjugate peoples and countries to the people's democracies under the guise of military and economic treaties to keep these countries under the yoke and create markets and zones of influence in the world.

Khrushchev himself told us that Stalin told them that they would sell the Soviet Union to imperialism. And in fact, that's what happened. his words were confirmed.

The peoples of the world, the world proletariat, sober people with a pure heart, under the circumstances that have arisen, can themselves judge the correctness of Stalin's positions. Only in a broad political, ideological, economic and military platform can people judge the correctness of his Marxist-Leninist line.

Assessing the cause of Stalin as a whole, everyone can understand the genius and communist spirit of this outstanding figure and make sure that people like him are little known in the modern world.

(From an article by E. Hodge dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of I.V. Stalin)

Kirill Alexandrov

The Bolshevik experiment to build another Tower of Babel, of course, failed. Nothing else could have ended such a fight against God. Only now the builders and foremen have not gone anywhere.

AT interesting cycle articles "Problems of Nationalism" Viktor Granovsky expressed his point of view on a number of issues that are especially important for the development of national identity. Accurate diagnosis of the disease is good because it allows you to search for the necessary medicine. Disagreements at the medical consultation are for the benefit of the patient. Therefore, some of the theses of our Moscow author, presented with his characteristic literary talent in the third and final article, cannot but meet with objections. Not so elegant in form and style, but essential, as we believe, in content.

"I guess, - writes Viktor Vladimirovich, - that the Bolshevik “grand experiment to create a new man” as a whole failed after all. Soviet people did not fit for the most part for the format of the Soviet utopia".

It didn't work, that's exactly right. But they were born and multiplied. I see no reason for such an optimistic statement.

The Bolshevik experiment to build another Tower of Babel, of course, failed. Nothing else could have ended such a fight against God. Only now the builders and foremen have not gone anywhere. Alas, the Bolsheviks nevertheless created the Soviet man and by 1985 had succeeded in their own genetic engineering. Some part of the Soviet people made fun of Brezhnev, telling jokes about him (however, they were quite kind). But the vast majority with power agreed, took her like native and expressed dissatisfaction only about the poor store assortment (“He would like meat, and other goods, but more order!”, An entry from the diary of a nomenclature worker of the CPSU Central Committee, December 30, 1979). Television vulgarity united the country just as, alas, to a large extent unites it now.

Probably the Bolsheviks achieved the greatest success in developing the human capacity for everyday lies and fantastic hypocrisy - if only they would allow to exist and take on the desired form. The Bolsheviks brought up worshipers of power and got their way. These were by no means the Sharikovs - Klim Chugunkin, as I remember, was born and formed in pre-revolutionary Russia - but rather the characters of "Flights in a dream and reality" and "Autumn Marathon", then "Little Vera" and "Cargo 200". True, they are connected with the Sharikovs. In the nomenklatura of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1966, the share of immigrants from unskilled workers and the poorest peasants was 70%, in 1981 - 80%.

"Prihvatization" and banditry of the 1990s, corruption, bribery, theft of subsequent years, everyday deceit in small things and in a big way, degradation of culture and private taste - these are all the products of the vital activity of Soviet people brought up by the Brezhnev Komsomol, the result of the transformation of the Soviet community, the existence of which Victor Granovsky stubbornly denies. And here there is a direct connection between the current generations and the previous ones, who lived under the secret slogan "Everything around is collective farm - everything around is mine." It is better not to provide evidence for January 28, 1980 from the diary of a responsible worker of the CPSU Central Committee:

“In two years, the number of thefts [in transport. — Approx. K. A.] doubled; the value of the stolen - four times.

40% of thieves are railroad workers themselves;

60% of thieves are themselves water transport workers.

9–11,000 vehicles are piling up in Brest because they cannot be handed over in such a “disassembled” form to foreigners;

25% of tractors and agricultural machines come dismantled;

30% of Zhiguli cars were returned to VAZ, as they came to the consumer half disassembled;

14 billion rubles worth of cargo is daily without protection;

steal many billions of rubles a year;

seven times more meat is stolen than two years ago, five times more fish.

The Deputy Minister of the Interior reported that in 1970, 4,000 railroad thieves were caught, in 1979, 11,000. These are only those who were caught. And who was not caught - how many are there?

The explanation is simple: the collective farm psychology of the Soviet community led to the fact that petty theft from the state was not considered a sinful act. Moreover, the concept sin- the Bolsheviks canceled, replacing it with the concept a crime(counter-revolution, sabotage, eyewash, squandering, theft, waste, accidents, red tape, hostile attacks, excesses, degeneration, bungling, factionalism, defeatism, etc.).

Viktor Vladimirovich believes that the Soviet Union collapsed because the Soviet people "did not fit" for the utopia format. The remark is bright in form, but the phenomenon of the disappearance of the USSR “in three days” does not explain in any way. It is generally difficult to squeeze a person into the format of a utopia. It is doomed to an insurmountable contradiction with real life.

The Soviet Union collapsed three reasons.

Firstly, the citizens of the USSR were distorted.

The mass of lies at all levels of private and public life, from the kindergarten, the October star and the pioneer organization to the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, has exceeded a critical mass. The system collapsed. No one went to defend and die for the lied-out USSR in 1991, including tens of thousands of KGB officers, Soviet officers and secretaries of party organizations. Including - those who shed tears today about the inglorious death of the Leninist-Stalinist state did not go to die for the USSR.

