What is the goal pursued by Khrushchev in the report "On the cult of Stalin's personality"


February 25 marked the 65th anniversary of the day when the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Nikita Khrushchev, "On the cult of the individual and its consequences", was presented at the XX Party Congress. A sad jubilee of a vile event, one of the most tragic in the history of the USSR, which, moreover, had catastrophic consequences in terms of their depth and scale, which, alas, turned out to be irreparable.


Much has been said and written about the treacherous and deceitful essence of the colossal slander against the greatest ruler of our country. Much less illuminated is another question - why and why did Khrushchev commit this unprecedented act, which, in fact, was almost the main one of the state crimes he committed, and why did he do it exactly when he did it?

From the "congress of winners" to the congress of traitors


But really - why exactly 1956? As everyone knows, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin left for another world (most likely, not without the active "help" of future members of the Khrushchev clique) in March 1953. Just a few months later, Khrushchev, relying on the military, carries out an unconstitutional coup d'etat in the country, seizes power and simply kills the successor to the Leader - Lavrenty Beria. Three years later, Khrushchev has nothing to worry about. The NKVD, which frightened this half-dead Trotskyist to a shudder with the mere fact of its existence, was ruined to the ground, the absolute majority of the faithful Stalinists, true statesmen, who did not spare themselves building the great Red Empire, if not physically destroyed, then displaced from all any significant positions, driven to where Makar did not drive calves, they are devoted to condemnation and oblivion.

Some are trying to "fasten" to the essence of the issue the "fierce internal party struggle" that was allegedly waged between Khrushchev and Georgy Malenkov, who took the post of chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers after Stalin's death. Like, "debunking" the Leader, Khrushchev struck at his comrades-in-arms. This is, excuse me, nonsense, not even worth discussing. Yes, there was a squabble between these two characters, who cost each other a lot. However, Khrushchev, who possessed truly diabolical resourcefulness and cunning, won the game in his own way - that is, in an absolutely cheating manner. Those who try to prove that the "Stalinist legacy" in 1953 was "divided" among the conspirators mercilessly distort the facts. At the time of his death, Iosif Vissarionovich was the chairman of the Council of Ministers - and considered this post to be the main, most important one both in the country and in his own activities. Yes, he was also listed as secretary of the CPSU Central Committee - but not general, not the first, but simply a secretary ...

The cunning Khrushchev allegedly "humbly" agreed to this modest position in the Central Committee, and already in September 1953 quickly sported the title of "first" to her. It was by this move that he placed himself above everyone else in the Kremlin, seizing not just power, but almost absolute power. It was the slow-witted Malenkov who thought that sitting at the head of the Council of Ministers, he would be in charge - as under Stalin. But Stalin was no more ... The bald "genius" initially took a course to eliminate one of the main Stalinist plans of the state level - the gradual removal of the party from the leadership of the country (first of all, in part economics) and "displacement" of it into the area where it actually belonged: ideology and education of citizens. In fact, Iosif Vissarionovich planned to do approximately what, decades later, was brilliantly carried out in China. Khrushchev, on the other hand, not only returns the CPSU to the role of "leading and guiding" in literally all issues, but also turns it into a closed "caste" of "celestials" not controlled by anyone, which was not even close under the same Stalin.

No less far-fetched are the ridiculous attempts of "liberal historians" to prove that Nikita Sergeevich, being in his heart a true sadden of the people, really wanted to "restore socialist legality", "rehabilitate innocent victims of repression" and "punish their executioners." Why? Because in such a case, the first thing Bald should have done is to put a bullet in his forehead. He was not only mad in the blood of the "repressed" above the top of the head, but was just one of those figures, thanks to whom the "excesses" began in the process of cleansing the country of enemies and traitors. According to some researchers, in this matter, he could well argue with Yezhov, who was furious with blood, after whom Lavrenty Beria, who later replaced him, had to rake mountains of corpses. No, the motives here were completely different ... However, before proceeding to their concrete consideration, it is nevertheless necessary to say a few words about the Khrushchev report itself.

