Is Gorbachev's arrival a chain of accidents or the main special operation of the XNUMXth century?


The death of Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, on the night of November 9-10, 1982, marked the true "beginning of the end" of the Soviet Union. The time that followed is today evaluated differently. Someone sees in him only the highest point of the gerontocracy that amazed the USSR and will deign to joke about the “era of carriage races”, referring to the ceremonial funerals of the “Kremlin elders” who followed one another.


Someone sees in the intricacies of personnel changes in the Kremlin, which in just four years brought the one who destroyed it to the top of power in the most powerful state in the world, a chain of coincidences and accidents ... Someone speaks of "historical regularity" - they say, the USSR and the communist ideology fell because it could not be otherwise ...

All this, of course, is not true. It is worth taking a closer look at the chronicles of those years, carefully studying and trying to comprehend the memories of the direct participants in the dramatic and even tragic events that took place on the Soviet power "Olympus" in the last period of its existence, so that it became clear that everything was much more complicated, confusing and mysterious. Little by little, a persistent feeling begins to develop: behind everything that happened in and around the Kremlin, from a certain moment, there was someone's incredibly powerful will, aimed at making the Soviet Union cease to exist. There were no accidents! There was a clear and insidious plan, which, alas, was fully implemented. Below I will try, if possible, to substantiate this point of view as reasonably as possible.

"Are you going the wrong way, comrades"?


As I have already said many times and I will not tire of repeating again and again, the semi-official Soviet historiography, godlessly emasculated and ugly distorted to please mossy political dogmas, subsequently gave the liberals the opportunity to concoct a wretched and primitive version of this, without exaggeration, the most important period of our history. They say that there were old marasmatics in the Kremlin, who finally moved their minds on quotations from the classics of "Marxism-Leninism", and did not see or understand real life at all. They sat, sat, almost played with pasochki, until they died all naturally. And then, out of nowhere, Mikhail Svet Sergeevich came, took the reins in his strong, calloused hands of a combine operator, and led the country into a "new bright future." Well, in fact - to death and ruin, but that is not the point. This is not a sin at all for the liberal public, but a great merit.

The most disgusting thing is that this one, excuse the rudeness, delirium of the gray mare, is taken by many of our compatriots at a completely face value and believe him unconditionally. At the same time, for example, the fact that in many "democratic" countries of the world of that time, which we are talking about, "at the helm" were leaders, a little younger than our "old men", was completely ignored. The same Ronald Reagan, for example, became the President of the United States at 70. Well, that Joe Biden is 78 years old, I will not say anything at all. The truth is that neither Brezhnev, nor Andropov, nor Chernenko were any "vegetables" that fell into senile dementia - all three of the last General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Yes, they could not boast of good health. Why exactly - we will have a separate conversation for that. However, they were not insane "dolls" that did not have their own will and reason.

In fact, our conversation should begin with the fact that true socialism ended in the USSR in 1953, with the death of Stalin. The darkness and horror that followed, called "Khrushchev's rule", was nothing more than the first serious and extremely thorough attempt in postwar history to destroy the Soviet Union. And certainly for the first time they tried to do this not from the outside, not by unleashing aggression or, say, economic blockade, but by the hands of the leader of the party and state. A deep study of the activities of Kukuruznik at the head of the USSR unambiguously testifies that there was not so much left for him to succeed. However, those who still retained at least a drop of “Stalinist leaven”, for whom communist ideology and Soviet power were not empty words, caught themselves. The bald pest was overthrown. Through the efforts of Brezhnev and his team, the explosion of the "time bomb" launched by Khrushchev, which was supposed to blow the USSR to pieces, was prevented.

Nevertheless, the most dangerous processes were neither stopped nor reversed. First of all, the loss of faith in the party and communism as such by the Soviet people, engendered by the XNUMXth Party Congress and the "exposure of the personality cult," grew and deepened. And in the economy, the damage was terrible - the destruction of agriculture alone was worth what. Alas, there were no leaders in the then leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union who had at least a tenth share of the enormous intellect and unbending will of Joseph Vissarionovich ... , comrades! " Alas, he did not rise up and did not shout ... Still retaining the strength and power created and laid down for the future by the great Leader, the country was inexorably sliding towards decline.

Who actually appointed the General Secretary?


The fact that Brezhnev would soon need a successor became perfectly clear back in 1976, after the General suffered a very real clinical death. The change of power in the Kremlin was only a matter of time and the West was well aware of this. I will not even try to build unambiguous versions about which special services of which countries began a special operation unprecedented in scale, audacity and thoughtfulness, the purpose of which was to bring to power in our country those who wipe it out from political world maps. Most likely, a whole "community" of the most serious organizations and structures worked here, which were capable of, if not everything, then a lot. Those who conceived this colossal game were well aware that it is impossible to win such a battle in one round in principle.

