Secrets of the Secretary General: Was Stalin obsessed with a thirst for power?

They still won’t get away ... Not wanting to reckon with either the historical truth or the human opinion and memory, the united artel of liberal anti-Stalinists continues the "implacable struggle" with the long-dead leader. That is, the “broad democratic coalition” in Moldova will split off a piece by establishing a “Memorial Day for the Victims of Stalinism and Nazism” in one, so to speak, bottle. That Mr. Ponomarev embossed an article, something about the 37th year and some kind of "wheels", bashfully forgetting to mention that it had long been ranked in Russia as agents of foreign influence. And then all of a sudden, the former investigator of the Prosecutor General’s Office, Stepanov himself, begins to bombard high state authorities with demands to immediately institute criminal proceedings against Comrade Stalin for “his terrible crimes”. Gentlemen liberals have fun and not bored!




In all this freak show, there is some surprise, in truth, except Stepanov. Well, from the Democrats, in general, it was not worth expecting anything else (all the more from Moldavian ones). From domestic grant-eaters, too, bribes are smooth - those who are “human rights defenders”, so to speak, “have dinner”, excuse them, “dance” ... But this is how he could serve in the prosecution authorities (and even seem to investigate something special there important) a character who admits completely enchanting "mistakes" in the field of jurisprudence? But the attempt to “sew the case” to Joseph Vissarionovich is precisely such. It is clear that all this is nothing more than a self-PR, and a very cheap and vile injury, however, taking advantage of this very case, I want to transfer the conversation with the anti-Stalinists to one of the most unpleasant for them areas - the legal one.

The issue of motive


Making moans and erecting universal grief over Stalin’s “crimes” allegedly taking place, trying to “expose” and “expose” him, subjects invariably manage to cheat on the most important question: for what purpose were they committed? But this is elementaryism, the alphabet that is required to be owned not only by an investigator on especially important matters, but by any first-year investigator. What is there - even a cadet of an educational institution of the corresponding profile! Any criminal act must certainly have a motive. Is it explicit, hidden and hidden - but it certainly is! Otherwise, we are dealing either with an insane maniac, or ... with an attempt to “sew” someone else's atrocities. There are no exceptions to this rule and cannot be. The crime can be anything - amateurish or professional, committed by an inveterate lodger, or a person who has never seen anything illegal in his life, original or stereotyped. There is only one thing - crime without a motive.

And what about Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin? A maniac, a madman, a bloodthirsty paranoid, he, no matter how liberal gentlemen wanted to convince the whole world of this, was not. A person or a madman or not is also an axiom. Mental illness can hide in the bowels of consciousness for a long time - but not 30 years! But this is exactly how much Stalin stood at the head of the party and the country. Moreover, if you believe his "accusers", the Leader began to curse immediately, as soon as he moved to leadership positions. And one more thing - not a single foreign leader, ambassador, journalist or writer, with a great many of whom he, during his reign, met and talked for a long time, insulted Joseph Vissarionovich. There was not one among the interlocutors of the Supreme who, having returned to his homeland, and being in a completely safe distance from the "terrible NKVD and the terrible Gulag," would begin to assert: "the leader of the USSR is not all right with his head!" One exception, however, is - Joseph Goebbels, who, of course, never personally saw Stalin. This Generalissimo really honored as crazy. Will we repeat the Third Reich propaganda minister? Or is it better, perhaps, to accept the postulate that Stalin was sane? If so, then, therefore, his "criminal actions" must have a clear logical explanation. Well - as such, our homegrown "whistleblowers", in 99 cases out of 100, are called the "thirst for absolute power", which the Supreme, allegedly, was shod with almost from birth.

It was for the sake of achieving such that, according to their statement, Joseph Vissarionovich first “walked on his head”, “destroying all rivals in the struggle for the dominant position in the CPSU (b), and having achieved this very power, he was afraid all his life that he would be“ taken away ”from him . So he “repressed” everyone indiscriminately, thus eliminating “potential rivals and opponents”, as well as “keeping in fear and humility” the entire Soviet people. Well, all this, of course, is utter nonsense. Saying it with a clever (as it seems to them) look, the liberal vitii are not able to answer just one question: what did this very “absolute power” personally give to Stalin ?! Wealth, luxury? Yes, the Generalissimo was an ascetic! The poor - and by the standards of not even the current domestic nouveau riche, but businessmen of the middle hand. A worn tunic with a single Golden Star - that's all its property. Many of his generals had an “iconostasis” on their chest about twenty times more, and their dachas with apartments were richer. I’m not talking about some marshals with people's commissars. What else? Simple human happiness, peace, comfort? And here - by. In reality, Stalin had a broken family and eternal loneliness. He did not use any power to save his own sons from the common horrors of war. The supreme power in reality gave him hard labor, overwhelming responsibility, constant danger and infernal tension. Ah, yes ... There were still enthusiastic crowds with his portraits in their hands, chanting his name, which the Leader looked at from the Mausoleum during demonstrations and parades, streets and avenues named after him, cities and tanks named after him. And that’s because Stalin was the “omnipotent Secretary General” ?! So here is the truth - for most of his life, Joseph Vissarionovich was not the party's general secretary! Yes, and he did not at all voluntarily. Now I will tell you how things really were.

