Stalin was a tyrant or not. So who is Stalin anyway? Hero or tyrant? Stalin-Commander-in-Chief

Enver Hoxha was the first secretary of the Albanian Labor Party and the permanent leader of his country from 1941–1985. He met with Stalin several times, visited all his dachas, attended meetings of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, knew all the top Soviet leaders - Beria, Molotov, Malenkov, Bulganin, Khrushchev, etc. Date of birth of I.V. Stalin was declared a national holiday in Albania, and the date of his death became a day of mourning. After the 20th Congress of the CPSU, where Khrushchev’s report on Stalin’s “cult of personality” was read, E. Hoxha spoke out in defense of Joseph Vissarionovich. This infuriated Khrushchev, and relations between the USSR and Albania were severed. In his book, Enver Hoxha provides unique evidence about the life and politics of J.V. Stalin, as well as the crimes of Khrushchev. E. Hoxha claims that Khrushchev killed Stalin twice: once in the literal sense of the word, and the second time by defaming and slandering him after his death. The materials presented by the author are so sharp and revealing for Khrushchev and his followers that E. Hodge’s book was banned in the USSR, and in modern Russia has so far been published only in fragments.

A series: Next to Stalin

* * *

The given introductory fragment of the book Khrushchev killed Stalin twice (Enver Hoxha, 1976) provided by our book partner - the company liters.

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

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

Preface. E. Hoxha. Stalin was not a tyrant

Joseph Stalin's entire life was characterized by a continuous and persistent struggle against Russian capitalism, against world capitalism, against imperialism, against anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist currents and tendencies that stood in the service of world capital and world reaction. Under the leadership of Lenin and together with him, he was one of the inspirers and leaders of the Great October Socialist Revolution, an unyielding leader of the Bolshevik Party.

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

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

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

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

Joseph Stalin understood that victories could be won and defended through effort, hardship, sweat, and struggle. He never showed groundless optimism when achieving victories and never fell into pessimism in the face of difficulties that arose. On the contrary, Stalin showed himself to be an exceptionally mature figure, moderate in his thoughts, decisions, and actions. Being a great man, he managed to capture the hearts of the party and the people, mobilize their energy, temper the fighters in battles and battles and raise them politically and ideologically, making them capable of accomplishing a great, unprecedented task.

Stalin's five-year plans for the development of the national economy and culture turned the world's first socialist country into a powerful socialist power. Guided by Lenin's provisions on the priority development of heavy industry in the cause of socialist industrialization, the Bolshevik Party led by Stalin gave the country a powerful industry for the production of means of production, a gigantic machine-building industry capable of ensuring the rapid development of the entire national economy as a whole, and all the necessary means to ensure indestructible defense. Heavy socialist industry was created, as Stalin said, “with internal forces, without enslaving credits and loans from outside.” Stalin explained to everyone that when creating heavy industry, the Soviet state could not follow the path that capitalist countries take - receiving loans from outside or robbing other countries.

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

World capitalism saw the Soviet Union as its dangerous enemy, so it tried to isolate it on the international stage, while within it it began to encourage and organize conspiracies of renegades, spies, traitors and right-wing deviationists. The dictatorship of the proletariat mercilessly attacked these dangerous enemies. All traitors were tried publicly. Their guilt at that time was confirmed by indisputable evidence and in the most convincing manner. Regarding the trials that took place in the Soviet Union in accordance with revolutionary legislation in the case of the Trotskyists, Bukharinites, Radeks, Zinovievs, Kamenevs, Pyatakovs and Tukhachevskys, bourgeois propaganda made a big noise, which further strengthened and systemized its slanderous and derogatory noise against the just struggle of the Soviet authorities, the Bolshevik Party and Stalin.