Consequently, it was necessary to play the notorious "multi-move", to build a whole chain of personnel changes in the upper echelons of the CPSU and the USSR, which ultimately will allow the "queen" of those very necessary people. And isn't that how it worked out in the end? In fact, each new change of faces in the Kremlin offices brought Gorbachev and his team closer to them. Yuri Andropov, who replaced Leonid Brezhnev as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, was not supposed to be at the head of the party and state in any case! There is more than enough evidence that Leonid Ilyich saw anyone as his successor, but not this native of the Lubyanka. As far as is known, he transferred him to the Central Committee, and to a rather symbolic post of second secretary, to remove from the post of the head of the State Security Committee, to deprive him of too many opportunities.

There is a popular version that Andropov, while still the head of the KGB, allegedly tried to organize a natural "palace coup" in the 70s in order to overthrow the still capable Brezhnev. He was going to do this with the hands of some "trusted marshals and generals from the Armed Forces" who were supposed to appear to Leonid Ilyich and demand that he "leave in an amicable way." I hardly believe in this - most of all it looks like a cheap "remix" of the Khrushchev coup, as a result of which Lavrenty Beria died. One way or another, but no obvious attempts to get ahead until a certain time on the part of Yuri Vladimirovich were not recorded. But something else - just happened. By a strange "coincidence" of circumstances, from a certain moment it was with those people who stood in his way to power that extremely unpleasant incidents began to occur, even tragic ones. We will certainly talk about the terrifying chain of very, very strange deaths that took place in the 70s - 80s of the last century in the highest echelons of the party and government of the USSR in the most detailed way, but only next time.

Now, without going into details, I will note - "the right people" died "at the right time." However, not only died. The first secretary of the Leningrad Regional Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Grigory Romanov, who could easily replace Brezhnev as General Secretary, was put out of the game by a wave of dirty rumors, the most ridiculous of which was the story of "his daughter's wedding." It allegedly took place in one of the royal palaces with a completely unimaginable and frantic revelry, the crown of which was the beating of the beloved service of Catherine II, withdrawn from the Hermitage for such an occasion. Tellingly, it was Andropov who refused Romanov to use the Committee's capabilities to suppress the wave of false compromising evidence that was skillfully and purposefully spread by someone.

Springboard for Gorbachev


After the events mentioned above (which is typical, during which the Western "radio voices" were especially zealous in the repeated repetition of particularly vile insinuations about Romanov, who clearly received the appropriate instructions), the "favorite" among the possible candidates for the role of Brezhnev's successor was the first secretary of the Communist Party of Ukraine Volodymyr Shcherbitsky. It is possible that before these events, too. According to some reports, feeling that he is rapidly surrendering, the Secretary General made a choice in favor of this particular candidacy back in the mid-70s. And there was why. Shcherbitsky certainly never was a senile, he had remarkable health and popularity, at least in his own republic he enjoyed considerable. There is a great deal of evidence that from a certain moment Leonid Ilyich saw him and only him in the role of his own "heir". I was not even shy about talking about it aloud. Moreover, shortly before his own death, Brezhnev committed an act that was decisively breaking out of the "Kremlin protocol" and the usual practice of the "top officials" of the USSR - for the urgently needed personal conversation with Shcherbitsky, he did not call him to Moscow, but he flew to him in Kiev ...

It is very likely that the head of state intended to talk about things that were not just super important, but about those that in no case should have reached the ears of the "rumors" that filled the Kremlin. Personally, I am inclined to believe the version in which Leonid Ilyich firmly decided to announce his resignation from the post of General Secretary to the symbolic post of Chairman of the CPSU and the appointment of Shcherbitsky as General Secretary at the Plenum of the Central Committee, which was to take place either on November 13 or 15, 1982. But he did not have time, having left for another world. At the same time, by the way, just before his death, Brezhnev felt very cheerful.

Shcherbitsky (again a coincidence ?!) It was at this fateful moment that he found himself on a business trip in the United States, which, according to the opinion, Andropov "helped" him. Upon learning of Brezhnev's death, Vladimir Vasilyevich tried to immediately return to the USSR, but he was simply not allowed to do so. And Yuri Andropov became the General Secretary ... Someone today is trying to assert that this man was a "fanatical communist" and was almost going to "restore the Stalinist regime" with all its austerities. What is the basis for such conclusions? Because of the ridiculous raids "to identify truants and parasites", as a result of which frightened schoolchildren ran away from cinemas, and aunts with curlers on their heads from hairdressers? Do not be ridiculous ... Much more important than such obviously populist and not having serious consequences of the event was that it was Andropov who made every effort to promote both Mikhail Gorbachev himself and some others to power as far and higher as possible " prominent perestroika ", such as Ligachev and Yakovlev. Everyone in this vile-glorified trinity of Judas is precisely Andropov's direct proteges.

Can we assume that a person who for many years headed the world's strongest intelligence service and, in essence, was obliged to see people “through and through” without any X-ray, could have made such a cruel mistake, and more than once? Personally, I’m sure not in any way. Andropov, paving the way for the future "foremen of perestroika", perfectly understood what he was doing and why. As a matter of fact, the rapid rise of precisely these of his nominees was the main result of the short rule of Yuri Vladimirovich. And yet, the forces that were behind everything that happened did not succeed in immediately reaching the “maximum program”. Andropov was replaced in the Kremlin not by Gorbachev, but by Konstantin Chernenko, who was his complete opposite.