Lie from first to last word


In principle, this is a completely exhaustive description of the avalanche of mud that Khrushchev threw from the rostrum on the heads of the dumbfounded, numb and who survived the strongest shock of the delegates to the Congress. As a matter of fact, the true text of this report remains to this day a secret with seven seals. The archives, it seems, contain a handwritten version of it, but there is evidence that during the reading Khrushchev "greatly improvised" and deviated from this text in the most radical way. The verbatim record of his speech, contrary to the regulations, was not kept. There were no dictaphones in the pockets of those present, of course. The "text of the report" published later, according to the recollections of the congress participants, also differs more than significantly from what the dispersed First Secretary carried from its rostrum. There are a lot of questions even about the authorship of the text and its "sources". According to the "canonical" version, Khrushchev's speech was prepared on the basis of materials helpfully collected by a certain "commission" under the leadership of Academician Pyotr Pospelov, created on the personal instructions of Khrushchev in 1955.

However, according to the recollections of Dmitry Shepilov (the one who would later “join” with the first attempt to overthrow Khrushchev), he and the First Secretary personally prepared this information “bomb” for two days without leaving his office. And they used not "the conclusions of the Pospelov commission" at all, but "materials provided by the then head of the KGB, Serov." Whom to believe? And this, in principle, does not matter at all! Why? Yes, because in the end, in the rostrum of the XX Congress, not some kind of "investigation results" or other data based on at least some facts and evidence sounded, but a complete set of the most vile and most deceitful anti-Stalinist inventions, which to this day gentlemen from our precious liberal-democratic "get-together" continue to operate with enthusiasm.

It all began with talk about Lenin's "letter to the congress", in which he allegedly warned about the "terrible consequences" of the coming to power of "rude and authoritarian" Stalin. It has long been proven that this "letter" is a pure fake, concocted by Trotsky's comrades. Khrushchev could not have been unaware of this. Nevertheless, almost a fourth part of his report was devoted precisely to the dissolution of similar fairy tales, where the "exposure" of Stalin was attributed to Ilyich himself, now Krupskaya, now to someone else. The rest of the accusations were even more ridiculous. Khrushchev, in all seriousness, carried the game to the completely stunned deputies that the Supreme Commander “slept through the beginning of the Great Patriotic War,” during the war, “supervised operations on the globe,” and generally interfered with the defeat of the Nazis in every possible way, getting under the feet of the “great commanders”, in particular at the very Nikita Sergeevich. In principle, for this alone, he should have been immediately pulled from the podium, tapped on his bald head with something and immediately sent to the nearest psychiatric hospital.

Alas, there was no one in the hall who would dare to do something like that ... Other "revelations", in principle, were of the same kind - "Stalin personally invented the term" enemy of the people "and demanded to constantly increase the scale of repression." At the same time, again, no one remembered Lysy's personal resolution of the Leader on one of the huge execution lists he signed, sent from Kiev: "Calm down, you fool!" Stalin, according to Khrushchev, "made all decisions exclusively individually," he "destroyed the sacred Leninist principles of collegiality and democratic centralism." Well, yes - I did not consult the great Nikita Sergeevich, constantly ridiculing his absolutely idiotic ideas and projects. Well, and of course, Joseph Vissarionovich was accused of books and songs written about him, cities and villages named in his honor, as well as the establishment of the Stalin Prize. The fact that the settlements were renamed in honor of all prominent party and government leaders (including those who were quite healthy), that in the USSR, despite many attempts to introduce it, there was, for example, the Order of Stalin or its images on banknotes, since Joseph Vissarionovich invariably promised to tear off his hands for such a "creative", was not taken into account ...

A blow to socialism agreed with Washington?