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

All of Stalin’s thoughts and deeds, written and implemented, are permeated with consistently revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist ideas. Not a single fundamental error can be found in the works of this outstanding Marxist-Leninist. His cause corresponded to the interests of the proletariat, the working masses, the interests of the revolution, socialism and communism, the interests of the national liberation and anti-imperialist struggle. He was not an eclectic in his theoretical and political thoughts, and did not allow hesitation in his practical actions. The one who relied on the sincere friendship of Joseph Stalin was confident in his movement forward, towards a happy future for his people. Anyone who was cunning could not escape the vigilance and keen judgment of Joseph Stalin. This judgment had its source in the great ideas of Marxist-Leninist theory, crystallized in his keen mind and in his pure soul. All his life, even among hostile storms and hurricanes, he managed to firmly hold and correctly direct the rudder of socialism.

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

The proletariat, Marxist-Leninist parties, genuine communists and all progressive people in the world found the saving actions of the Bolshevik Party and Stalin in defense of the new, socialist socio-economic system and state correct, reasonable and necessary. Stalin's cause was approved by the world proletariat and the peoples of the world, because they realized that he fought against the oppression and exploitation that they experienced. The people heard slanderous fabrications against Stalin precisely from the lips of those monsters who carried out torture and mass extermination in capitalist society, from the lips of those who were the culprits of hunger, poverty, unemployment and incalculable hardships, so they did not believe the fabrications.

While world capitalism was weakening, in the Soviet Union socialism, as the new system of the future, triumphed. Under these conditions, capitalism had to use absolutely all means to deal a mortal blow to the great socialist state of the proletarians, which was showing the world the path to salvation from exploitation, so the capitalists prepared and unleashed the Second World War. They restored, provided support, armed the Nazis and set them against “Bolshevism”, against the Soviet Union, and raised them to fight for the realization of the dream of “living space” in the East. The Soviet Union understood the danger that threatened it. Stalin was vigilant, he knew perfectly well that the slander that the international capitalist bourgeoisie was fabricating against him, claiming that he did not fight against growing fascism and Nazism, was the ordinary words of this bourgeoisie and Hitler’s “fifth column”, designed to deceive the world community and to carry out their plans - an attack on the Soviet Union.

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

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

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

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

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

But what actually happened is known. The “Blitzkrieg War,” which was successful everywhere in Western Europe, failed in the East. The Red Army, possessing a very strong rear, enjoying the support of all the peoples of the Soviet Union, during its retreat bled the enemy's forces and finally pinned them in place, then launched a counter-offensive and with a series of subsequent blows crushed them, forcing Hitler's Germany to accept unconditional surrender. History will forever record the decisive role of the Soviet Union in the defeat of Nazi Germany and the destruction of fascism in general in the Second World War.

How could Hitler’s plan for a “blitzkrieg” against the Soviet Union fail and how could this latter play such a large role in saving humanity from fascist slavery without comprehensive preliminary preparations for defense, without the iron strength and steel viability of the socialist system, which withstood the harshest and most the great test of World War II? How can these victories be separated from the exceptional role of Stalin both in preparing the country to repel imperialist aggression, and in the defeat of Nazi Germany and in the historical victory over fascism? Any attempts by the Khrushchev revisionists to separate Stalin from the party and from the Soviet people in connection with the decisive role of the socialist state in achieving this victory are smashed to smithereens by historical reality, which no force can not only erase, but even challenge or overshadow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Khrushchevites, these new Trotskyists, Bukharinites, Zinovievists and Tukhachevskys insidiously encouraged a sense of arrogance and superiority of the people who participated in the war. They encouraged privileges for the elite, paved the way for bureaucracy and liberalism in the party and state bodies, trampled on real revolutionary norms, and they managed to gradually instill defeatism among the people. They presented all their atrocities as the consequences of Stalin’s “harsh and sectarian behavior, as well as the method and style of work.” This insidious deed of those who acted on the sly served to deceive the working class, the collective farm peasantry and the intelligentsia, and to set in motion all the dissidents who had been hiding until that time.

They told dissidents, careerists and corrupt elements that “real freedom” had now come for them and that this “freedom” was brought to them by Nikita Khrushchev and his group. This was the preparation of the ground for the defeat of socialism in the Soviet Union.