Why did it happen? Did the Soviet Union have the notorious "last chance"? How many prominent members of the party and the Soviet government were killed for the sake of coming to power and the final victory of the "perestroika"? We will definitely talk about all this next time.
47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 5 December 2020 11: 12
    -3
    Ага.
    According to similar theories, they all wanted (starting with Lenin), but all did not manage to appoint a worthy heir and save the USSR.
    According to the article, if you rewind and continue logging, the communists are to blame.
    GDP-Yeltsin-Gorbi-Andropov-Brezhnev-Khrushchev-Stalin-Lenin. Planted the bomb, remember?
    And everyone should-should not be General Secretary - they literally wrote about everyone.
    In reality, everyone else won, which means that these were the rules of the game. Even if he spoke Russian with an accent.

    By the way, 68 years of GDP, 66 Lukashenko, 65 Chubais, 70 laurels, 74 Trump, 58 Serdyukov, 77 Bryden, Medvedev is the youngest 55 years old.
    Democratic remote elections are in vogue, who will be elected here?
    1. andrew42 Offline andrew42
      andrew42 (Andrei) 5 December 2020 15: 21
      +1
      There have been no theories for a long time. Andropov's career path (as indicated in the article) is a chain of facts, and he speaks for himself. This is obvious after the fact. A terrible hidden enemy of the Soviet state, the state of the working people. And there is nothing to trick with Ilyich. There are 2 periods - before Stalin, and after Stalin, and they do not correlate in any way.
      1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
        Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 5 December 2020 18: 48
        +1
        Period 2, but the party and the country are one.
        Once after Stalin we climbed through such, one after another, then these were the rules of the game.
        That only such can get through.
    2. nikolai.shupenin 5 December 2020 20: 56
      0
      the people are to blame because they did not resist, which means that this union is not needed by anyone
  2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 5 December 2020 11: 48
    -4
    It is clear, a worldwide secret w-Masonic conspiracy. And the fact that evidence of such a conspiracy is absent from the word at all is also understandable, it's secret.

    for whom the communist ideology and Soviet power were not empty words.

    Interestingly, the author is aware that the communists, by definition, anti-state?

    In fact, our conversation should begin with the fact that true socialism ended in the USSR in 1953, with the death of Stalin.

    This is very controversial. If socialism implies mass death of the population from hunger, then yes, this was not the case under Khrushchev. In general, under Nikita Sergeevich, the USSR reached the peak of its power, but at the same time it turned its face to its citizens, and not what it was turned to under Stalin.
    PS If you believe in the nonsense about the conspiracy of the respected author, then it turns out that the USSR was a very weak state in which the secretary general and the chairman of the KGB were appointed by foreign special services. Then it turns out that its collapse was inevitable.
    PSS Can the author or someone say what motives Khrushchev, Andropov and Gorbachev had, for what, in the author's opinion, they arranged it? From natural harm?
    1. nov_tech.vrn Offline nov_tech.vrn
      nov_tech.vrn (Michael) 5 December 2020 14: 10
      +2
      A terrible fiasco with virgin lands, then for a long time they restored huge areas of lands ruined by dry winds, liquidation of artels and cooperatives that contributed to filling the market with consumer goods, persecution of "private traders" who were not allowed to plant gardens and have any livestock, termination of large infrastructure projects, decentralization of industrial production , about the battle with the "cult of personality" because of which they quarreled with China and Albania, and even to remember corn at the Arctic Circle is redundant. Khrushchev is a saboteur in an embroidered shirt.
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 5 December 2020 15: 39
        -5
        Quote: nov_tech.vrn
        Terrible fiasco with virgin lands

        A terrible fiasco? Worse than Stalin's collectivization?
        There were problems that were typical of the Soviet Union in general, but under Khrushchev, the citizens of the USSR stopped starving.

        Quote: nov_tech.vrn
        about the battle with the "personality cult"

        In North Korea, Stalinism is now, would you like us to be like theirs?
        Under Khrushchev, the first satellite and Yuri Gagarin, the nuclear industry. Under him, the USSR became a real superpower capable of competing with the United States and really threatening them.

        The monument to Ernst Neizvestny at the grave of Khrushchev perfectly reflects the personality of Khrushchev.
        1. Xuli (o) Tebenado 5 December 2020 22: 15
          +1
          but under Khrushchev, the citizens of the USSR stopped starving.

          At home, there are still various-sized aluminum pots, which were lined up in a pyramid and fastened on the sides with brackets with a handle on top. Father took this building to work, and in the dining room they put the first or second in pots for him, because there was nothing to cook soup in the capital of one southern republic in the summer of 1964, and we didn’t eat tons of corn.
          We can say that thanks to this our family did not "starve".
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Xuli (o) Tebenado 6 December 2020 06: 20
              0
              Each one dragged wherever he could.
              After all, the corn was sea + juicy, green grass.
          2. nov_tech.vrn Offline nov_tech.vrn
            nov_tech.vrn (Michael) 7 December 2020 12: 57
            0
            Father, after a serious illness, once a week received white bread on cards prescribed by a doctor.
        2. magma Offline magma
          magma (Tatyana) 6 December 2020 09: 34
          +1
          In general, under Nikita Sergeevich, the USSR ... turned to face its citizens

          Yes, and the shooting of workers in Novocherkassk in the 62nd is a vivid confirmation of this.

          under Khrushchev, the citizens of the USSR stopped starving

          With him, they just started ... (see above)

          Under Khrushchev, the first satellite and Yuri Gagarin, the nuclear industry. Under him, the USSR became a real superpower, able to compete with the United States.