In principle, there is no point in further enumerating all the frank absurdities, shameful inventions and slander that appeared in the report. This vileness was fully described by the historian from the United States, professor at Montclair State University Grover Ferr, who issued a conclusion: Khrushchev's speech at the XX Congress "has nothing to do with reality." However, let us return all the same to the question of what prompted this underestimated Trotskyist, a coward and a traitor, an ignoramus and a narcissist, to carry out the main sabotage in his life on February 25, 1956? I propose to reflect on the following question: how did the report, which received the "top secret" label, in the shortest possible time become the property of not only the special services, but also the Western media? Tales about a certain “brave Polish communist”, the secretary of the first secretary of the PUWP Central Committee, who took the text of the report to a “familiar journalist”, who photographed it, and then for some reason passed it on to the Israeli embassy not to colleagues from the West, but to the Israeli embassy. In June 1956, Khrushchev's speech at the XX Congress "exploded" in one voice, the New York Times and the Washington Post, after which its text began to rattle from every iron thanks to Radio Liberty and Free Europe, which were controlled by the US CIA slightly more than at one hundred%.

The phrase that this report - "the gravedigger of communism" is attributed to the chief of this organization, Allen Dulles. He was so shrewd, they say ... And if it’s not insight, but the fact that the whole orgy of the 1956th Congress was originally agreed with Washington and Khrushchev’s nonsense got there not through Israeli intelligence, but, as they say, “through a direct wire "? Do you think this is impossible? And in vain. In order to believe, at least, in the right for such a version to exist, it is enough to analyze what Khrushchev had already managed to do by XNUMX and how events began to develop after his speech at the congress.

The defeat and destruction of the Soviet army (the first general reduction of which by more than 2 million people, that is, by almost 30%, began in 1955), which began in 1954, the "development of the virgin lands", which drove the USSR into colossal losses and crippled its agriculture, the winding down of Stalin's plan to transform the climate in the USSR, which led to even more serious consequences - all this began before the XX Congress. Someone in the Kremlin (and beyond it too) began to open their eyes - Comrade First is obviously turning somewhere in the wrong place! However, after the shameful show with the "debunking of the personality cult," they shut their mouths to all those who disagreed, accusing them of "Stalinism" with a choh, and things "rushed downhill" at all.

The number of "rehabilitated" and fleeing to freedom from the camps of the most real, not invented enemies of the people, instantly jumped at times. Whom did Khrushchev release almost in the first place? Ukrainian, Baltic and other nationalists, yesterday's Bandera, "forest brothers", SS legionnaires, policemen and other bastards who had no place at all among normal Soviet people. What for?! It is strange to hear such a question from people who know exactly what role this very public and its last ones played in the process of the destruction of the Soviet Union. Khrushchev planned to do what Gorbachev had done, but 20-30 years earlier! In 1960, he began a new "downsizing" of the Armed Forces. At the same time, he generally intended to transfer the army to the militia principle of formation, which Stalin abandoned back in 1935. Abolished the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs and was going to do the same with the all-Union KGB! What was this if not a thorough and thoughtful preparation for the complete dismantling of the Soviet Union as a single state ?! By the way, having familiarized himself with the text of the report, David Ben-Gurion, who at that time was the head of the Israeli government, said: "If this is not a provocation and not a fake, then, mark my word, in 20 years the USSR will disappear from the world map!" Someone on this occasion will deign to be malicious - they say, the sage of Zion hit the sky with his finger. But nothing of the kind - that would be exactly the way it would have been if the Kukuruznik had not been knocked off in 1964 ...

Alas, the prime minister of the "promised land" was mistaken in the date, but not in the essence. "Debunking the personality cult" split Soviet society, depriving it of faith in the party, its leaders, and communism as such. The world socialist camp was also split - it was necessary to restore order there with tanks in the same year, when the congress was held: both in Poland and in Hungary. The Soviet Union has forever lost its most important and promising geopolitical ally - China, and this definitely happened after the XX Congress. Yes, for this alone, the Americans would have done anything! Apparently they went ...