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

In this regard, the issue of the “white coats” remains an insoluble mystery - the trial of the Kremlin doctors, who during Stalin’s lifetime were accused of trying to kill many leaders of the Soviet Union. After Stalin's death, these doctors were rehabilitated, and this put an end to this matter. Why was this case hushed up?! Was the criminal activity of these doctors proven when they were tried or not? The question about the doctors was hushed up because if the investigation had continued later, if they had dug even deeper, it would have brought a lot to light, it would have revealed many crimes and many conspiracies of disguised revisionists with Khrushchev and Mikoyan at the head. This could explain the unexpected death in a short period of time for curable diseases of Gottwald, Beirut, Foster, Dimitrov and some others. This way the real reason for Stalin’s unexpected death could be proven.

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

Nikita Khrushchev and his accomplices, in the “secret” report they delivered at their 20th Congress, threw mud at Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin and tried to humiliate him in the most disgusting way, using the most cynical Trotskyist methods. Having compromised some of the cadres in the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Khrushchevites made good use of them, and then gave them a kick and eliminated them as anti-party elements. The Khrushchevites, with Khrushchev at their head, who condemned the “cult of Stalin” in order to conceal their subsequent crimes against the Soviet Union and socialism, extolled the cult of Khrushchev to the skies.

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

It was the Khrushchevites who secretly and mysteriously “tried” and condemned not only Soviet revolutionaries, but also many people from other countries. In my notes, I wrote about one meeting with Soviet leaders, where Khrushchev, Mikoyan, Molotov and some others were present. Since Mikoyan was about to go to Austria, Molotov, as if jokingly, said to him: “Be careful, don’t make a mess in Austria like you made it in Hungary.” I immediately asked Molotov: “What, did Mikoyan make a mess in Hungary?” He answered me: “yes” and further said that “if Mikoyan goes there again, he will be hanged.” Mikoyan, that hidden anti-Marxist cosmopolitan, answered him: “If they hang me, then they will hang Kadar.” But even if they were both hanged, intrigue and meanness would still remain immoral phenomena.

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

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

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

Brezhnev and his accomplices removed Khrushchev in order to save revisionist politics and ideology from discredit and exposure, which were the consequence of his extravagant actions, his utter stupidities. He did not at all reject Khrushchevism, the reports and decisions of the 20th and 22nd Congresses, where Khrushchevism was embodied. But Brezhnev showed himself so ungrateful towards Khrushchev, whom he had previously extolled so much, that he did not even find a hole in the Kremlin walls where his ashes could be placed when he died! By the way, the Soviet people and the world community were never informed about the real reasons for the deposition of Khrushchev. In official revisionist documents, the “main reason” was always given as “advanced age and deteriorating health”!!

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

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

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

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

The peoples of the world, the world proletariat, sober people with a pure heart, given the current situations, can themselves judge the correctness of Stalin’s positions. Only on a broad political, ideological, economic and military platform can people judge the correctness of his Marxist-Leninist line.

Assessing Stalin's work as a whole, everyone can understand the genius and communist spirit of this outstanding figure and be convinced that the modern world knows few people like him.

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

Kirill Alexandrov

The Bolshevik experiment to build another Tower of Babel, of course, failed. Such a fight against God could not end in anything else. Only the builders and foremen have not gone away.

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

"I guess, - writes Viktor Vladimirovich, - that the Bolshevik “grand experiment to create a new man” as a whole failed. Most of the Soviet people were not suitable for the format of the Soviet utopia.”.

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

The Bolshevik experiment to build another Tower of Babel, of course, failed. Such a fight against God could not end in anything else. Only the builders and foremen have not gone away. Alas, the Bolsheviks nevertheless created the Soviet man and by 1985 they had succeeded in their own genetic engineering. Some of the Soviet people made fun of Brezhnev, telling jokes about him (however, quite good ones). But the vast majority with power agreed, took how is she native and expressed dissatisfaction only about the poor store assortment (“He would like meat, and other goods, and more order!”, entry from the diary of a nomenclature worker of the CPSU Central Committee, December 30, 1979). TV vulgarity united the country just as, alas, it largely unites it now.