The most unenviable position


For those who have forgotten the Soviet realities, do not know them at all, or judge them from the time of the late USSR, let me remind you: officially, no Secretary Generals ruled the Soviet Union! The highest legislative authority of the country was first the Congress of Soviets of the USSR, and then, after 1936, the Supreme Council of the USSR. The pinnacle of executive power, from 1923 to 1936, was the Central Executive Committee (CEC) and the Council of People's Commissars. Then, instead of the CEC, the Presidium of the Supreme Council appeared. The Council of People's Commissars remained to subsequently transform into the Council of Ministers. Accordingly, it was precisely those people who stood at the head of all the above-mentioned bodies that were the supreme rulers of the Soviet Union. And which of these posts did Stalin hold? But no! He entered the first Soviet government, created on the second day after the October Revolution, as People's Commissar for Nationalities. The position was - you can’t imagine worse. The venomous Trotsky in his memoirs later called Stalin "the leader in the field of backward nationalities." In emigration Lev Davidovich, of course, exuded poison, but the attitude that the comrades of the party members had in the 17th to this "enviable post" was very reliable. He himself, incidentally, in the same government seized the post of chief foreign affairs - an honorary and significant.

What did Stalin receive upon appointment? Well, I don’t want to repeat myself, but ... He didn’t get a damn thing! According to the memoirs of Stanislav Pestkovsky, who became the “right hand”, truly Stalin’s irreplaceable assistant for the affairs of the People’s Commissariat, the newly created structure had, as they say, neither a stake nor a yard. In search of a place, the persistent Pole had to wander a lot around Smolny, until he insolently took a table that he liked, hanging a sign with the name “People’s Commissariat for Nationalities” on the wall. According to another version, Pestkovsky, desperate to find a corner for himself with Stalin, got a room, driving out the “sailors of the revolution” who had freely settled down. It’s a shame to say, but I had to go borrow the money (three thousand rubles) for the first organizational expenses from the same Trotsky - this burn-out, having fussed in time, managed to requisition some kind of untidy “royal” safe and was in cash. Such an attitude of the Bolsheviks towards the new People’s Commissariat should be explained in no way by neglect of its head, but solely by the fact that many of them did not understand at all - what the hell did this office need? The vast majority of leaders of the victorious party and the barely created Soviet power were convinced proletarian internationalists and believed that all nationalities there should be eliminated altogether as a "bourgeois remnant." People for them were divided not by ethnic groups and races, but by rich and poor, "class close" and hated "bourgeois". And then the whole People’s Commissariat for some reason. Say it too!

Starting literally from scratch, Stalin did the incredible. Do you know what was the main task of the People’s Commissariat? No less than “ensuring fraternal cooperation and peaceful cohabitation of all tribes of the peoples of the RSFSR”! How do you like that? This is in 1917, when, thanks to the efforts of the Provisional Government, the Russian Empire is bursting at all seams. Independence was declared by Poles and Finns, Ukraine and the Caucasus are going to separate. In Central Asia, what the hell is going on. But the “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia” has already been adopted, in which it is written in black and white about their right “to self-determination, up to the creation of independent states,” and to somehow “back up” the Soviet government, which has not yet been established, is not at all handy. Moreover, the prospect of a civil war looms on the horizon in full, in which there was still not enough "national liberation struggle" ... Yes, 1991 was not around here! This is not even the position of the head physician in a restless madhouse - this is something much cooler. But Stalin is coping. He does seemingly impossible things: for example, he divides the land between Cossacks and Chechens (you can put up a monument for this alone), keeps him from “self-determination” and mutual slaughter of “hot Caucasian guys”, puts his mind into the presumptuous “winter fighters” Kiev. The result is known to us - the great country did not fall apart, "escaping" only with the loss of Finland and Poland, and, as it were, the thieves of Western Ukraine and Belarus seized by the latter. Well, Stalin also returned them later ...

Secrets of the Secretary General


In 1922, Stalin became Secretary General of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, during which he was elected to the Politburo and the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee. “Well, here,” you say, “I still got it!” And I’ll ask: “What did I get to?” At that time, the post of secretary (albeit the main party organ) fully corresponded to its original essence - clerical. And he only meant that the person assigned to him was obliged to lead a sea of ​​routine, painstaking and everyday organizational work. But there is no way to “manage” someone there. The number of secretaries in the Central Committee sometimes reached five. As you might guess, this led, first of all, to the fact that they were best able to transfer work to each other, and, most importantly, responsibility for its failure. So the main thing was needed over all these “bright personalities”. That is - the general. "Selling" for Stalin this status was none other than personally Vladimir Lenin. The funny thing is that Trotsky, who even then did not transfer Joseph Vissarionovich to the spirit, took this appointment with genuine enthusiasm! Subsequently, he himself recalled that this post was "absolutely insignificant and completely subordinate." The pride of Lev Davidovich, who by that time had already become the military leader of the USSR and saw himself as an indispensable successor to Vladimir Ilyich, was incredibly amused by the idea that he would spoil a lot of blood even in Civil, Stalin would be an errand boy for him, working on the implementation of the great and brilliant ideas of the "Demon of Revolution." Yeah, dreaming ...