          Khrushch has nothing to do with this. He just happened to be at the right time, in the right place. Everything was created under Stalin. And we also became a superpower under Stalin, defeating the Third Reich.

          The monument to Ernst Neizvestny at the grave of Khrushchev perfectly reflects the personality of Khrushchev.

          The characterization of his personality was given by his entourage, which threw him out of the Kremlin.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 6 December 2020 11: 21
            -2
            Quote: magma
            Yes, and the shooting of workers in Novocherkassk in the 62nd is a vivid confirmation of this.

            Persuaded, turned half a turn.

            Quote: magma
            With him, they had just started ...

            The last famine in the USSR was recorded in 1947, the rest is all fantasy.

            Quote: magma
            Khrushch has nothing to do with this. He just happened to be at the right time, in the right place. Everything was created under Stalin.

            It is not true. Yes, no doubt, Nikita Sergeevich did not start from scratch, but one cannot say that nothing was done with him. Much has been done.

            Quote: magma
            And we also became a superpower under Stalin, defeating the Third Reich.

            The USSR became a superpower when it was able to really threaten with a blow to the United States, this is already under Khrushchev.

            Quote: magma
            The characterization of his personality was given by his entourage, which threw him out of the Kremlin.

            There are persistent rumors that Stalin's entourage poisoned him. At best, she did not provide medical assistance when he became ill.
            1. magma Offline magma
              magma (Tatyana) 6 December 2020 11: 42
              -1
              There are persistent rumors that Stalin's entourage poisoned him.

              Poisoned and thrown out - do you feel the difference? In the first case it is fear, in the second it is contempt.
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 6 December 2020 12: 01
                -1
                I feel that under Stalin, a defeat in the political struggle meant death, and not only the loser, but also his loved ones. Under Khrushchev, an honorable pension. Thank you for reminding me of another achievement of Khrushchev.
                1. magma Offline magma
                  magma (Tatyana) 6 December 2020 15: 09
                  +1
                  Under Khrushchev, an honorable pension.

                  You tell Beria this
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 6 December 2020 16: 27
                    -3
                    Well, yes, he came to power by Stalinist methods, but then he did not suit such bloody vatkhanals as Stalin. And he himself ended his life in retirement, although he was removed from power.
                    1. andrew42 Offline andrew42
                      andrew42 (Andrei) 9 December 2020 18: 50
                      +1
                      It was just Novocherkassk that was a bloody bacchanalia. Under Stalin, the leaders of the city and the region would have been responsible for the state of affairs first of all, and under Khrushchev, the hard workers would have received the full. This is all Khrushch's little vindictive soul. With the same currency dealers whom Khrushch actually personally sentenced to vyshak in violation of the law. Under Stalin, they would have received 15 camps, but the "good" Khrushch insisted on being shot. He has not changed at all since the 30s, where in Ukraine he was in the most active way increasing the quantitative indicators of repression. A voluntarist is too soft and streamlined, for the masses it was formulated. But in reality, he is a timeserver, a careerist and a vindictive egoist, only hiding behind the communist idea.
                      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 10 December 2020 22: 37
                        -4
                        Quote: andrew42
                        Under Stalin, the leaders of the city and the region would have been responsible for the state of affairs first of all, and under Khrushchev, the hard workers would have received the full.

                        One can believe in this only without knowing the history of the native country at all.
                        Take an interest, for example, the Chumakov uprising, the Chainskoye uprising, and dozens of smaller ones. Hundreds of people died. And dispossession of kulaks cannot be compared in terms of the number of victims with Novocherkassk.

                        Quote: andrew42
                        Under Stalin, they would have received 15 camps, but the "good" Khrushch insisted on being shot.

                        What are you talking about, under Stalin, they shot 700 thousand, under Khrushchev, I'm not sure what would be 20. You probably forgot about Stalin's execution lists of thousands by 45.

                        Quote: andrew42
                        It has not changed at all since the 30s, where in Ukraine it was the most active way to increase the quantitative indicators of repression.

