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.