Why did Lenin make such a decision? There are several reasons, and you can talk about each of them for a long time and in length, but I will try to outline them briefly. First of all, Stalin during the years of the Civil War, managed to establish himself not just as a “fiery revolutionary”, but, which was much more important and more valuable, as an excellent organizer. What he was able to do brilliantly was to set clear objectives and to scrupulously achieve their fulfillment. All the years of the Civil Stalin darted along its different fronts, invariably finding themselves where the situation was most desperate and threatening. And, often, only his extremely decisive and tough (and sometimes frankly cruel) actions allowed him to avoid the complete collapse of the impending catastrophe. Speaking in modern terms, Joseph Vissarionovich was a born crisis manager, and Lenin appreciated it. And Stalin was a brilliant administrator, able to create a working mechanism from scratch, create order out of chaos - the same work in the People’s Commissariat of Education proved it fully. But from 1919 to 1922, Stalin also carried the People’s Commissariat of the Workers 'and Peasants' Inspectorate (later - state control) of the RSFSR! I don’t need to explain what the hell kind of work it was ... But you did manage it, just like with everything that the party and Lenin personally entrusted to him, eventually accustomed to seeing a real "magic wand" in the trouble-free "plowman" Stalin and entrusting him with increasingly responsible matters. This is for business characteristics. There was another reason.

The “leader of the world proletariat” knew perfectly well that if he left the power (and in 1922 Ilyich’s health was already undermined to the limit), the party would be seized with the most severe unrest. A real war of ideas, opinions, beliefs about where to go next will erupt. Lenin clearly saw the danger that, having turned into a “union of swan, cancer and pike,” the Bolshevik party, not only couldn’t continue to drag the wagon of a barely created state on itself, but, perhaps, would turn it into a ditch. Naturally, he did not want this. Lenin saw precisely Trotsky as the main threat to the future of the country. And Stalin considered the only person in the party leadership capable of withstanding this truly outstanding pomp and poser. As the future showed, I was not mistaken. “Excuse me,” you ask, “what about the famous“ letter of Ilyich to the congress ”, his“ testament ”in which the dying Ilyich cruelly criticizes Stalin, convicts him of rudeness, cruelty, and love of power and demands that he be removed from all leading posts ?!” And this, gentlemen, is a fake ... Rude and clumsy, crafted by Leo Trotsky and his accomplices. In fact - the first anti-Stalinist conspiracy in the history of the USSR. Serious historians and researchers of the true Leninist heritage, this has long been proven. Materials on this subject are quite accessible - everyone can find if they wish. Subsequently, Khrushchev extracted this lie from non-existence, if it was three times wrong, and used it as one more bucket of mud for the memory of the deceased Leader - that's all.

Stalin repeatedly asked the Central Committee to relieve him of the post of Secretary General - and invariably was refused. He managed to throw off this “yoke” only in 1934 - simply abolishing the post itself. Joseph Vissarionovich until the end of his life was just a secretary, not General at all. And in 1952 he also tried to leave the secretaries - to the panic horror of the party elite. The title "First Secretary" has fastened on himself, again, the bald "Corncob". The General Secretary has already returned Leonid Brezhnev. The post of head of the Soviet government, Joseph Vissarionovich, took only in May 1941. So it was necessary - on the threshold of war. And yes - soon the moment came when Stalin really became the truly sovereign ruler of the USSR - at the same time the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the People’s Commissar of Defense, the Chairman of the State Defense Committee, the head of the Supreme Command Headquarters. Summer 1941 The moment when it was decided whether or not there should be a country, when Stalin simply had no choice but to accept the fullness of the terrifying responsibility and take on literally everything. No, well, the lover of course ...

I am sure - Stalin enjoyed his power. I enjoyed it when the standards and flags of those who killed millions of Soviet people, including his son, flew to the foot of the Mausoleum. I enjoyed every victory salute that I looked at from the windows of the Kremlin. I felt her taste, seeing the marching regiments of the army, which at last was capable of never again giving its offense to its Motherland and its people. He reveled in power, looking at the factory buildings, schools, beautiful houses that stood on wastelands and ashes, which will be called “Stalinist” forever. And most of all - standing in his office by the map of the world's largest country, which he managed to create in such a short human life. More to the Russian land of such ambitious people ...
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Hayer31 Offline Hayer31
    Hayer31 (Kashchei) 17 August 2019 11: 00
    +3
    Liberals ... liberals! Someone forgot that Putin is liberal and Gref, 90% of the leadership - they are liberals. But Stalin-he is definitely not a liberal. And he also sent all the thieves, pests and liberals to the Gulag. The bad thing is that with these and many innocents came to hand. Well, the one who does nothing is not mistaken.
    1. Digital error Offline Digital error
      Digital error (Eugene) 17 August 2019 23: 52
      +2
      Quote: Hayer31
      The bad thing is that with these and many innocents came to hand.

      Those were the realities of the time - the "class struggle" presupposed the existence of a whole class ...
    2. zenion Offline zenion
      zenion (zinovy) 18 August 2019 13: 48
      +1
      So he did not deal with this matter personally. But under the control of the present, everything is done under the roof of the person.
  2. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 17 August 2019 12: 18
    +2
    I had a fierce argument with an acquaintance. He really hates Stalin. I tell him that your hatred allows you to receive a pension, at one time he also received an apartment, studied, underwent medical treatment, the plant where you work was also built by Stalin. So you be honest to the end - give up your pension or wait 65 years now, give up your free apartment, and take out a mortgage, etc. according to the list. After all, Stalin, in your opinion, is a villain, how do you have the conscience to use benefits on blood? Oh, how his shit boiled! I asked him: "And who personally suffered from Stalin?" It turned out - ANYONE! So why didn't Stalin please you then? It turns out that he has acquaintances, and acquaintances have acquaintances, etc. In general, he does not speak to me now.
    1. Digital error Offline Digital error
      Digital error (Eugene) 17 August 2019 23: 56
      0
      Quote: steel maker
      Give a freebie apartment, and take a mortgage.