                        In the 30s he was in Moscow. Who launched this repression?
        3. nov_tech.vrn Offline nov_tech.vrn
          nov_tech.vrn (Michael) 7 December 2020 12: 48
          +2
          No comments, as usual, the substitution of concepts:
          - Stalin's collectivization, then practically the only way to transfer agriculture to an industrial basis, and it was not it that led to famine, namely, crop failures forced to force collectivization. The so-called "excesses" allowed during its implementation according to Stalin, hated by you, is the result of the fact that collectivization was carried out by absolutely unskilled personnel and hostile relations between the poor, who gained power and wealthy peasants, who were naturally not eager to lose their property.
          - huge plowed virgin lands, absolutely without taking into account the climatic conditions and the peculiarities of agrotechnical methods of work in this region, gave rise to terrible black storms that destroyed the fertile layer in large areas. Violation of the rules of agricultural technology on the rest of the land led to a decrease in land productivity. A fairly wide layer of people living in rural areas at that time, by Khrushchev's voluntaristic decision, were deprived of the opportunity to run a private farm. As a result, cards and the start of food imports.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 7 December 2020 15: 36
            -4
            Quote: nov_tech.vrn
            namely, crop failures forced to speed up collectivization.

            You just weren't interested in the question. That year was average in terms of yield, in my opinion 35 was worse in terms of yield, but there was no hunger. There are yield indicators in the public domain, take an interest.

            Quote: nov_tech.vrn
            there is a result, just of the fact that collectivization was carried out, by absolutely unskilled personnel

            Who is to blame for this? Pushkin?

            Quote: nov_tech.vrn
            hostile attitudes of the poor, who gained power, and wealthy peasants, who naturally did not burn with the desire to lose their property.

            Who would have thought that the wealthy would not want to give up their property. That's amazing, right?

            Quote: nov_tech.vrn
            At that time, a fairly wide stratum of people living in rural areas, by Khrushchev's voluntaristic decision, were deprived of the opportunity to run a private farm.

            Do you think this is cooler than taking away property during collectivization or dispossession? And by the way, how did Khrushchev deprive him of the opportunity to run a private farm?
            1. nov_tech.vrn Offline nov_tech.vrn
              nov_tech.vrn (Michael) 7 December 2020 19: 53
              0
              do not drink from the trough, you will become a kid.

              ... Although in 1890 there was a more or less good harvest, - reported the Voronezh district police officer, - nevertheless, the preservation of food turned out to be insufficient in order to cover all previous needs, to form the necessary reserves ... General harvest failure in the current year ... the lack of fodder and food supplies put the majority of peasant farms in a desperate situation. "
              When in the spring of 1891 reports began to arrive from the localities about the impending crop failure, the director of the department of unreported fees, A.S. Ermolov, handed I.A. "AND. A. Vyshnegradsky remained very dissatisfied with my ominous predictions, - testifies A.S. Ermolov, - took the note from me and locked it in a drawer of his writing desk in front of me, saying: “Your note will not come out of this box, and not a single person I should know about it: you will ruin all exchange rates for me "". As a result, the export of grain continued throughout the summer months. "We ourselves will not eat, but we will take out!" - declared I. A. Vyshnegradskiy.
              As a result of a poor harvest, the net per capita harvest of grain in Russia amounted to about 14 poods, the reserves were depleted by the exports of previous years, and as a result, famine broke out, which, according to R. Robbins, took away about 400 thousand lives. The results of the calculations, however, significantly depend on their methodology: 400 thousand (more precisely, 480 thousand) is the excess of the mortality rate in 1892 over the mortality rate in 1891. But the rise in mortality due to food shortages began as early as 1889, and if we calculate the excess of mortality for 1889-1892 over the level of 1888, we get a surplus of deaths of 1,75 million in four years.
              As we can see from this case, the number of victims of the famine of 1889-92 amounted to an impressive 1,75 million people in only one European part * of RI. It is not for nothing that this hunger went down in history as the Tsar-hunger. For comparison: the famine of 1932-33 took about 2,5 million people across the entire * USSR. That is, the scale is quite comparable even without taking into account the difference in territories. Both here and there the triggering mechanism of the social catastrophe was the climatic cataclysm and crop failure for two to three years.
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 8 December 2020 01: 13
                -1
                Quote: nov_tech.vrn
                do not drink from the trough, you will become a kid.

                May I have a request? Can you do without such a uh ... demonstration of knowledge of folklore? I do not like to be disappointed in people.
                I do not quite understand what has it to do with your unknown quote and Khrushchev. Or do you think the incompetence of the tsarist government justifies at least one iota the incompetence of the Stalinist government?

                As a result, the export of grain continued throughout the summer months. "We ourselves will not eat, but we will take out!" - declared I. A. Vyshnegradskiy.

                This phrase has nothing to do with that hunger. The government banned grain exports altogether, but that didn't help much.
                By the way compare

                August 24, 1930 I.V. Stalin wrote to V.M. Molotov about this: “We should raise (now) the daily export rate to 3-4 million [lyons] poods at least. Otherwise, we risk being left without our new metallurgical and machine-building (Avtozavod, Chelyabzavod, etc.) factories. There will be wise men who will offer wait with the export until the prices of bread on the international market rise to the “highest point.” There are many such wise men in the People's Commissariat of Trade. These wise men must be chased by the neck, for they are pulling us into a trap. To wait, one must have foreign exchange ] reserves. And we do not have them. To wait, you need to have secured positions in the international grain market. And we have not had any positions there for a long time - we are only gaining them now, using conditions that are specifically favorable for us , created at the moment. In a word, we need to furiously speed up the export of grain "

                As a result of a poor harvest, the net per capita harvest of grain in Russia amounted to about 14 poods, the reserves were depleted by the exports of previous years, and as a result, famine broke out, which, according to R. Robbins, took away about 400 thousand lives. The results of the calculations, however, significantly depend on their methodology: 400 thousand (more precisely, 480 thousand) is the excess of the mortality rate in 1892 over the mortality rate in 1891.