The Russian people created a volunteer army to save the motherland. Soviet people create such an army could not- and didn't try(drunk GKChP does not count). The inglorious end of the USSR once again proves the obvious reality and demineralization Soviet community on the eve of perestroika. Cynics and hypocrites are incapable of "ice campaigns".

Secondly, the Bolsheviks could not feed the country - and fat herds of parasites around the world, sucking on the resources of the CPSU. The nomenclature satisfied or almost satisfied their material needs. But only theirs.

Thirdly, the Soviet leaders after Stalin lost their sacredness and turned into well-fed bureaucrats. Sacred awe such characters as Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Chernenko did not inspire people, and the sick Andropov could not energetically play the role of the new Big Brother.

The patriotic reluctance of Viktor Granovsky to recognize the bitter truth is understandable: “I completely disagree with the fact that the heroes of Rasputin and Astafiev… "quietly drank too much" and that was their best lot". Alas, it is true that, for example, Nikolai Nikulin sincerely admitted. Therefore, the truth about the war was told to us by political workers and other loyal Stalinists. Viktor Astafiev wrote that Stalin and Zhukov burned the Russian people in the fire of war. And what future awaited the burnt? ..

“Evidence from rural prose is precisely that human dignity was not lost by the Russian people even under the Soviet yoke”.

“The village, military, camp prose of the past century is the main proof that not everyone, far from everyone in Russia managed to be “crossed” with the ball ones and conquer the power of the shvonders”.

Pure truth.

Only these sincere and honest testimonies in favor of righteousness, as far as it was possible, of absolute Astafiev's minorities, thinned and gone by the end of the twentieth century. And it did not determine the shape and image of the post-Soviet twenty years. The village died long before the death of the USSR, there is no need for illusions. The Bolsheviks turned Russia into a country of mega-cities with squandered spaces between them.

And here we are approaching the main polemical thesis.

Viktor Vladimirovich is convinced: “The legacy of Soviet power, mainly Stalinist, is the legacy of any tyranny. Tyranny is, as they wrote in antiquity, "an extreme disease of the state." And in general there are no new features in Comrade Stalin compared to what Aristotle found in the image of the “classical” tyrant”(our italics. - K. A.).

Lenin's state was a state of a new, special type, completely unknown to either the ancient Greeks or the philosophers of the Enlightenment. Leninist Bolshevism acquired features pseudo-religions. The phenomenon of Stalinism consisted not only and not so much in the physical enslavement of a person and his labor efforts, but in spiritual enslavement. Forced to live in a world of countless myths and fictions. In the destruction or minimization of private space up to personal experiences and reflection. Stalinist Bolshevism is the power of a dead letter over man. Conveyor for the production of dead souls.

Christ affirms the value, meaning and independence of the human person. Stalin sought to deprive the individual of his own will and, as Roman Redlich noted, define it from the outside. Squeeze a person into a primitive cell of a huge social network with clear functions, correct behavior, emotions and face. Lubyanka served as an alternative. All-Russian depeasantization and the creation of a collective farm system is not only the creation of a “second serfdom (Bolsheviks)”. It is also a deliberate deprivation of the Russian grain grower of family tradition and self-identification.

Unlike the Nazis, who were mediocre, inconsistent, and uncreative disciples, the Stalinists succeeded in the almost unthinkable, unthinkable under classical tyranny—they devalued the Word, gave it a double and even a triple meaning. They created a very special new language, in which peace meant war, prosperity - poverty, satiety - hunger, care - torture, etc. department of the NKVD.

Lenin invented the bodies of the Cheka-OGPU.

Stalin came up with three virtues of a real party and non-party Bolshevik: devotion, vigilance and activity. According to these patterns, the Soviet man was cut. At the same time, Stalin himself was special party leader who began his career as a criminal bank robber and pedophile.

Each tyrant had his own social support in the conquered society. Comrade Stalin relied on assets- a specific social group created by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet state and until then unknown. Octoberites, pioneers, Komsomol members, Chekists, workers and collective farmers, intellectuals and even prisoners had their own assets, which made it easier for the nomenclature to manage and political control. The uniqueness of the asset lay in the fact that the higher the position held by the nominee activist, the more reduced his personal security. Life risks were compensated by status, power functions and material privileges.

Finally, not a single despotic regime destroyed the enslaved people by the millions, as the Stalinist regime did in the pre-war decade.

Therefore, of course, Comrade Stalin was not ordinary tyrant.

Most likely, he was not a classic tyrant- in the sense that old Aristotle put into this term. Probably, Fyodor Stepun came closest to the truth, believing that behind Stalin, who personified hypocritical evil, was the devil.

The tragedy of a monstrous war in terms of losses and national disasters, in which his regime survived and acquired additional stability, Stalin cunningly replaced the image of a great state victory. And the heirs of Stalin greedily clutched at this image, because they could not offer anything else to the people, whose life was spent in lines.

Victor Granovsky believes: “And by the way, what really unites Russians to this day around the victory in the war with Hitler - is not our last national victory? - not "perjury about the ninth of May." The association is built mainly on the truth that has made its way through the granite of propaganda lies about the victory, through the Stalinist-Brezhnev fanfare about it. The national, and often the family tradition of many Russian citizens is still rooted in memories of the war, which have long been deprived of forced-ceremonial officialdom..

And again, alas.