      Most of those who vote for Putin and United Russia have no idea what a mortgage is when you pay for three apartments in 20 years and get one.
      And also in this there is a kind of base "revenge" of pensioners - they say, at one time we lost our way, and now it's your turn for our sake ... I faced this when I campaigned against the "pension maneuver".
      1. commbatant Offline commbatant
        commbatant (Sergei) 19 August 2019 05: 54
        -1
        Quote: DigitalError
        Quote: steel maker
        Give a freebie apartment, and take a mortgage.

        Most of those who vote for Putin and United Russia have no idea what a mortgage is when you pay for three apartments in 20 years and get one.
        And also in this there is a kind of base "revenge" of pensioners - they say, at one time we lost our way, and now it's your turn for our sake ... I faced this when I campaigned against the "pension maneuver".

        As I understand it, the Communist Party sent you here with an editorial assignment and campaigning in honor of the elections to the Moscow State Duma ....
      2. Joe Cook Offline Joe Cook
        Joe Cook (Joe Cook) 31 August 2019 14: 07
        0
        Something you mixed in a bunch. Porridge. If only against Putin?
  3. Oleg RB Offline Oleg RB
    Oleg RB (Oleg) 17 August 2019 13: 35
    -6
    All PR him, because of the stupidity of which so many Russian people were killed.
    Oh well...
    1. Digital error Offline Digital error
      Digital error (Eugene) 17 August 2019 23: 59
      0
      Quote: Oleg RB
      So many Russian people were killed.

      However, you are not talking about those who survived and gave birth to many children - thanks to a well-founded faith in their future, creating the scientific and industrial power of the USSR.
      1. commbatant Offline commbatant
        commbatant (Sergei) 19 August 2019 05: 52
        +1
        Quote: DigitalError
        Quote: Oleg RB
        So many Russian people were killed.

        However, you are not talking about those who survived.

        Thank you for not dying everyone ... the bony hand did not reach everyone, we are still reaping the results of the loss of the Russian gene pool ...
  4. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 17 August 2019 16: 14
    +4
    There was such a lawyer A. Kazannik. Most likely, many remember how he renounced his deputy’s mandate in favor of Yeltsin. In gratitude, he was appointed Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. So, he wrote that while studying the affairs of the 30s, he was surprised to find that the rule of law was respected at that time. As he said

    Yes, the laws were draconian, but they were respected.

    But what he faced in the 90s:

    The President, ”recalls A.I. Kazannik,“ regularly called me, starting from the third day of work, literally growling into the phone. “Like, why do you have such and such a free walk?” He performed there! He criticized the president! “Once I was forced to say that if I have no evidence of this person’s guilt, I’ll rather put a stamp on my forehead than on the form of an arrest warrant. The president hung up. ” [Petrov A. “I was perceived as the Yeltsin executioner” // Moscow News. 2003. September 30 (interview with A. I. Kazannik).]

    Not only B. N. Yeltsin intervened in the investigation. “There were still circumstances that bothered me very much,” notes A. I. Kazannik. - Representatives of some democratic organizations brought me huge lists with a proposal to immediately arrest these people. I tore these lists in their presence and once said that I was sitting in Vyshinsky’s office, but I would never allow Vyshinsky’s spirit to be revived. ” “But somehow from the Kremlin,” recalls the former prosecutor general, “they brought a package with guidelines for investigating the riots (the author’s signature was torn off). They said very concisely and clearly: not to create any investigative brigades, to investigate a criminal case within 10 days, to indict everyone under Articles 102 and 17 - complicity in the murder. Kazanniku to accuse him of this process and demand the death penalty for all. This document also followed in the urn.

    For which he was fired. Well, to be exact, he resigned himself. Fair man. Naive but honest.
    1. Digital error Offline Digital error
      Digital error (Eugene) 18 August 2019 00: 10
      +1
      Quote: Bakht
      Naive but honest.

      Now such people are pejoratively called "infantile" - that is, they have not matured, deviating from the "norm."
      If politicians in 60+ are mature, then I am for infantilism.
    2. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 18 August 2019 10: 27
      +2
      Quote: Bakht
      So, he wrote that while studying the affairs of the 30s, he was surprised to find that the rule of law was respected at that time.

      Yes, yes, yes, the rule of law was respected. Many investigators didn’t have a legal education, but simply did not have a school.

      Read here:

      http://istmat.info/node/61198
      http://istmat.info/node/36144

      Especially cool here, about medical examinations and chopping off heads.

      http://istmat.info/node/60543
      1. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 18 August 2019 10: 47
        +1
        I did not check it myself. I read an interview with a lawyer who reviewed archival files. It was about litigation.
        The special NKVD troika were disbanded in 1938. And what do your links show? That investigators were repressed based on the results of their activities? So, for sure, they rehabilitated how

        Illegal victims of repression of the Stalinist regime.