Probably, the Bolsheviks achieved the greatest successes in developing the human capacity for everyday lies and fantastic hypocrisy - as long as they were allowed to exist and take the desired form. The Bolsheviks raised power-worshippers and achieved their goal. These were by no means the Sharikovs - Klim Chugunkin, as I remember, was born and formed in pre-revolutionary Russia - but rather the characters of “Flights in a Dream and in Reality” and “Autumn Marathon”, then “Little Vera” and “Cargo 200”. True, they are connected with the Sharikovs. In the nomenclature of the CPSU Central Committee in 1966, the share of people from unskilled workers and poor peasants was 70%, in 1981 - 80%.

“Privatization” and banditry of the 1990s, corruption, bribery, theft of subsequent years, everyday deception in small and large things, degradation of culture and private taste - these are all products of the life of Soviet people, brought up by the Brezhnev Komsomol, the result of the transformation of the Soviet community, the existence of which Viktor Granovsky stubbornly denies. And here there is a direct connection between the current generations and the previous ones, who lived under the secret slogan “Everything around is collective farm - everything around is mine.” There is no better evidence to provide than the entry for January 28, 1980 from the diary of a responsible employee of the CPSU Central Committee:

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

40% of thieves are railway workers themselves;

60% of thieves are water transport workers themselves.

9–11,000 cars accumulate in Brest because they cannot be transferred in such a “disassembled” form to foreigners;

25% of tractors and agricultural machines arrive disassembled;

30% of Zhiguli cars were returned to VAZ, since they arrived at the consumer half disassembled;

14 billion rubles worth of cargo is unguarded every day;

they steal many billions of rubles a year;

They steal seven times more meat than two years ago, and five times more fish.

The Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs reported that in 1970, 4,000 railroad thieves were caught, in 1979 - 11,000. These are only those who were caught. And who wasn’t caught? How many are there?”

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

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

The Soviet Union collapsed three reasons.

Firstly, the citizens of the USSR lied.

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

The Russian people created a volunteer army to save their homeland. Soviet people create such an army could not- And didn't try(drunk State Emergency Committee does not count). The inglorious end of the USSR once again proves the obvious reality and lack of salt Soviet community on the eve of "perestroika". Cynics and hypocrites are incapable of “ice marches.”

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

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

The patriotic reluctance of Viktor Granovsky to admit the bitter truth is understandable: “I completely disagree that the heroes of Rasputin and Astafiev… “They were quietly drinking themselves to death” and that was their best lot.”. Alas, this is true, as Nikolai Nikulin, for example, sincerely admitted. Therefore, political workers and other faithful Stalinists told us the truth about the war. Viktor Astafiev wrote that Stalin and Zhukov burned the Russian people in the fire of war. What kind of future awaited those who were burned?..

“The evidence of village prose is precisely that human dignity was not lost by the Russian people even under the Soviet yoke.”.

“Village, military, camp prose of the past century is the main proof that not everyone, not everyone in Rus', was able to be “crossed” with the ballers and conquered by the authorities of the Shvonders.”.

Pure truth.

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

And here we come to the main polemical thesis.

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

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

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

Unlike the Nazis, who were mediocre, inconsistent and uncreative students, the Stalinists succeeded in something almost incredible, unthinkable under classical tyrannies - they devalued the Word, giving it a double and even triple meaning. They created a completely special, new language in which peace meant war, prosperity meant poverty, satiety meant hunger, care meant torture, etc. “Everything that is written in Soviet newspapers must be understood the other way around,” one of the Red Army soldiers said in 1937 , whose statements were recorded by a seksot of the Special Department of the NKVD.

Lenin invented the organs of the Cheka-OGPU.

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

Each tyrant had his own social support in the conquered society. Comrade Stalin relied on assets- a specific social group created by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet state and until then unknown. The Octoberists, pioneers, Komsomol members, security officers, workers and collective farmers, intelligentsia and even prisoners had their own assets, which made it easier for the nomenklatura to manage and politically control. The uniqueness of the asset was that the higher the position the activist-promoter occupied, the more his personal security decreased. Life risks were compensated by status, power functions and material privileges.

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

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

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

Stalin cunningly replaced the tragedy of a war monstrous in terms of losses and national disasters, in which his regime was preserved and acquired additional stability, with the image of a great state victory. And Stalin’s heirs greedily grabbed at this image, because they could offer nothing else to the people whose lives were spent in queues.