In today's young people, "memories of the war" do not cause any enthusiasm, unless it is created artificially, in a forced school-student order - and this causes even greater indifference and alienation, like everything false. Moreover, smart young people know perfectly well that the subsequent life of the victors turned out to be miserable and poor in comparison with the life of the vanquished. The contradiction is irresistible. And there is practically no one to “remember” it. Unfortunately, family memories and private stories about the war do not unite and cannot unite the younger generation of contemporary Russian citizens.

There is no reflection. Visual illustration.

Both our society and the state are in fact indifferent to the former national tragedy - just look at the state of military burials and cemeteries, especially in remote provinces.

“The vulgarity and cynicism of Brezhnevism is, after all, not the cannibalism of Stalinism”, - Viktor Vladimirovich believes.

Certainly not cannibalism.

But this is her natural result.

Wine turns into vinegar, and Stalin into Brezhnev. Great bloodshed and great violence over the soul were replaced by spiritual emptiness. The testimony of a white Cossack who confessed to his grandson that Russia lived best under Brezhnev is the testimony of a man reduced by the Stalinists to a simple state of a camp goner: "It hurts - bad, not painful - good."

However, the final conclusion of Viktor Granovsky is not only acceptable, but the only possible one. Of course, we must strive to fertilize and restore my land - if it is still capable of producing a good harvest - and not to destroy someone else's field, from which the wind brings poisonous seeds to our field. In the acceptance of this unconditional thought of Georgy Florovsky, with which Victor Granovsky ended his cycle, lies our agreement and unanimity.

Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, better known to the whole world as Stalin. The Bolshevik, who took the helm of the Soviet Union after Lenin's death, pursued a tougher policy than his predecessor.

During the years of Stalin's rule, our country experienced collectivization and industrialization, repressions and the Great Patriotic War. Stalin's opponents call him a tyrant who built the Gulag and destroyed millions of his fellow citizens; supporters - the savior who stopped the brown plague at the gates of Moscow and in Stalingrad and destroyed it in the Berlin lair. I will try to answer this seemingly simple and at the same time very complex question: so who is Stalin, a tyrant or a savior?

Stalin was statesman totalitarian state. All executive power was concentrated in his hands and he used it to suppress any dissent. He was a man of his time who came when needed. If Stalin-Dzhugashvili had not come, then Stalin-Ivanov or Stalin-Petrov would have come. There would be another person who pursued the same internal policy. And Stalin understood this very well, he knew that only he himself could retain power, not relying on anyone. But are the millions of victims of the Gulag justified for holding power by one person? Of course not. The vast majority of them were innocent of the charges. These were people of various fields of activity: military men, scientists, writers, ministers of the church, teachers, descendants of the nobility, Trotskyists, etc.
During the reign of Stalin, collectivization and industrialization were carried out, the results of which were massive famine and at the same time an industrial breakthrough. Stalin was a pragmatist who directly and stubbornly pursued his main political goal: to make the first socialist state capable of repelling the blow of foreign intervention.

During the reign of Stalin, our country faced the biggest test: the attack of Nazi Germany. Five million enemy soldiers invaded our land, devastating cities and villages, driving people into slavery. Stalin believed that he had the strategic gift of a commander, and therefore he himself directly led the troops on initial stage Great Patriotic War. The famous order "Not one step back!" led to huge losses in the troops and brought closer in the fall of 1941. German soldiers to Moscow. And then the most important thing happened. Despite the fact that the evacuation of government offices, factories and factories began from the capital, and it was decided to flood the metro, Stalin made a courageous decision to stay in the capital and accepted the parade of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army. This made a great impression on the soldiers, the leader's confidence that the capital could be defended was passed on to the soldiers. And they, with even greater courage and courage, defeated the enemy and threw him back from Moscow.

Gradually, Stalin moved away from direct control of the fronts, giving greater freedom of action to front-line generals. This showed Stalin's understanding that he was a politician, not a military man. Victory was getting closer and closer.
What conclusion can be drawn from the above?

Most likely, Stalin was both a tyrant and a savior who was to appear at the forefront of the young socialist state, and who decided different problems differently.

Stalin through the prism of decades - his youth, what marked the period of growing up, what factors made him a revolutionary and a well-known communist figure. How did the great dictator come to power. The trials that fell to him and the country, the pros and cons of the Stalinist methods of government.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin and his era

Perhaps, in our history there is no more controversial figure than Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. This is a totalitarian leader who practically appropriated the highest position for himself, and the author of numerous repressions, and the leader of the victorious country in World War II. Very interesting and colorful character.

It is difficult even in our time to find a person who does not know who Stalin is. He evoked irritation in someone, anger in someone, respect in someone, and fear in someone. But none of his contemporaries remained indifferent to this charismatic and multifaceted politician.

Let's try to plunge into his world for a while and at least slightly lift the veil of history over the biography and the most striking events of his life.

Biography of Stalin. Start

As for the biography of Joseph Stalin, extremes are observed here. Previously, all the details were clearly verified and approved by the relevant authorities. And now all and sundry write about him. We have to look for facts about Joseph Stalin as grains of truth in the sea of ​​violent imagination of the authors. Even his height and weight are adjusted at times.

The only thing they do not argue about is the years of life and the period of the reign of the great dictator.

Childhood

Everything in the world has its beginning. Stalin was also small and, like any child, he loved to dream. Who knows if he managed to realize his childhood dreams, but he left a mark on history for centuries.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (real name Dzhugashvili) was born on December 21, 1879 in the city of Gori, which then still belonged to the Russian Empire. There is controversy about the date of his birth, since the numbers in different documents differ. But still, the official birthday of Joseph Stalin, recognized by the whole country, falls on the date indicated.