Be that as it may, but in order to avoid the repetition of such fatal and terrible mistakes as the one that was committed on February 25, 1956, our country should admit the obvious. It is time, finally, to call Khrushchev's false report not "a step towards overcoming totalitarianism", not "the beginning of the thaw," but a grave crime committed against the state with the aim of destroying the Soviet Union, of which Russia is the rightful successor.
Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 27 February 2021 11: 37
    +7
    What is the goal pursued by Khrushchev in the report "On the cult of Stalin's personality"

    Only one - power, which could only be retained by discrediting Stalin, without exaggeration who enjoyed popular support, as people who have survived to this day say, documentary footage when they went into battle for the Motherland - for Stalin, documentary footage of the funeral, not to mention archival documents that everyone is trying to interpret in their own interests, pulling out this or that fact from the general corps in isolation from the time and setting.
    The interest is not why N.S. Khrushchev defamed J.V. Stalin, but why all subsequent leaders of the USSR did not rehabilitate J.V. Stalin despite the understanding of his merits, the development of the theory of Marxism, and his role in world history.
    How many years have already been trying to return Volgograd to its former name - Stalingrad, but things are still there.
    1. nikolai.shupenin 27 February 2021 16: 32
      +2
      former name of Stalingrad-Tsaritsin
    2. silver169 Offline silver169
      silver169 (Aristarkh Feliksovich) 27 February 2021 16: 51
      -2
      I hope and believe that there will never be such a city "Stalingrad" in Russia .. But it is imperative to return the city to its former historical name - Tsaritsyn.
  2. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 27 February 2021 12: 42
    +5
    There were two goals. Cover up your illegal coming to power in the USSR, with the help of a military coup and your vicious ties with the Bandera, whom this corn collective farmer openly protected, being married to a Ukrainian
  3. amateur Offline amateur
    amateur (Victor) 27 February 2021 12: 58
    +2
    After retirement, he began to read all the memoirs that he could find on the Internet. Plus my own memory of events and life in the USSR. So here is my subjective opinion - more deceitful memoirs than that of N. Khrushchev, and then did not read his son Sergei. Daddy's events are turned upside down and distorted. Well, my son has a "red line" - to whitewash all that stupidity and irresponsibility that Nikita Sergeich did when he was 1 secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU.
  4. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 27 February 2021 12: 59
    -2
    In the 1989 film Stalingrad, there is one moment when Stalin asks Khrushchev about the situation in the Stalingrad direction. And Khrushchev is lying. And I still cannot understand why Stalin, for this lie, did not punish him? Khrushchev was a mediocrity! And around him he gathered too many mediocrities who love power and privileges.

    It's time to finally call Khrushchev's false report a grave crime against the state,

    And who will name? If the country is still ruled by mediocrity!
    1. Fourth Horseman Offline Fourth Horseman
      Fourth Horseman (Fourth Horseman) 28 February 2021 06: 54
      0
      So the "gifted" - always a bottle under the table (s). They have no time, sir. Thump, sir!
      Such a gift.
      1. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
        steelmaker 28 February 2021 09: 17
        0
        What about what, and lousy about the bath.

        So early and remember about booze?
        1. Fourth Horseman Offline Fourth Horseman
          Fourth Horseman (Fourth Horseman) 28 February 2021 09: 20
          0
          And nothing that - "there is always a bottle under the table", are these your words?))
          No, you are not a steelmaker, you are a switchman.)
  5. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
    Just a cat (Bayun) 27 February 2021 13: 35
    0
    It is known that a number of intelligence services of the countries of the world tried to get hold of the text of the report, but Israel was the first. So, in Poland, an employee of the PUWP Central Committee Lucia Baranowska, secretary of Edward Ochab (first secretary of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party), made a copy of one of the copies of the text and handed the report to the journalist of the Polish Press Agency Viktor Grajewski, who photographed the report and returned the folder to its place. He handed the folder to the Israeli embassy, ​​which fell into the hands of the head of the Israeli counterintelligence Shin Bet Amos Manor, and from there it went to the West. In fact, the Mossad, using the services of Graevsky, managed to get hold of Khrushchev's speech. The text of the report was received by David Ben-Gurion, who said after reading something like the following, not guessing only the timing, but accurately predicting the event he sounded:

    If this is not a fake, not deliberately fraudulent misinformation, believe my word - in twenty years there will be no Soviet Union.

    now everything is clear with the goal.
    Ukrainians have ruined the USSR, are destroying their Hohland and rushing to Russia in order to destroy it.
  6. nikolai.shupenin 27 February 2021 16: 28
    +2
    For everyone to forget Stalin and remember him
  7. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 27 February 2021 17: 17
    -4
    A sad anniversary of the heinous event, one of the most tragic in the history of the USSR, which also had catastrophic consequences in terms of their depth and scale, which, alas, turned out to be irreparable.