        After 1953. During the "thaw".
        1. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 18 August 2019 17: 05
          +2
          Have you read these links? To beat to death a person during interrogation. Under the guise of a physical examination, obtain a signature on the interrogation protocol. As far as I remember, evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court. I do not believe that the defense industry is advanced in the Russian Federation, since the rest of the industry is not in the best condition. It is also hard to believe that then lawlessness is going on all around, and in the courts it’s quiet and smooth, and God's grace. I don’t know how it is with ordinary processes, but the loud ones went with violations.
          1. Bakht Offline Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 18 August 2019 17: 25
            +1
            I read, of course. And I myself can find a bunch of about the same evidence. And on the 30th, and 50th, and 70th. The term "punitive psychiatry" is no longer Stalin. This is Brezhnev. But one should not confuse the struggle against communism and the struggle against Russia. I dare not advise (you have probably read quite a lot), but it would be good to know Shambarov's State and Revolutions.
            I know a lot about my country. Perhaps not all. But quite a lot. But there is a difference in perception. Making a monster out of Stalin is completely wrong. The same Trotsky carried out decimations at the front. Before his death, Sverdlov shouted in delirium "What have we done!" On Stalin, you can hang collectivization, intransigence towards enemies (or to those whom he considered enemies). But I will not blame him for the "big terror" of 36-38. The destruction of the "Leninist Guard" was a natural outcome.
            And comparing with today's rulers (not only in Russia), it is absolutely clear to me why Stalin's rating is off scale. I often remember Aldanov's tetralogy The Thinker. It contains the answer why France chose Napoleon and why they now dream of Stalin.
            However, each has its own scale, which is important. I know what human rights, the right to life are, and I just cannot accept the thesis "they cut wood - chips fly." But we all experienced the collapse of the state in reality. I know for sure that the number of victims of the last 20 years exceeds the number of those who died under Stalin. We have already talked about this. Modern rulers are much more soiled in the blood of their people than Stalin.

            Specifically on the links. Stalin himself personally appointed these monsters to the posts of investigators? They came to the surface as a result of the revolution. The one who is covered in blood with a bald head is a certain Ulyanov with a chase Lenin. This is a ghoul, so a ghoul. And Stalin corrected what the ardent revolutionaries had done "with clean hands and a cold heart."
            1. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
              Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 19 August 2019 00: 05
              +3
              You and I have one common drawback, very long comments. I will try briefly.
              1. Condemnation of mass repressions in the past is necessary so that in the present and future it would not occur to the rulers that great things (which will be covered with a copper basin in less than 40 years) can be composted for a couple of millions of fellow citizens.
              2. Without considering the moral side, the great terror is criminal under the laws in force at that time. All those involved are criminals.
              3.Bolshoy terror to a meager extent touched the "fiery" revolutionaries and "executioners" of the NKVD. The bulk of the victims are peasants (former kulaks) and citizens of nationalities foreign to the USSR (mainly Poles).
  5. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 17 August 2019 17: 27
    -2
    For what purpose were these done? But this is elementaryism, the alphabet that is required to be owned not only by an investigator on especially important matters, but by any first-year investigator. What is there - even a cadet of an educational institution of the corresponding profile! Any criminal act must certainly have a motive.

    I do not know what first-year cadets should know there, but the author clearly does not own the question.

    In crime, they divide the object, the objective side, the subject, the subjective side. Yes, for a crime to be a crime, all four parts are needed. In the context of the article, we are interested in the subjective side of the crime, it has mandatory signs and optional. Guilty (intent, negligence) is obligatory, optional - motive, purpose, emotion. Optional signs, of course, are desirable, but not necessary (the motive is difficult to determine, you can’t get into the head of the criminal and what happened there is difficult to determine). According to the logic of the author, it turns out that if it was not possible to determine the motives of the killer (he did not name, nothing was lost, hostile relations are unknown, etc.), then there was no crime.
    1. Digital error Offline Digital error
      Digital error (Eugene) 18 August 2019 00: 13
      -1
      Quote: Oleg Rambover
      ... if it was not possible to determine the motives.

      This is your mistake - "could not be determined" - does not mean that they were not.
      1. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 18 August 2019 12: 09
        +2
        Do you see the gopher? And I do not, but he is.

        Something I did not catch, what is the mistake. Any action of a person has a motive, if you scratched your right shoulder blade with your right hand, that was also a motive, and so what?
  6. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 17 August 2019 20: 20
    +1
    “Excuse me,” you ask, “what about the famous“ letter of Ilyich to the congress ”, his“ testament ”in which the dying Ilyich cruelly criticizes Stalin, convicts him of rudeness, cruelty, and love of power and demands that he be removed from all leading posts ?!” And this, gentlemen, is a fake ... Rude and clumsy, crafted by Leo Trotsky and his accomplices. In fact - the first anti-Stalinist conspiracy in the history of the USSR. Serious historians and researchers of the true Leninist heritage, this has long been proven.

    That this is a proven fake is a painfully bold statement, rather a debatable question. Even if it was a fake, everyone was fooled, including Stalin, the letter was printed in the central press of those years. Stalin, when he asked for his resignation, referred to this letter.
    PS Why does the author have such hatred for the main engine of the revolution, the creator of the Soviet state and the Red Army, the winner of the Civil War, Lev Davidovich Trotsky?
    1. Digital error Offline Digital error
      Digital error (Eugene) 18 August 2019 00: 20
      +1
      Quote: Oleg Rambover
      Where does the author have such hatred of ... Leo Davidovich Trotsky?