Stalin was Georgian by nationality. His father, Vissarion Ivanovich, belonged to the lower strata of society - a simple shoemaker. Mother - Ekaterina Georgievna - comes from serfs.

It so happened that Joseph was the only child in the family - his older brothers died of typhus at a tender age. He himself was not a strong man either - from early childhood, the future head of the Soviet Union was plagued by various ailments. And at the age of seven he was hit by a phaeton. Joseph survived, but since then his left hand has become difficult to obey.

Stalin's childhood was not easy. His father was a bitter drunkard, as a result of which both the boy himself and his mother were repeatedly beaten by the raging head of the family. Mother - a quiet and meek woman - doted on her only son and tried with all her might to brighten up his life. Being a simple and narrow-minded woman, Ekaterina Dzhugashvili saw her son as "educated", which for her meant entering the priesthood.

Due to poor health, he could not engage in hard physical labor, so it was decided to send the boy to the Gori Theological School, where Iosif Dzhugashvili entered in 1888 and successfully graduated six years later.

Youth

Stalin continued his further education at the Orthodox Seminary in the city of Tiflis. He successfully compensated for his physical shortcomings with an inquisitive mind and craving for knowledge. The same craving led him to the ranks of the revolutionaries a year before graduating from the seminary. The teenager was keenly interested in the works of Marx and the political views of the Social Democrats led by Lenin. He ardently supported the revolutionary movement and Lenin's ideas, therefore, without hesitation, he joined the Georgian social democratic organization Mesami Dasi, from where his political path began.

It was in this organization, being the leader of one of the illegal revolutionary circles, that he discovered the leader in himself. He realized that he knew how to tell, that they liked to listen to him, his opinion was taken into account, and he realized that he liked all this. In this incarnation, he was like a fish in water. Iosif Dzhugashvili finally chose his own path and became an ardent supporter of Bolshevism. The first underground nickname “Koba” appears there. He tried many nicknames, but in the end he took the pseudonym "Stalin".

For the sake of revolutionary ideas, education had to be sacrificed - within the walls of the seminary they did not tolerate a newly-minted revolutionary, and Stalin was expelled shortly before the final exams with the wording "failure to appear for an exam for an unknown reason." His education was not completed. All he had after a few years of study was evidence that he could teach in elementary schools.

Path to power

Stalin has been considered a professional revolutionary since 1901. It was then that he decided to devote himself to this occupation without a trace and began to engage in illegal party activities. Soon he was heading the Tiflis committee of the RSDLP.

It is clear that this was by no means welcomed in the Russian Empire. Therefore, Joseph Stalin comes to the attention of the police and becomes a frequent "guest" in prison dungeons. In 11 years, he survived six arrests and four escapes.

Focusing on the "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class", headed by Lenin, Stalin promotes cardinal methods of interclass confrontation. By this, he provokes harsh criticism from the majority of the Mesame-dasi members, who continue to cling to pure verbiage as part of their disagreement with the tsarist regime. They were not ready to take to the streets and start real resistance.

Thus, Iosif Dzhugashvili finally becomes "leftist" and loses the support of the conservative majority of his party. Considering Lenin a true follower of Marxism and at the same time receiving support from the working class of Tiflis, the revolutionary Stalin is not going to turn off the chosen path.

In April 1900, at a May Day meeting in Tiflis, Stalin spoke to a large audience for the first time. Apparently, both he and his listeners liked the debut. Subsequently, such speeches became part of the biography of Joseph the revolutionary.

When in 1903 at the congress of the RSDLP there was a final split in the party, and it was divided into the Bolsheviks (headed by V. I. Lenin) and the Mensheviks, Dzhugashvili supported his idol without hesitation and joined the ranks of the Bolsheviks.

After that, he was entrusted with the leadership of the Bolshevik organizations in the Transcaucasus. This is the first appointment of this level. Stalin moves to Baku, where for several years he has been actively carrying out party affairs and organizing major strikes.

Thus began the path to power of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

Vladimir Lenin - pre-revolutionary photo

Stalin's career after the October Revolution

Despite his lack of education, Joseph Stalin was a natural leader and was able to write speeches and propaganda materials for the press. In addition, he had a cunning and quirky mind, which allowed him to move up the career ladder with giant strides.

Lenin brought him as close as possible to himself by appointing, after the success of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917, where he took a very active part, People's Commissar for Nationalities. That he was entrusted with the decision national question, spoke of the high confidence on the part of Lenin. But it was obvious that Stalin himself wanted more.

The establishment of the Bolshevik dictatorship in a state torn apart from within and without by military operations inspired new ideas for the future sole ruler of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He became convinced that, firstly, it was effective and, secondly, it was a wonderful justification for autocracy. Since then, this thought has not left his head.

The practice of concentration camps, introduced by Lenin, aroused Stalin's keen interest. Later he would take this into service and apply it widely during the years of his reign.

In the most difficult period for the young Soviet state, Stalin began slowly but surely to make sure that Lenin could no longer do without him. Even from emigration, Vladimir Ilyich led the party through his faithful assistant. He literally became the right hand of the leader of the world proletariat.

Undoubtedly, this could not but affect his career. He becomes one of the party leaders. The reins of government of the young republic gradually passed into the hands of Joseph Vissarionovich, and he no longer let them go.

The only "cat" that ran between him and Lenin was the events in Tsaritsyn in 1919, when, according to Stalin's instructions, after the betrayal of one former white officer, a whole galaxy of military specialists was shot without trial or investigation. After this incident, Stalin developed a dislike for military experts.