    What is tragic about this report?
    1. The comment was deleted.
  8. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 27 February 2021 17: 29
    -4
    At the time of his death, Iosif Vissarionovich was the chairman of the Council of Ministers - and considered this post the main, most important one both in the country and in his own activities. Yes, he was also listed as secretary of the CPSU Central Committee - but not general, not the first, but simply a secretary ...

    I do not know what he considered the main thing there, but from 22 to 34 he was the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), and only 34 was the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. And he took the state position (chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR) only in May 41, for the first time since 22. Before that, he was just a party leader without any government positions.
    1. Miffer Offline Miffer
      Miffer (Sam Miffers) 28 February 2021 17: 21
      0
      with only 34 secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

      Sorry, but "KPSS" appeared only in October 1952, at the 19th Congress.

      Before that, he was just a party leader without any government positions.

      *** Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR
      March 15, 1946 - March 5, 1953
      The predecessor post has been renamed;
      he himself as chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR
      Successor Georgy Maksimilianovich Malenkov;
      Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR
      May 6, 1941 - March 15, 1946
      Preceded by Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov
      Successor post renamed;
      he himself as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR;
      Chairman of the State Defense Committee
      June 30, 1941 - September 4, 1945
      Predecessor position established
      Successor position abolished;
      Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR
      March 15, 1946 - March 3, 1947
      The predecessor post has been renamed;
      he himself as People's Commissar of the Armed Forces of the USSR
      Successor Nikolai Alexandrovich Bulganin;
      People's Commissar of the Armed Forces of the USSR
      February 25 - March 15, 1946
      The predecessor post has been renamed;
      he himself as People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR
      Successor post renamed;
      he himself as the Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR;
      People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR
      July 19, 1941 - February 25, 1946
      Predecessor Semyon Konstantinovich Timoshenko
      Successor post renamed;
      he himself as People's Commissar of the Armed Forces of the USSR; ***
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 28 February 2021 23: 48
        -1
        Quote: Miffer
        Sorry, but "KPSS" appeared only in October 1952, at the 19th Congress.

        Yes, before that there was the CPSU (b) and Stalin was first the general secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), then just the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) and at 52 became the secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, thanks for the clarification.

        Quote: Miffer
        Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR
        March 15, 1946 - March 5, 1953 ...

        And how does your quote from Wiki contradict my words?
        1. Miffer Offline Miffer
          Miffer (Sam Miffers) 1 March 2021 08: 50
          0
          but from 22 to 34 he was the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b),

          Excuse me again, but the CPSU (b) appeared only in 1925, and before that there was the RCP (b).

          And how does your quote from Wiki contradict my words?

          There is no contradiction, because there are no such words of yours. The small print, which I almost can't see, is caught in the selection, and nothing more.
  9. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 27 February 2021 17: 38
    -4
    It all began with talks about Lenin's "letter to the congress", in which he allegedly warned about the "terrible consequences" of the coming to power of "rude and authoritarian" Stalin. It has long been proven that this "letter" is a pure fake, concocted by Trotsky's comrades.

    Proved by whom? At least this question is debatable.
  10. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 27 February 2021 17: 41
    -5
    In principle, for this alone, he should have been immediately pulled from the podium, tapped on his bald head with something and immediately sent to the nearest psychiatric hospital.

    Alas, there was no one in the hall who would dare to do such a thing ...

    For what was not found, we can only thank Stalin.
  11. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 27 February 2021 18: 00
    -4
    At the same time, again, no one recalled to Lysy the personal resolution of the Leader on one of the huge execution lists he signed, sent from Kiev: "Calm down!"