                More precisely, 406 thousand and compared not with 1891, but with the average for 1881-1890. The figure 1,75 million in 4 years is some kind of fiction. The famine was one year.

                Quote: nov_tech.vrn
                For comparison: the famine of 1932-33 took about 2,5 million people across the entire * USSR

                Official figure 7 million

                https://duma.consultant.ru/documents/955838?items=1&page=3

                And the Soviet government for some reason did not notice the crop failure in 32

                http://istmat.info/node/25322
                1. nov_tech.vrn Offline nov_tech.vrn
                  nov_tech.vrn (Michael) 8 December 2020 13: 41
                  +2
                  -firstly, the quote is literal and it is not necessary to pull it out of context;
                  - secondly, the data about 7 million are unfounded and unconfirmed, the confirmed figure is 2,5, have you heard anything about Nansen's activities? And about "king hunger" is a quote, not my inventions. There is such a detailed study about the influence of climatic conditions and regular crop failures in the territory of the Russian Empire on food supply, but it ends in 16 or 17 years;
                  - thirdly, you can ask yourself about the measures that were taken after the real information about the famine in the USSR reached the leadership;
                  - and about 7 million, the State Duma and the Katyn case were sewn by the NKVD, although as early as 43 years old material evidence was obtained confirming that the executions were carried out by the Nazis, as you know, renegades, and a significant proportion of leaders in the 90s and later, this is a repainted former party farm asset, go out of their way to prove their loyalty to the current regime
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 9 December 2020 01: 42
                    -3
                    Quote: nov_tech.vrn
                    -firstly, the quote is literal and it is not necessary to pull it out of context;

                    Something I did not really understand who and what pulls out.

                    Quote: nov_tech.vrn
                    - secondly, the data about 7 million are unfounded and unconfirmed, the confirmed figure is 2,5, have you heard anything about Nansen's activities?

                    Nansen Fridtjof? And what does he have to do with it?
                    2,5 million is the minimum estimate (that's probably why you like it better). In any case, the official version is 7 million.
                    Okay, let's say you are right and there are 2,5 million victims (although this is not the case), and what difference does that make?

                    Quote: nov_tech.vrn
                    - thirdly, you can ask yourself about the measures that were taken after the real information about the famine in the USSR reached the leadership;

                    What are the measures? Banning peasants from leaving famine-stricken areas?

                    https://istmat.info/node/38629

                    Pay attention to the signature
                    What do you think, if 32 million tons of grain were not exported at 1,7, hunger could have been avoided?

                    http://istmat.info/files/uploads/22114/vneshtorg_1937-1938_razdel_2.pdf

                    Quote: nov_tech.vrn
                    - and about 7 million, the State Duma and the Katyn case were sewn by the NKVD, although as early as 43 years old material evidence was obtained confirming that the executions were carried out by the Nazis, as you know, renegades, and a significant proportion of leaders in the 90s and later, this is a repainted former party farm asset, go out of their way to prove their loyalty to the current regime

                    That is, you believe in a worldwide w-Masonic conspiracy to discredit Stalin's honest name, in which the leadership of the Russian Federation participates

                    https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2010/04/100407_katyn_putin

                    Maybe I don’t understand something, but I cannot imagine why the President of the Russian Federation might need to denigrate the good name of Stalin and the NKVD officers.
                    1. nov_tech.vrn Offline nov_tech.vrn
                      nov_tech.vrn (Michael) 9 December 2020 13: 09
                      -1
                      I do not believe in the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy, but I do not believe in the UNCONFIRMED figures either
        4. Vladimir68 Offline Vladimir68
          Vladimir68 (Vladimir) 9 December 2020 14: 02
          +3
          Most of Khrushchev's achievements were laid in the Stalin era. Even the famous Khrushchevs appeared as a result of studying the experience of Western companies after the war. If you calculate how long it takes to create the newest industries of that time, specialists in them, you will understand the time of bookmarks. But on the agricultural Stalin in 1952. instructed to prepare a reform, but as you know did not have time, so Khrushch and heaped up, destroyed the artels, subsidiary farming. And with collective farms, as practice has shown, the decision was correct, and there was no other way. The creation of an industrial industry required huge human resources, and the private owner could not feed them (it took a long time for the private owner to grow into a large one naturally). By the way, according to many recollections, not long before the war, collective farms have risen well. And at the expense of ceased to starve, remind people in Novocherkassk why they went out into the streets in 1962. By the way, Stalin also arranged famine in the United States (almost at the same time), and in pre-revolutionary Russia, famine was also no wonder. Take a deeper look at the facts, without emotion and from the standpoint of the time when it was.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 12 December 2020 02: 24
            -3
            Quote: Vladimir68
            Most of Khrushchev's achievements were laid in the Stalin era.