      Lev Davidovich, if not mistaken, dreamed of a world revolution, like Napoleon and, subsequently, Hitler. And the world revolution was drawing resources from the speedy implementation of the VKP (b) program, which was the key to victory in a civil war, without which any world revolution would be impossible. In other words, Trotsky ran ahead of the engine and the engine moved him predictably.
      1. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 18 August 2019 12: 16
        +2
        But do not you think that discrediting Trotsky, the author casts a shadow over everything they have created, that is, the Soviet Union and the Red Army?
        1. Essex62 Offline Essex62
          Essex62 (Alexander) 18 August 2019 22: 20
          -1
          The creator of the Soviet Union is the Soviet people and Stalin. What Levushka Bronstein did was difficult to even determine the definition. Using the holy idea of ​​building a communist society, without the dominance of the rebels and the exploitation of the man of labor, he amused his ambitions. In an effort to become the emperor of the world, he was ready to bury the country in a murderous war with a bourgeois geyropa. Fortunately, Joseph Vissarionych stopped this patient on the head of the demon.
          1. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 19 August 2019 00: 23
            +2
            And what, until the 28th year there was no Soviet Union?
            About May year. The creator of the Red Army, the main revolutionary, the winner in the civil war - "a demon with a headache." You are probably a Russophobe if you assume that the Russians could have allowed a "sick demon" to control them.
  7. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 17 August 2019 21: 08
    +2
    Stalin, of course, is a talented person, but military art can hardly be attributed to the list of his talents. Of course, it is difficult to expect from a person, without a specialized education and experience of command, outstanding success. He was sent under Tsaritsyn to procure bread, but he wanted to command. Mass terror against the red commanders (former officers) and general ignorance of the subject led to the fact that the Red Army, numerically large and with an overwhelming advantage in artillery, began to lose and retreat. Telegrams were sent to him not to interfere in the affairs of the military. In the end, he was recalled, and the victory at Tsaritsyn was achieved much later than his departure from the front. There was also the Soviet-Polish war, it was 41-42 years old. Once again I repeat, it is difficult to expect from a professional revolutionary (in modern terms, if not a terrorist, then an extremist for sure) some success in such a complex matter.
    1. Digital error Offline Digital error
      Digital error (Eugene) 18 August 2019 00: 26
      -1
      Quote: Oleg Rambover
      Telegrams were sent to him not to interfere in the affairs of the military.

      But he intervened in the suppression of the Izhevsk-Votkinsk uprising, which prevented Kolchak's army, which was moving towards the interventionists in Arkhangelsk, from joining the rebellious detachments, and getting up to 50% of all the weapons and ammunition available from the Izhevsk and Votkinsk arms factories. Thanks to this decision, the Red Army was not defeated in 1919, but threw the "whites" beyond the Urals, where they were subsequently finally defeated.
      1. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 18 August 2019 12: 21
        +3
        Something I do not quite understand what is the connection between Stalin near Tsaritsyn and the workers' uprising in Izhevsk.
  8. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 17 August 2019 22: 11
    +1
    And further. According to the constitution of 36 years, only a court could legally deprive a person of life, freedom or property in the presence of the accused and the defense counsel. The practice of triples did not correspond to any of these points. Accordingly, all those convicted by the threes were repressed illegally. All criminals involved in the triples, according to the laws in force at that time. Including, and Joseph Stalin. And not one apologist for the religious cult of witnesses Joseph has ever been able to object to this.
    1. Digital error Offline Digital error
      Digital error (Eugene) 18 August 2019 00: 34
      0
      Quote: Oleg Rambover
      Not one apologist for the religious cult of witnesses Joseph has ever been able to object to this.

      Not being an apologist and not welcoming the practice of "triplets", I dare to object - if Colonels Zakharchenko and Cherkalin were threatened with a "bullet in the back of the head", then the maximum they would take from the state would be a ticket to the theater for "Swan Lake".
      Now they will "sit down", and then they will be released under an amnesty for the 80th anniversary of the Victory and will continue, out of habit, illegal activities.
      1. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 18 August 2019 12: 26
        +1
        A bullet in the back of the head is not a panacea; look at China and, by the way, at the USSR of the times of Stalin. All that you said somehow justifies the lawless executions of people? And it seems to me that you know little about the repressions of 37-38.
        1. Essex62 Offline Essex62
          Essex62 (Alexander) 18 August 2019 22: 53
          -2
          You, Mr. Liberal, have forgotten about such a thing as the class struggle. The civil war ended upon the conduct of hostilities, but it did not stop at all. Can you prove that all the repressed (not only in 37-38gg) were not enemies of the Soviet regime, criminal criminals, negligent slobs that allowed grave consequences by action or inaction?
          The propertied classes and their companions, of course, pressed against the nail. How else? A turnaround from a Russian peasant for 1000-year-old slavery, since it had occurred to Kiev godfather to adopt Byzantium, to drag foundations completely alien to our mentality in Russia. Russian people subsequently changed them for themselves, adapted in accordance with the understanding of truth, measures of good and evil. But the godfathers, the descendants of the killer retailers, lived according to these concepts and forced the peasant.
          By the way, the main repressed in 37-38g. there were precisely Yezhov executioners. L. P. Beria with great difficulty and not fully, but cleaned out the Office, mobilized and prepared for the coming war. It was the NKVD in the difficult, early years of the Second World War, that kept the army from collapse and complete defeat.
          Your hatred of the punishing sword of the proletariat is understandable and explicable. That is why they threw the whole crowd of Iron Felix down from the pedestal, and now even the mound has been leveled under the tile.
          1. commbatant Offline commbatant
            commbatant (Sergei) 19 August 2019 06: 42
            0
            You, Mr. Liberal, have forgotten about such a thing as the class struggle.

            Communists and cheers-patriots always call their opponents liberals when there is nothing to say, but meanwhile, when the GDP became prime minister in the 99th, the ruling party had 1/6 of the parliament, so what do liberals have to do with it if the former communists and Soviet communists pulled away Komsomol members?