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

And again, alas.

For modern young people, “memories of the war” do not evoke any enthusiasm, unless it is created artificially, in the forced school and student order - and this causes even greater indifference and alienation, like everything false. Moreover, smart young people know very well that the subsequent life of the victors turned out to be miserable and poor compared to the life of the vanquished. The contradiction is insurmountable. And there is practically no one to “remember” anymore. Unfortunately, family memories and private stories about the war do not, and cannot, unite the younger generation of modern Russian citizens.

There is no reflection. Visual illustration.

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

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

Of course, not cannibalism.

But this is its natural result.

Wine turns into vinegar, and Stalin turns into Brezhnev. Much blood and great violence against the soul were replaced by spiritual emptiness. The testimony of a White Cossack who confessed to his grandson that Russia lived best under Brezhnev is the testimony of a man reduced by the Stalinists to the simple state of a camp goon: “It hurts - bad, doesn’t hurt - good.”

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

Stalin, the intellectual revolution is clearly returning to Russia, and in the more than positive sense of a national hero.

You can mutter incantations as much as you like that Stalin is so and so and so, but invariably all these mutterings are drowned out by an obvious indisputable fact, especially important today: Stalin accepted Russia with a plow, and left with a nuclear weapon - thanks to which Russia exists, even though it has been cut off to the point of complete disgrace form, despite all the attempts of liberals, nationalists and foreign, as Putin puts it, “partners”.

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

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

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

It is also a fact that a huge proportion of the Russian rural population in 1928 was still plowing plows.

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

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

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

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

No, there are, of course, idiots who believe that the USSR made the atomic bomb thanks to two dirty pieces of paper delivered by intelligence... But that’s why they are idiots not to understand that because today much more detailed descriptions of nuclear weapons are available in any encyclopedia, even for children, things are not going well even in such powerful countries as Iran or Brazil. And not so much because of political pressure, but because creating a bomb involves the creation of thousands of truly super-high-tech industries - and not the crap that Chubais is selling to Putin. And all this cannot fit on two pieces of paper: the instructions for installing a ready-made toilet take up more space and contain more information.

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

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

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

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

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

The liberals then shouted purely like bandar-logs: “Shame! A shame! - Aaah! “Here is proof of ineffectiveness!”...

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

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

As for the efficiency of the Stalinist economy, liberals can only respond with a wry smile: like ah, “an effective manager, yeah, yeah”... And they quickly switch to their strong point - “Stalinist repressions.”

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

Why did Stalin need such massive repressions of supposedly innocent people?

- Well, they should have offered at least one sane option!

They are broadcasting a “attack on the fan” from, allegedly, Bekhterev... “Stalin is paranoid.” Well, yes, well, yes... Stalin is paranoid. And Molotov? And Shaposhnikov? What about the magnificent Soviet diplomats? The same people's commissars and ministers who ensured a tenfold increase in the production of tractors in 3 years? – Are they too paranoid to tolerate a paranoid boss? - Aren’t you funny? - Stalin, what? - Harry Potter, perhaps, or Merlin?

"Power struggle?" - Amazing.

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

But the liquidation of Tukhachevsky is more difficult to explain.

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

Exactly. About the crazy and ignorant, there is nothing to expect except nonsense. And how can one explain Vavilov’s imprisonment, from the point of view of the struggle for power? - What, Vavilov threatened Stalin’s power? - “Crazy Stalin” again?

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

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

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

And this is where a qualitative divergence between normal, unbiased people and anti-Stalinists arises.

Because as soon as more or less rational considerations appear, from the analysis of specific historical facts and a specific historical situation, one involuntarily recalls the barely changed text of the note that d’Artagnan handed to Cardinal Richelieu: “What the bearer of this did was done in accordance with with historical necessity and for the good of the state.”