Lenin criticized the act of his protégé, unable to refrain from harsh remarks about him, but he is unlikely to change his mind. Nevertheless, he certainly drew conclusions about irresolvable differences with the leader of the Bolshevik Party.

Stalin stubbornly walked towards his goal - the sole power. Since 1921, when Lenin increasingly left the political leadership of party affairs to assistants due to illness, Iosif Vissarionovich was elected General Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP (b). The position at that time did not imply such a wide range of powers, which the newly-minted General Secretary later introduced, pushing the Politburo aside.

Lenin, shortly before his death, realized what an unforgivable mistake he had made by entrusting the reins of government to such a dangerous ally. In his letters, he asked to remove Stalin from power and not to trust him with responsible positions. But these messages are too late - the political machine called "Stalin" has already gained momentum.

Rise of Stalinism

After the death of Lenin, Stalin arranged it so that, as if it were self-evident, Vladimir Ilyich left him as his successor and continuer of the work of the party of workers and peasants. Unnoticed by others, the prudent general secretary concentrated all power in his hands, while not forgetting to hide behind the fulfillment of the tasks outlined by "comrade Lenin" and strict observance of the party line.

His flexible mind and subtle feeling of people allowed him to surround himself with supporters who were ready to support the ambitious general secretary in all endeavors.

Period of repression

It is amazing how quickly Stalin managed to crack down on the opposition. Trotsky, who believed that it was he who would lead the party, was expelled from the country by Stalin. Beginning in 1929, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who led the opposition movement against Stalin, paid the price of expulsion from the party and subsequent repressions. And after the murder of S. M. Kirov, extensive purges of the opposition forces began, and soon they were completely destroyed. Some of the prominent party leaders suffered the same fate.

The thirties of the twentieth century were marked by the beginning of the heyday of the Stalin era. Now he made decisions alone and acted as he saw fit. This was facilitated by mass repressions that swept through all corners of the vast country. The punishing body in the person of the NKVD put this process on broad rails. Any person could be convicted, exiled to a camp or shot practically without trial or investigation.

Stalin did not spare military specialists either, the dislike for which remained with him from the time of the defense of Tsaritsyn (since 1925, Stalingrad). Large-scale purges swept through the ranks of the military. Many people of outstanding intelligence and remarkable abilities were ground to pieces by the punitive machine.

However, it is wrong to consider Stalin alone as the organizer of the repressions. Millions of denunciations compiled by ordinary Soviet citizens speak for themselves. In addition, there were enough "excesses" in the execution of Stalin's decrees at the local level. Particularly zealous performers could give odds to the leader himself.

If you look from the other side, to raise the country out of devastation and instill in the population a new ideology is a huge and thankless job. Therefore, tough and even repressive measures are not a whim, but rather a necessity in accordance with the era. So far, there is no proven effective system based on loyalty and liberalism that would perform well in such difficult conditions.

Collectivization and industrialization

The years of "dispossession" and the forcible organization of peasants into collective farms are still blamed on Stalin. But this is a double-edged sword. Undoubtedly, the process of collectivization took place extremely harshly and in an accelerated mode. This was a consequence of the devastation and food crisis in the country. Whether there was another way in this situation and how it was possible to help the Soviet Union rise from the ruins, the question is far from being idle. It remains open to this day.

When agricultural products began to be produced in excess, the head of state began to sell them abroad. In exchange, industrial equipment was acquired for the development of the country's industrial production, which was lame on both legs. Stalin wanted to turn the young Soviet republic from a backward agrarian appendage into an industrial power.

It was the era of his reign that was marked by rapid growth and the construction of new industrial enterprises, as well as the development of science. Stalin showed a keen interest in the latest achievements in these areas. He wanted to bring the USSR to the forefront in all directions. In the context of sanctions imposed on the country by major Western powers, this position is difficult to challenge. In defiance of the capitalist, Joseph Vissarionovich planned to develop socialist industrialization.

He expanded a network of research institutes and raised the salaries of scientists. Stalin sought to penetrate into all advanced technologies and not just adopt them from the West, but make his own, much better and more efficiently.

He succeeded to the fullest. By the end of the thirties, that is, in two five-year plans, Soviet Russia had become a leader in terms of industrial growth and indicators of technical progress. The development of all branches of the national economy proceeded at a tremendous pace.

Poster "Give Industrialization"

In fairness, it must be said that all this was achieved by considerable sacrifices - both physical and social. The standard of living of the population was lower than during normal development, going on its own. Investments in socially significant projects were limited for the sake of fulfilling plans for scientific development and industrialization.

Stalin did not forget about the propaganda of his policy among the people. Not tired of declaring himself a faithful follower of the Leninist cause, by the end of the 1930s he announced that the construction of socialism in one single country had been completed. And all the obstacles and obstacles at that time are organized by malicious units who want to prevent the Soviet government from fulfilling the will of the people.

Under this sauce, a real hunt for "enemies of the people" unfolded. All those who supported Trotsky's opinion in one way or another, or were members of the opposition bloc organized by Kamenev and Zinoviev, were severely repressed or destroyed.

Stalin is the commander-in-chief. The Great Patriotic War

You can argue a lot about the qualities of Stalin as the head of the Headquarters Supreme High Command(during the war he had the rank of marshal), but the fact remains that he led the country to victory over Nazi Germany. She was of great importance. Stalin, the commander-in-chief, not only defeated the "brown plague", he proved to the whole world that there would be no success in the war against the Soviet Union. Despite the obvious hostility and policy of countering communism, not a single capitalist country dared to attack the USSR anymore.