            Turnover from a Russian peasant for 1000-year-old slavery.

            Read Karamzin at least, you will find out how much serfdom was in Russia, RI ... and when the concept of "Russians" was formed ...
            Read at the same time, when the Soviet / Russian (already) got rid of the passport regime ... the institution of registration was canceled in 1993 with the adoption of the new Constitution ...

            to bring foundations completely alien to our mentality in Russia. Russian people subsequently changed them for themselves, adapted in accordance with the understanding of truth, measures of good and evil

            This is your personal opinion and the mentality of the whole Russian people has nothing in common ...

            It was the NKVD in the difficult, early years of the Second World War, that kept the army from collapse and complete defeat.

            And you are "good" ... the NKVD first put a floor of the command staff against the wall (they planted both before the war itself, and during the Second World War, and after the Second World War), and then with the "heroic" efforts of the "barrage detachments" kept the army from disintegrating ..

            Your hatred of the punishing sword of the proletariat is understandable and explicable. That is why they threw the whole crowd of Iron Felix down from the pedestal, and now even the mound has been leveled under the tile.

            Why take offense at your people? In your opinion, is it good to crush the Church by the people after the October revolution, but is Iron Felix bad?
          2. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 19 August 2019 09: 28
            +1
            Quote: Essex62
            By the way, the main repressed in the years 37-38 were precisely the Yezhov executioners. L.P. Beria with great difficulty and not fully, but cleaned out the Office.

            Most of the repressed were peasants, former kulaks. Although nonsense, but let's say the class struggle and all that. The second largest group consisted of those repressed along the "foreign" line, mainly citizens of the USSR with foreign nationalities (Poles, Finns, Iranians, Koreans, etc.). How to explain the persecution of these people other than paranoia is not clear.
          3. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 20 August 2019 12: 17
            +1
            Quote: Essex62
            Can you prove that all the repressed people (not only in 37-38) were not enemies of the Soviet regime, criminals, negligent sloveners who committed grave consequences by action or inaction?

            That all - I can’t, but that the absolute majority is easy. Everything that you listed was reflected in the Criminal Code of the USSR, who in the then USSR could legally determine whether a person committed a crime? Hint - neither the first secretary, nor the prosecutor, nor the head of the NKVD, nor even Comrade. Stalin could not. Only a judge could. Accordingly, if the court did not establish a criminal activity of a person, he is not guilty. Most of the repressed were convicted by triples. The three are not the court, since there was no judge in them. Accordingly, their guilt was not established legally and, therefore, they are innocent.
      2. commbatant Offline commbatant
        commbatant (Sergei) 19 August 2019 06: 27
        0
        Quote: Digital
        Without being an apologist and not welcoming the practice of "triplets".

        There was still a "trial of one" - did not you hear ...?
  9. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 17 August 2019 23: 23
    +1
    The fact that Stalin was not a maniac is quite obvious. And that he submitted requests for his dismissal three times is also true. Moreover, the first two petitions came at a time when both Zinoviev and Bukharin were in the leadership. In the first case, there was Trotsky. And always these requests were rejected. For the release of Comrade Stalin from office, only one vote was always cast - Stalin himself. The rest voted to leave him at the post.
    As always, the issue turned to the topic of terror. The Red Terror existed from 1918 until .... I don’t know if Khrushchev stopped or not. In any case, the time between the two wars, Shambarov called the second civil war. So, it was not Stalin alone who was to blame for the revelry of terror, but the whole elite of the Lenin Politburo. Special triples existed for two years and were created by the internal NKVD circular signed by Yezhov. He sanctioned this case by the Central Executive Committee of the USSR signed by Kalinin and Yenukidze. The Special Meeting lasted longer. But it is also authorized by the Central Executive Committee of the USSR for the same signatures.
    Repression began to subside in the early 30s. What is called the "Great Terror" is the cry of the executioners when they were dragged to the chopping block themselves. Since 1936, terror has been going on, mainly against the party nomenklatura.
    In military affairs, Stalin understood much more than most generals. Strictly speaking, Churchill also considered himself a great strategist. A person with a very secondary education. Strictly speaking - a journalist.
    1. Kuzmitsky Offline Kuzmitsky
      Kuzmitsky (Sergei) 18 August 2019 08: 47
      -1
      Perhaps for someone this will sound strange, but Stalin was a man. With its strengths and weaknesses. Of course, he was an extraordinary person. But he was neither a fiend of hell, nor a holy angel. He was a great ruler of a large country in difficult times. And this means that in his arsenal were both exploits and crimes. Both one and the other are inevitable. Therefore, both those who exalt Stalin and those who curse him are right at the same time.