    The entire leadership of the party was smeared, no one argues, only a couple of points.
    Firstly, it is not clear how this whitewashes Stalin,
    Secondly, at that moment Khrushchev was the first secretary of the Moscow City Committee
    Thirdly, about "Calm down!" most likely a fake, there is no such document available.
    There is such a

  12. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 27 February 2021 18: 07
    -1
    This infamy was described quite exhaustively by the historian from the United States, professor at Montclair State University, Grover Ferr, who issued the conclusion

    Why lie? The esteemed Grover Ferr is not a historian, but a philosopher, a specialist in medieval English literature.
    From his sayings

    Stalin shared Lenin's views on representative democracy and sought to root its principles in the state structure of the USSR.
    Stalin was at the head of the struggle for the democratization of Soviet society, a struggle that found itself at the very core of the political processes taking place in the USSR in the 1930s-1950s. Their essence boiled down to the fact that the role of the Communist Party in governing the state would be narrowed down to "normal" (as in other countries) limits, and the nomination of government officials would take place not according to party lists, but on the basis of democratic procedures.
  13. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 27 February 2021 18: 11
    -3
    And if it’s not a matter of discernment, but the fact that the whole orgy of the XNUMXth Congress was originally agreed with Washington and Khrushchev’s nonsense got there not through Israeli intelligence, but, as they say, “through a direct wire”?

    This is some kind of paranoia. Where did Beria and Stalin look?
    1. Miffer Offline Miffer
      Miffer (Sam Miffers) 28 February 2021 17: 28
      -1
      By February 1956, Beria and Stalin had already left this world.
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 28 February 2021 23: 39
        -2
        Do you think as soon as they were chained Khrushchev immediately rushed to the American embassy? Stalin brought Khrushchev closer, introduced him to the Central Committee. It looks like Stalin was not good at understanding people.
  14. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 27 February 2021 18: 20
    -4
    The defeat and destruction of the Soviet army (the first general reduction of which by more than 2 million people, that is, by almost 30%, began in 1955),

    The army is expensive, 6 million is an unaffordable expense.

    the "development of the virgin lands", which started in 1954, drove the USSR into colossal losses and crippled its agriculture,

    This is not an unambiguous decision, at least the citizens of the USSR did not go hungry anymore.

    curtailment of the Stalinist plan to transform the climate in the USSR, which led to even more serious consequences

    What kind of plans are these?
  15. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 27 February 2021 18: 21
    -4
    However, after the shameful show with the "debunking of the personality cult," they shut their mouths to all those who disagreed, accusing them of "Stalinism" with a choh, and things "went downhill."

    Progress however, those who disagreed were not shot.
  16. Robot Bobot Offline Robot Bobot
    Robot Bobot (Robot Bobot Free Thinking Machine) 27 February 2021 19: 52
    0
    Gentlemen! No need to argue - Nikita just wanted to lie down in Stalin's place in the Mausoleum! That's all!
  17. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 27 February 2021 20: 06
    -5
    The number of "rehabilitated" and fleeing to freedom from the camps of the most real, not invented enemies of the people, instantly jumped at times.

    Again, not true. The bulk was liberated in the summer of 53 by order of Beria.

    Khrushchev planned to do what Gorbachev had done, but 20-30 years earlier!

    What nonsense!

    At the same time, he generally intended to transfer the army to the militia principle of formation, which Stalin abandoned back in 1935.

    Can be more?

    Abolished the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs and was going to do the same with the all-Union KGB!

    I would like to know more about the KGB. You have to understand that the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs is a bunch of bureaucrats, ordinary employees were in the republican Ministry of Internal Affairs. And actually I must admit, under Khrushchev, the thieves were pinned down.

    The world socialist camp was also split - it was necessary to restore order there with tanks in the same year, when the congress was held: both in Poland and in Hungary.

    The author does not understand that he contradicts himself. If Khrushchev wanted to destroy the USSR, why did he return Poland and Hungary to the fold of the socialist camp.