            So what? Under him, the USSR continued to develop, became a superpower, went into space. Stalin's achievements did not appear out of nowhere either.

            Quote: Vladimir68
            Even the famous Khrushchevs appeared as a result of studying the experience of Western companies after the war.

            Again, what? While Stalin was building the famous skyscrapers, the building of Moscow State University, for example, cost as an annual budget for the restoration of Stalingrad, Khrushchev actually created an industry for the construction of mass housing.

            Quote: Vladimir68
            And with collective farms, as practice has shown, the decision was correct, and there was no other way.

            As practice has shown, collective farms were unable to feed the country under Stalin, under Khrushchev, under Brezhnev, or under Gorbachev.
      2. viktgarin Offline viktgarin
        viktgarin (Viktor Garin) 2 January 2021 08: 54
        0
        And because in this country there should not be rich, but only poor!
  3. Everyone knows: Bear Humpback is a CIA agent
    1. Xuli (o) Tebenado 5 December 2020 18: 14
      0
      What kind of superpower is the USSR, if the CIA can put its agent at the head of it?
      Strange, "Khrushchev is a saboteur in an embroidered shirt", Andropov is "a terrible hidden enemy of the Soviet state," "Humpbacked Bear is a CIA agent." And all are the LEADERS of the USSR!
      Guys, maybe you yourself, to put it mildly, are not quite healthy?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. And who chose them? A drunken God-bearing people? So he will choose Baba Yaga if she rolls as it should!
        1. Xuli (o) Tebenado 5 December 2020 22: 23
          +1
          Tell me the articles in any constitution of the USSR, even in Stalin's, even in Brezhnev's, which said that the "drunken God-bearing people" should have chosen the leaders of the CPSU and the state?
          1. viktgarin Offline viktgarin
            viktgarin (Viktor Garin) 2 January 2021 09: 16
            0
            Yes! There is no such article! The Politburo appointed a general secretary, from there the legs grow. At the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s, the interval in which a sent Cossack appeared! There is a second option - the mental retardation of the leaders at that time, nature did not have time to hurry up! There is no third!
    2. viktgarin Offline viktgarin
      viktgarin (Viktor Garin) 2 January 2021 08: 59
      0
      Therefore, he had the pseudonym "Gorby". And they stuck it to him in the CIA.
  4. Lysik001 Offline Lysik001
    Lysik001 (boy Seryozha) 5 December 2020 12: 57
    -5
    Bullshit! I mixed and mixed everything! Yes, Gorbachev himself did not know what his publicity could lead to! In 1991, Gorbachev was not in Belovezhskaya Pushcha! And no one asked him whether he wanted it or not! Yeltsin and others like him were eager for power! The people also did not go on about the State Emergency Committee if you forgot! And they were for the preservation of the USSR! And here you mixed everything in a heap! And we remember everything! And we will not allow people like you to deceive people! Everything was much more complicated! The problem is that a country called the USSR has simply outlived its usefulness! And the people are tired of it! This is the main reason! And now everything is being blamed on Gorbachev, he cannot answer. Of course he also piled up no one argues. The problem is different! The people are simply tired of this state! And who forgot to remember the demonstrations with Russian flags and in general that time! Everyone shied away from the communists like from rabid dogs. Therefore, in the events of 1993, the people did not support the coup either. Everyone is tired of this Soviet Union! And you don't write about the people at all! As if it were a herd of rams! And the State Department was in charge of everything! Don't write nonsense! Moreover, there are millions of witnesses to these events and you cannot deceive them with your opuses!
    1. andrew42 Offline andrew42
      andrew42 (Andrei) 5 December 2020 15: 31
      0
      This is all mixed up with you. The author has everything clear. The USSR was stronger than half of the states of the planet combined. It was precisely such figures as Andropov and the Gorbachevskaya Caudla who had their hands directly in the vulgarization of the Soviet system and the party. This is called "substitution of the ruling elite". The GKChP is a performance that Gorbachev was aware of, who framed the fools of the GKChP-stov in the dark. for the final discrediting of the highest echelon of power and the very idea of ​​the Soviet state. From the point of view of the current years, this can be seen as twice two, if you do not lie and do not close your eyes. Russia as a truncated Soviet Union, like the Heartland, is placed under the control of the Western elites, under the supervision of the Gorbachev / Yakovlev and Yeltsin / Gaidar / Chubais heirs. - McCain blabbed about the "gas station" out of stupidity.
  5. Xuli (o) Tebenado 5 December 2020 17: 45
    +3
    The same Ronald Reagan, for example, became the president of the United States at 70 ...

    More specifically, Regan became president at 69.

    Well, I won't say anything about the fact that Donald Trump is 78 years old.