To the fact that Germany would so treacherously violate the peace treaty, Stalin was not ready. Far from being an idiot, he understood that war could not be avoided, but he really hoped to outplay Hitler. Of course, the ineffective actions of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief in the first days of the attack by the Wehrmacht troops hit the country hard. But this is understandable. Stalin is a good tactician, but a rather weak strategist.

The rapid military successes of the Nazis in the first months of the war are quite understandable. Fascist Germany was superior to the Soviet Union in terms of location, level of funding, and other indicators. At her service was the economic and raw material base of all of Europe. And how can one blame Stalin, even if European countries, much more developed and stronger, almost instantly fell before the onslaught of the Third Reich.

Stalin, on the other hand, managed to quickly transfer the country to a military footing, arranged the evacuation of strategically important enterprises to the rear. If you think about it, this is a very complex and labor-intensive process, even in Peaceful time. You try to take any plant and move it at least a meter. And during the war, these same plants, one and a half to two months after the evacuation, worked for the needs of the front at full capacity.

Urgent measures were also taken to strengthen the troops of the Red Army and the Navy.

In addition, Stalin rallied the multinational people in such a way that Hitler's specialists could not create the notorious "fifth column" to divide people and destroy the country from the inside. This, by the way, is a phenomenon of that time. Western historians have never been able to explain it.

They note the high merits of Stalin as a negotiator. It was he who managed to organize an alliance with England and the United States against Hitler and convinced them to open a second front. In all conferences during the war, he played a leading role, while seeking agreements from opponents on the right terms. It was Stalin who insisted on convening the Nuremberg trials so that the world would know about all the crimes of the Nazis and, moreover, the innocent would not suffer.

Surprisingly, the leader of the victorious country more than modestly disposed of military trophies and glory. Surely there is a rational explanation for this.

One of Stalin's main contributions to the politics of peace was the creation of the United Nations, which exists almost unchanged to this day.

In the defeats of our troops in 1941-1942, an important role was played by the low provision of mechanized military equipment. Germany in this sense was head and shoulders ahead of us, if not more. This is understandable - industrialization has just begun in our country, while the Germans have long and successfully promoted technical progress.

Of the biggest disadvantages, it is worth noting the "purges" among the regular officers of the former tsarist army. Of course, this greatly weakened the senior command staff and deprived the Headquarters of competent strategic and tactical management. People in the upper ranks of military positions, as a rule, did not have the appropriate education and combat experience.

However, there is no better school for troops than war, sadly. And in the Red Army training went by leaps and bounds. Empirically, military leaders gained experience, studied and comprehended military science. As a result, by the end of the war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union had the strongest army not only in Europe, but in the whole world. By the way, this was one of the main reasons for the refusal of the bloc of major capitalist countries to start a war against the USSR. Everyone saw perfectly well that this army would repulse any enemy.

You can treat Stalin as you like, but it is difficult to overestimate his historical role in the defeat of fascism. It will remain for centuries.

Postwar Stalinism

Many historians agree that the apogee of totalitarianism and Stalinist repressions fell on the post-war years of his reign (up to his death). Most likely, this was so, because during the years of the war serious contradictions were revealed and unresolved problems of an ideological nature were exposed.

On the other hand, the country that had just been raised from its knees after the war again lay in ruins. Almost destroyed, but not broken. The big question is whether it is possible to restore the economy in the shortest possible time and bring the industry to its previous level using liberalism and loyal methods. Stalin can be respected already for the fact that he had to go through this twice. Perhaps none of the historical figures can boast of such "luck".

The head of state had to mobilize all his strengths and skills, as well as available resources, in order to bring the country back into the lead in the shortest possible time. And he succeeded, no matter what. The USSR under the leadership of I. V. Stalin even turned into a mighty nuclear power.

He also successfully solved the problem of partially disbanding a huge army, which by the end of the war had reached such a size that it really was ready to conquer the whole world. It was necessary to gradually withdraw from the troops units and formations that were not needed in the new conditions, as well as equipment, and to find a use for the released resources in civilian life.

During his reign, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin managed to raise our country to such a height that it not only stood on a par with developed capitalist countries, but even outstripped them in many ways. The great dictator and tyrant did so much for the USSR that no general secretary could surpass him.

It was not in vain that cities, streets, districts, millionaire collective farms, automobile plants (the famous ZIS, later the Likhachev plant) bore the name of Stalin, even the turbo-electric ship was called "Joseph Stalin". The tanks of the IS family (Joseph Stalin), revolutionary at that time, are the pride of tankers. They were so ahead of their time that their prototypes are still in service with the Russian army.

Leader's personal life

Until some time this topic was banned. Only what was allowed to be covered was known about her. His family and children were carefully guarded from prying eyes. All photographs and other evidence of this aspect of Stalin's life were destroyed.

Then another extreme appeared - so many new stunning facts of the personal life of the head of the Soviet state were discovered that many of them look like obvious stupidity.

A family

It is known that Stalin's first wife was the sister of his classmate Ekaterina Svanidze. She lived after the wedding for only three years, having managed to give birth to her husband's son Jacob. After the death of his mother, the boy was brought up by his parents all his childhood, since his father, due to his extreme workload with revolutionary affairs, could not independently deal with his son.