    The Soviet Union has forever lost its most important and promising geopolitical ally - China, and this is exactly what happened after the XX Congress. Yes, for this alone, the Americans would have done anything! Apparently they went ...

    Mao dreamed of starting a third world war, dreamed of defeating the states. It is difficult to call such plans adequate.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. Gennady1959 Offline Gennady1959
    Gennady1959 (Gennady) 27 February 2021 20: 15
    +2
    I wonder when Mr. Comrade Zyuganov will dare to hold a congress of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and refute all this Khrushchev's lie, clear the name of Stalin? He does not have permission from the Washington regional committee to hold such a congress. Probably Khrushchev and Zyuganov are from the same family of traitors to Vlasov. Under Stalin, Comrade Ziu would not have been entrusted with the rural district committee either.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 28 February 2021 16: 40
    0
    - How these poor fellows yearn for the Stalinist regime! Penetrates to the point of tears!
    1. isofat Offline isofat
      isofat (isofat) 28 February 2021 16: 48
      -3
      Michael1950... Poor fellows in Israel vegetate and yearn for their former greatness.
  23. Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 28 February 2021 17: 28
    -2
    Quote: isofat
    Michael1950... Poor fellows in Israel vegetate and yearn for their former greatness.

    - What century, what era? wink lol
    1. isofat Offline isofat
      isofat (isofat) 1 March 2021 09: 18
      -2
      Quote: Michael1950
      - What century, what era?

      Michael1950... What do you care, poor fellow? love
      1. Natan bruk Offline Natan bruk
        Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 2 March 2021 09: 03
        -4
        Yes, poor fellows are more likely you, because you are always crying that the bourgeois rule you, and your idol is not rehabilitated in any way. And you also suffer from phantom pains due to empire.
        1. isofat Offline isofat
          isofat (isofat) 2 March 2021 15: 33
          -1
          Natan bruk, yes, I see, I see ... you don't want to be poor fellows. Therefore, I will not remind you of this annoying fact for you anymore. laughing
  24. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 28 February 2021 21: 23
    +2
    Oh, Necropny, he has Washington everywhere ...
    And the essence is simple.
    Lenin died due to illness, Stalin threw off Trotsky and Co., and accused all the former of bad things, Khrushchev threw off Beria and - // -, Brezhnev and K threw off Khrushchev and - // -, the following did not have time because of their old age, but brought Gorby to power ...
    Gorby threw off all the old ones and - // -, Yeltsin - // - and - // - and corrected them to old age. Therefore, Putin accused only the abstract 90s of being bad, he rules until old age.

    Only 2 options for the development of events, drag Washington or don’t drag in.
  25. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 3 March 2021 08: 38
    -1
    Much has been said and written about the treacherous and deceitful essence of the colossal slander against the greatest ruler of our country.

    Is the author really so ... gifted to consider Stalin the greatest ruler of Russia? Mdeeee ... the thinking of the Stalinists is a mysterious and insoluble thing.
  26. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 3 March 2021 11: 31
    -2
    Yes, he was also listed as the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU - but not the general, not the first, but simply the secretary ...

    Modest fellow! Just like Hitler, he, too, over time, out of modesty, became the Fuehrer, just the Fuehrer.
  27. Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 8 March 2021 10: 08
    -1
    Quote: Oleg Rambover
    This infamy was described quite exhaustively by the historian from the United States, professor at Montclair State University, Grover Ferr, who issued the conclusion

    Why lie? The esteemed Grover Ferr is not a historian, but a philosopher, a specialist in medieval English literature.
    From his sayings

    Stalin shared Lenin's views on representative democracy and sought to root its principles in the state structure of the USSR.
    Stalin was at the head of the struggle for the democratization of Soviet society, a struggle that found itself at the very core of the political processes taking place in the USSR in the 1930s-1950s. Their essence boiled down to the fact that the role of the Communist Party in governing the state would be narrowed down to "normal" (as in other countries) limits, and the nomination of government officials would take place not according to party lists, but on the basis of democratic procedures.

    - Bullshit! Stalin is the main democrat of the Soviet Union! laughing lol
  28. The comment was deleted.