      In general, in my opinion, there is nothing good in the indiscriminate harassment of all the rulers of Russia after their natural death or forcible removal (we have no other options for leaving the government, except that Yeltsin surprised me). Yeltsin, Gorbachev, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, Stalin, Lenin, Nikolai Romanov — no one escaped this fate, everyone remembered everything. In what other country do they treat their former rulers? May be enough?
      1. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 18 August 2019 10: 38
        -1
        The ruler is evaluated by other criteria than the average person. We should not evaluate Stalin as an ordinary person. As well as Genghis Khan, Caesar or Kennedy should not be so evaluated. Evaluation of the activities of a political leader does not depend on whether he was virtuous or not. Nicholas II was a wonderful person. Kind, caring, good family man. As a ruler, I don’t know who to call him worse.
        The results of the survey among the Russian population show that the majority of the population (well, not all of them are cotton wool, and) rate Stalin's ACTIVITY as head of the country much higher than any Soviet and post-Soviet leader.
        I am in no way condoning terror. But we must not forget that Stalin was not the initiator of the terror. The founders were Lenin, Trotsky, Sverdlov, Dzerzhinsky and other galaxy of "loyal Leninists". Stalin threw away all the stupidity of the "world revolution" and built socialism in a single country in a hostile environment.
        The problem is that today's Russia is also in a hostile environment. And in order to save the country, it is necessary to remove from power a liberal pro-Western bloc of government. In simple terms - traitors. In the 30s, a simple removal from power did not pass. Hence the result. Conduct a survey: is it just necessary to remove Chubais from power or shoot him? For some reason I’m sure of the answer.
        And the personality of the ruler?

        Question: Who did you choose?

        If you met a pregnant woman who already has 8 children, including three deaf, two blind, one mentally retarded, and the woman herself is sick with syphilis - would you advise her to have an abortion?

        Before answering this question, read one more ...

        You need to choose a new world leader, and your vote is decisive.

        Here is information about 3 candidates:

        Candidate 1: communicates with dishonest politicians, consults with astrologers, he has two wives, smokes non-stop and drinks 8-10 glasses of martini a day.

        Candidate 2: he was ousted from office twice, sleeps until noon, dabbled in college opium, drinks about a liter of whiskey every night.

        Candidate 3: has military awards, is a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks beer occasionally and never cheated on his wife.

        Which of the three did you choose?

        First candidate: Franklin D. Roosevelt.
        Second candidate: Winston Churchill.
        Third candidate: Adolf Hitler.

        And by the way, about abortion: if your answer is yes, then you just killed Beethoven.

        There is no pure white or black color. There are always 50 shades of gray.)
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Oleg Rambover Online Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 19 August 2019 00: 16
      +3
      Quote: Bakht
      And that he submitted requests for his dismissal three times is also true.

      Attempts to convince me that Stalin did not hold on to power are futile. It turns out, Stalin, like that mouse, cried, pricked, but continued to eat a cactus. All his political opponents were killed. For a quarter of a century he was a sovereign dictator.
      1. Essex62 Offline Essex62
        Essex62 (Alexander) 19 August 2019 00: 31
        -1
        So it makes no sense, to convince you of this. Stalin set the goal of creating a socialist state in a single country, in a hostile environment. He succeeded. A unique case in the history of mankind living for two thousand years, according to the law of the jungle.
      2. Overlord Offline Overlord
        Overlord (V for Vendetta) 19 August 2019 06: 12
        +2
        There is no point in arguing with them, it seems that Putin’s ideologists are working on the weak-minded possible revision of his master, and his justification after 50 years in history textbooks. Train on Dzhugashvili.
      3. commbatant Offline commbatant
        commbatant (Sergei) 19 August 2019 06: 45
        +1
        Quote: Oleg Rambover
        All his political opponents were killed. For a quarter of a century he was a sovereign dictator.

        For this, a museum was opened in Gori for him, and in gratitude to all Soviet peoples (primarily the RSFSR), for whose account the Georgian SSR lived beyond the means, a museum of Soviet occupation was organized in the center of Tbilisi ...
  10. alexey alexeyev_2 (Alexey Alekseev) 19 August 2019 00: 07
    -1
    Respect for the author ... Truly truthful analysis ...
    1. commbatant Offline commbatant
      commbatant (Sergei) 19 August 2019 06: 47
      +1
      Minus to the author, because such articles appear only during the election period, in this case, in the MHD ...
  11. Overlord Offline Overlord
    Overlord (V for Vendetta) 19 August 2019 06: 09
    +1
    Porridge, lies, substitution of concepts - 90% of this nonsense, written here. Fashion or party assignment. Forget it, it won't work. And the current "secretary general", with also limited powers, will soon follow.
  12. Nikolay Malyugin (Nikolai Malyugin) 21 August 2019 06: 03
    +1
    The author cites historical facts. But they have long ceased to interest the opponents of the former country. Artists from culture generally turned everything upside down. How did it happen that ordinary criminals became "victims of the Stalinist regime"? No regime would agree with this. Are we going to eat everything? The girls still have "Smeshariki" in their heads, and they are already striving for adulthood. Difficult teenagers don't seem to exist. For them, clever uncles have already identified a place in the criminal world. But this is the healthiest part of young people in physical terms. But there is no one to fix their brains. Moreover, we stuff them with stupid literature, no less stupid films. But the struggle for youth is the most important thing.
  13. Nikolay Malyugin (Nikolai Malyugin) 22 August 2019 07: 02
    +1
    I noticed that those who oppose Stalin have a negative attitude towards everything Soviet. And, interestingly, these are often people who enjoyed privileges under the Soviets, which ordinary citizens never dreamed of. And the big question is who is the biggest freeloader. The people or these people.
  14. Nikolay Malyugin (Nikolai Malyugin) 22 October 2019 15: 05
    +1
    When Stalin died, I was six years old. I walked and whistled, my grandmother stopped me and said: "Do you see the mourning flags? Stalin died." I didn't have to tell who Stalin was. In the family, there was only talk about the death of the country's leader. The conversations were different. What will happen now? We had an ordinary family and the conversation was the simplest. Now they have returned to the role of Stalin again. And by his time. In my opinion, it is very difficult to explain this to people who have essentially become consumers.