Ekaterina Svanidze - Stalin's first wife

The second time Stalin married fourteen years later. His wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, was younger than husband for a good two decades. But this did not become an obstacle to their marriage and the birth of children. They say that the leader was very fond of his wife, who gave birth to his son and daughter - Vasily and Svetlana.

The first-born Jacob was finally brought to his father's house, and the family was reunited. Stalin's sons and daughter lived under the same roof. The tough totalitarian leader now has a family hearth.

Little is known about his marriage to Nadezhda Alliluyeva. This is not surprising - with the super suspiciousness of the leader, his wife's social circle was incredibly narrowed. Some were not allowed to approach her for a cannon shot, others themselves were afraid to approach - the hour is uneven to give Stalin food for suspicion.

Nadezhda, according to contemporaries, was a woman of fine mental organization. Such a vacuum of communication was not good for her. The situation was aggravated by the fact that Stalin himself was also rarely at home - in the role of head of state, his workload increased incredibly. In addition, due to his despotic character, he did not hesitate to tyrannize his wife and loved ones, without hiding bad mood or discontent when he was disobeyed.

It is difficult to say whether this or something else was the cause, but the climax came when youngest daughter Svetlana was seven years old. Stalin's wife was found dead on November 8, 1932. She committed suicide by shooting herself in the head with a pistol. The very fact of the suicide of the wife of the first person of the country, of course, tried to be silent at first. According to the official version, the cause of death was complicated appendicitis.

Obviously, the death of his beloved wife greatly influenced Stalin. He never recovered and never tied the knot with anyone else. Perhaps his reverent attitude towards his youngest daughter lies precisely in this.

The eldest son of Joseph Stalin, Yakov Dzhugashvili, died during the Great Patriotic War. It seems that the leader did not make preferences and did not exempt his son from the general draft. There is a version that Yakov was captured, and Stalin was offered to exchange his son for a prisoner German general. The head of the USSR refused, saying: “I don’t change generals for lieutenants!”

Of the direct descendants of Stalin, a grandson remained - Joseph Alliluyev. However, he is known very little, especially since the Stalinist descendants were forgotten after the emigration of the leader's daughter Svetlana to the United States.

Stalin in photographs

There are very few amateur photos with Stalin. The dictator was very scrupulous about his image, which will be replicated to the masses. Therefore, all the pictures, even amateur ones, captured Stalin exactly as he wanted to see himself from the outside.

For ceremonial photos, Stalin usually posed with awards. As for the awards, here the leader had something to be proud of. Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin had many orders and medals, was three times an order bearer of the Red Banner. But in general, he didn’t really boast of them and didn’t try to put on a front tunic every time. Although he loved the tunic themselves and wore them almost everywhere.

Death of Stalin

Stalin died suddenly. Of course, by that time he could no longer boast of excellent health, but no one expected the death of the great dictator. This happened at his home on March 5, 1953. The cause of the death of Joseph Vissarionovich was recognized as a brain hemorrhage.

His death shocked millions of citizens of our country. He really was a kind of icon, they believed him, they even prayed for him. People cried when the sad news reached all corners of the Soviet Union.

During the funeral of Stalin, when the funeral procession marched through the streets, they could not accommodate everyone who wanted to see the leader on his last journey. This man really managed to create national love for himself.

At first, the mausoleum, in which the body of V. I. Lenin lay, became a necropolis for him. Later, after the debunking of the cult of personality, the coffin with the body of Stalin was taken out of the mausoleum and reburied near the Kremlin wall. A bust of the leader is installed on the grave.

Be that as it may, the date of Stalin's death marked the end of an era.

Stalin's personality Debunking the cult of personality

After Stalin died, at one of the party congresses, namely at the XX Congress communist party, General Secretary N. S. Khrushchev read out a report in which he debunked the personality cult of the great dictator. The congress delegates were in great shock, they did not expect such a turn of events at all.

To be honest, it is debatable whether life became easier under Khrushchev compared to the era of Stalinist terror.

In addition, Stalin was a leader, and a very good one. This is exactly what our country needed at that difficult time. Until now, many of his contemporaries remember the leader only from the positive side.

In general, not all the information in Khrushchev's report was objective. A red thread was a prejudiced attitude towards the object of worship. More in-depth research is needed in order to draw far-reaching conclusions.

Despite the debunking of the personality cult, the Leninist-Stalinist national idea of ​​socialism was taken as the basis for the development of the Soviet Union for a long time. And Stalin himself, despite the obvious disadvantages and miscalculations, was a great historical figure. His era will be on everyone's lips for many years to come.

Great historical figure - Joseph Stalin

Stalin, with all evidence, is returning to Russia's intellectual turn, and in a more than positive sense, a national hero.

You can mutter incantations as much as you like that Stalin is such and such, but invariably all these mutterings are drowned out by an obvious indisputable fact, especially important today: Stalin accepted Russia with a plow, and left it with a nuclear weapon - thanks to which Russia exists, albeit in a cut to complete disgrace form, despite all the attempts of liberals, nationalists and foreign, in Putin's words, "partners".

Well, can you argue with the obvious? - You can buffoon as much as you like, but the fact is the fact: in 1928, for 13 years but the second phase of the world war of the 20th century, in Russia there were 84% of the peasant population. Exactly the same, even a little more than before the revolution. This is an indisputable fact.

Let Illarionov twist the numbers in any way he likes, but there was no such low, African (well, okay, Latin American), in essence, “start” in Europe. It is a fact.

Whether you like Stalin or not, this is an irrefutable fact. It's just like this.