    Since Trump is now 74 years old, not 78, it would be better to remain silent.
  6. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 5 December 2020 22: 46
    +1
    Lenin created a party of ideological associates. Who worked for a bright idea, not for money. Therefore, this economic breakthrough of the country under Stalin was possible. The most ideological, the best, and died during the war.
    I have a specific job. Any order that violates the instructions must be duplicated in writing. It got to the point that I beat on the hands of the leadership (in the literal sense) and did not allow to disrupt the process. Required written confirmation. And you know, no one has confirmed their words in writing. This I mean that after Stalin, none of the communists demanded in writing confirmation of the violation of the party charter, laws, etc. There were verbal orders, telephone orders, but not in writing. The communists were afraid to demand a signature. Remember the State Emergency Committee. There were plenty of legal grounds to remove Gorbachev from power. But in writing, no one dared. It's the same with the KGB. In this structure, to destroy the traitor is the law! But at the most crucial moment, everyone got cold feet! Because there was no ideological one. Because the principles of Lenin's ideology were violated. They joined the party for the sake of career growth, not for the sake of ideas. Therefore, a lot of crap has accumulated there.
    Now we are offered the ideology of the "Golden Calf", debauchery. Ideology is not the ability of the inhabitants of Russia to solve the problems of their state. "But in natural selection, Putin is better all the same." And this ideology is already 30 years old. Will explode soon !?
    1. Xuli (o) Tebenado 6 December 2020 06: 55
      -1
      Lenin created a party of ideological associates. Who worked for a bright idea, not for money. Therefore, this economic breakthrough of the country under Stalin was possible. The most ideological, the best, and died during the war.

      1) When was the last time you read the history of the RSDLP (b)? Plekhanov, Martov, Axelrod, Bakuninites, Mensheviks-Bolsheviks, Right-Left deviation, Socialist-Revolutionaries-terrorists ... And other "ideological associates".
      2) A little later, failed priests, workers with three classes of education, joined these theorists-emigrants; after the revolution - brother sailors with Mauser and wooden heads. Their "ideological spirit" is understandable for me personally.
      3) There was an economic breakthrough "under Stalin". Concerning Russia, 18-19 centuries. And others, civilized and rich, - they only caught up. And Khrushchev threatened to overtake, for which he later became a "voluntarist".
      4) Don't. They began to die much earlier, starting with the obscure death of Sverdlov. Then came the "generals" - Shchors, Lazo, Kotovsky, Frunze. Then the "Iron Felix" thundered to the fanfare.
      And what began after Kirov (December 1934)! Are you in the subject, or remind?

      Conclusion: your revelations about your work bribe with competence and knowledge of the matter; everything else is very controversial in literally every word.
      1. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
        steelmaker 6 December 2020 10: 44
        0
        If you are so literate and know the history of the RSDLP, then tell me, when did the party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks? And why? Here is the answer to this question and will answer all your other claims. It's like you are rewriting history!
        1. Xuli (o) Tebenado 6 December 2020 13: 15
          -1
          In my opinion, I have already explained to you on my fingers that it is better for you to engage in steel, because the interpreters of "stories about history" have almost completely gone out of their way :))
          1. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
            steelmaker 6 December 2020 17: 21
            0
            And not educated all are either rude, or explain themselves on the fingers. Because they don't have enough education to write or say.
            1. Xuli (o) Tebenado 6 December 2020 17: 54
              -2
              You didn't have enough to study the Russian language program of secondary school in a steel cauldron, so you can only use your fingers, there is no other way.
  7. Semyon Semyonov_2 (Semyon Semyonov) 6 December 2020 08: 31
    0
    There is something to think about.
  8. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 6 December 2020 11: 49
    +2
    I was one of those with the soviet tacit consent of which the Soviet Union and the Soviet social order in Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union were destroyed. Until today, I was afraid to admit this to myself, sharing and making up all sorts of excuses what happened in our country in the Gorbachev-Yeltsin years.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 16 December 2020 22: 35
    +2
    Not an accident. The murderer and traitor Andropov brought Gorbachev to power over the corpses. It was Andropov and company who killed people like Masherov, to please their masters from Washington.
  11. Maxim Grivin Offline Maxim Grivin
    Maxim Grivin (Maxim Yurievich Grivin) 2 January 2021 20: 06
    +1
    It's funny to read that Brezhnev felt good before his death. I remember a demonstration on November 7, 1982. For the first time, the head of state sat on the mausoleum. He simply could no longer stand. The entire Politburo was standing, and Brezhnev was sitting. I remember my father then said that Brezhnev was no longer a tenant. On the day of the police, when Brezhnev died, recalled November 7.
  12. polev66 Offline polev66
    polev66 (Alexander) 5 January 2021 10: 47
    0
    30 years have passed since the union disappeared. Naturally with its "economy". But the sufferers still whine. When you already understand that the union is history, it is no longer realistic to return it, as well as procrastinate, so that if it were, nothing can be changed, which already shows that the Communists need 15%, no more, no matter how they and their fans shout ...
  13. Vlad Sinizin Offline Vlad Sinizin
    Vlad Sinizin (Vlad Sinizin) 2 March 2021 10: 45
    +1
    I hope for the justice of the higher powers, that all the progeny of Gorbachev up to the 7th generation will come back to haunt all the nastiness and pain that he inflicted on hundreds of millions of people in our country.