As a fact, and the fact that a huge proportion of the Russian rural population in 1928 was still plowed.

In 1928, 3,173 tractors were imported into the country, and another 1,200 tractors were manufactured by Soviet industry. And this is almost 40 million peasant households.

Was there a lot of specific cox? - Yes, everything is known! - In 1910, peasant farms had at their disposal 7.8 million plows and roe deer, 2.2 million wooden and 4.2 million iron plows, and 17.7 million wooden harrows. By 1928 NOTHING CHANGED.

Well. So, with what did Stalin take the country? - With plow or French rolls?

Well, no one argues that Stalin left the country with nuclear weapons.

No, there are, of course, idiots who believe that the USSR made the atomic bomb thanks to two soiled leaflets delivered by intelligence ... But then they are idiots not to understand that today there are much more detailed descriptions of a nuclear weapon in any encyclopedia, even for children, things are not going very well even for such powerful countries as Iran or Brazil there. And not so much because of political pressure, but because the creation of a bomb involves the creation of thousands of truly super-high-tech industries - and not the mura that Chubais sells to Putin. And all this will not fit on two sheets of paper: the installation instructions for a ready-made toilet bowl take up more space and contain more information.

So the theorem is proven: Yes. Stalin accepted Russia with a plow, ensured its victory in the war and left it with nuclear missile weapons, the most modern, for that time, computer technology, aviation and a rapidly growing national economy.

What does "rapidly growing" mean? - Here's what: If the production of their own tractors in the 20s fluctuated within a few thousand maximum, and they were imported in comparable quantities, in three years - 1931, 1932, 1933, the Soviet industry gave the village 352,500 tractors. Is it clear now? Growth of production by 100 times in three years. And in general, for 16 years - from 1922 to 1938, industrial production in the USSR increased by more than 70 times.

Yes, we can say that 1922 is the bottom, devastation. Without a doubt.

But, after all, for comparison, 15 years have passed since the bottom of the liberal pogrom, since the default of 1998.

And how is it now with growth? - The entire end of the 70s, when the GDP growth rate of the USSR decreased to an average of 5% (from 3.5% to 7.5% depending on the year).

The liberals then screamed purely like bandar-logs: “Shame! A shame! – Ahhh! “Here is the proof of inefficiency!”…

According to government estimates, the growth of the Russian economy in current year may amount to 2.5-3%, but in fact, according to January data, it is still 1.6%.

Fabulous. There was something to fight for. And, most importantly, what a success liberalism, capitalism and Westernism! - There is no country. Science in the hollow. The production of the same tractors is at the level of 1929: in January-October 2012, Russian enterprises produced 7,181 wheeled tractors and 1,124 all-wheel drive tractors...

As for the effectiveness of the Stalinist economy, the liberals only respond with a crooked smirk: like ah, “an effective manager, aha, aha” ... And they quickly switch to their hobby - “Stalinist repressions”.

But even with repressions, there is one simple question, on which liberals break down instantly and logic (in which they are already not strong) completely refuses them: “Why?”

Why did Stalin need such massive repressions, allegedly of precisely innocent people?

- Well, they would offer at least one sane option!

They transmit a “throw on the fan” from supposedly Bekhterev ... “Stalin is paranoid.” Well, yes, yes ... Stalin is paranoid. And Molotov? And Shaposhnikov? And the magnificent Soviet diplomats? The same people's commissars and ministers who ensured a tenfold increase in the production of tractors in 3 years? – Are they also paranoid to tolerate the paranoid in the authorities? - Not funny yourself? - Stalin, what? - Harry Potter, or what, or Merlin?

"Struggle for power?" - Wonderful.

Well, let's say that the struggle for power can explain the liquidation of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, well, or, there, Bukharin. Equal figures, revolutionaries... I won't get into the merits - was their liquidation good or bad for the country in that historical situation? - I'm just stating: yes, their elimination can be explained by the struggle for power.

But the liquidation of Tukhachevsky is more difficult to explain.

Again, what, I wonder, could Stalin fear from some colonel or major general? - Well, tell me what you mean.? .. What can you expect from a crazy person? - Yeah.

Exactly. About crazy and ignorant, except for delirium, there is nothing to expect. And Vavilov's landing, from the point of view of the struggle for power, how to explain? - What, Vavilov threatened the power of Stalin? - Again "crazy Stalin"?

And what kind of threat did the supposedly innocent "camp dust" about which the liberals love to spread so much pose to Stalin personally? - Well, what about Stalin, some kind of invisible “cam” under a microscope? Why did he need to “famine” Ukraine?

Not a single sane thought. Not the slightest attempt to understand the rational reasons for what happened. "Lists with orders" ... I believe, I believe ...

Explain - WHY? - Well, even “cannibalistic”, but at least minimally rational goals that Stalin could even hypothetically try to achieve, which would more or less explain the repressions in a single vein, are you gentlemen liberals able to name?

And it is precisely here that a qualitative divergence of normal, unbiased people with anti-Stalinists arises.

Because as soon as there are - from the analysis of specific historical facts and a specific historical situation - more or less rational considerations, then one involuntarily recalls the barely altered text of the note that d'Artagnan handed to Cardinal Richelieu: "What the bearer of this did was done in accordance with with historical necessity and for the good of the state.

PS. I emphasize: I am not a Stalinist at all. I'm just a man with common sense and logic. I repeat for the thousandth time - I am completely indifferent to the personality of the one who African country turned Russia/USSR into the second country in the world and rapidly moved it to the first. Whoever did it is the hero.