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

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

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

Stalin was a statesman of a totalitarian state. All executive power was concentrated in his hands and he used it to suppress any dissent. He was a man of his time who comes when needed. If Stalin-Dzhugashvili had not come, then Stalin-Ivanov or Stalin-Petrov would have come. There would have been another person who pursued the same domestic policy. And Stalin understood this perfectly, he knew that only he himself could retain power, without relying on anyone. But are millions of Gulag victims justified for one person to retain power? Of course not. The vast majority of them were innocent of the charges brought against them. These were people from various fields of activity: military men, scientists, writers, church ministers, teachers, descendants of nobles, Trotskyists, etc.
During Stalin's reign, collectivization and industrialization were carried out, the results of which were mass famine and at the same time an industrial breakthrough. Stalin was a pragmatist who directly and persistently pursued his main political goal: to make the first socialist state capable of repelling the blow of foreign intervention.

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

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

Most likely, Stalin was both a tyrant and a savior, who was supposed to appear on the forefront of the young socialist state, and who solved different problems in different ways.

Stalin through the prism of decades - his youth, what marked the period of growing up, what factors made him a revolutionary and a famous communist figure. How did the great dictator come to power? The trials that he and the country faced, the pros and cons of Stalin’s methods of government.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin and his era

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

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

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

Biography of Stalin. Start

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

The only thing that is not disputed is the years of life and the period of reign of the great dictator.

Childhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

Youth

Stalin continued his further studies at the Orthodox seminary in Tiflis. He successfully compensated for his physical deficiencies with an inquisitive mind and thirst for knowledge. This same craving brought him into the ranks of revolutionaries a year before graduating from the seminary. The teenager was keenly interested in the works of Marx and the political views of the Social Democratic Party, led by Lenin. He ardently supported the revolutionary movement and Leninist ideas, so without hesitation he joined the Georgian social democratic organization “Mesami-Dasi”, from where his political journey began.

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

For the sake of revolutionary ideas, they had to sacrifice education - the seminary did not tolerate a newly minted revolutionary, and Stalin was expelled shortly before the final exams with the wording “failure to appear for an exam for an unknown reason.” His education was not completed. All he had after several years of training was a certificate that he could teach in primary schools.

Path to power

Stalin has been considered a professional revolutionary since 1901. It was then that he decided to devote himself entirely to this activity and began to engage in illegal party activities. Soon he already heads the Tiflis committee of the RSDLP.

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

Focusing on the “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class,” headed by Lenin, Stalin promoted radical methods of inter-class confrontation. By this, he draws harsh criticism from the majority of Mesame Dasi members, who continue to cling to pure verbiage within the framework of disagreement with the tsarist regime. They were not ready to take to the streets and start real resistance.

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

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

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

After this, he was entrusted with the leadership of Bolshevik organizations in Transcaucasia. This is the first appointment of this level. Stalin moved to Baku, where for several years he was actively involved in party affairs and organizing large strikes.

Thus began the path to power of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

Vladimir Lenin - pre-revolutionary photo

Stalin's career after the October Revolution

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

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

The establishment of the Bolshevik dictatorship in a state torn apart from inside and outside by military actions inspired new thoughts for the future sole ruler of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He was convinced that this, firstly, was effective and, secondly, was a wonderful justification for autocracy. Since then, this thought has not left his head.

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

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

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

The only “cat” that ran between him and Lenin were the events in Tsaritsyn in 1919, when, according to Stalin’s instructions, after the betrayal of one former white officer, a whole galaxy of military specialists were shot without trial. After this incident, Stalin developed a hostility towards military experts.

Lenin criticized the action of his protégé, unable to resist making harsh statements against him, but it is unlikely that he changed his mind. Nevertheless, he certainly drew conclusions about irresolvable disagreements with the leader of the Bolshevik Party.

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

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

The Rise of Stalinism

After Lenin’s death, Stalin arranged it in such a way that, as if it were a matter of course, Vladimir Ilyich left him as his successor and continuer of the cause of the party of workers and peasants. Unnoticed by others, the prudent general secretary concentrated all power in his hands, while not forgetting to hide behind the implementation of the tasks outlined by “Comrade Lenin” and strict adherence to the party line.

His flexible mind and keen sense of people allowed him to surround himself with supporters who were ready to support the ambitious General Secretary in all his endeavors.

Period of repression

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

The thirties of the twentieth century were marked by the beginning of the heyday of the Stalin era. Now he made decisions alone and did as he saw fit. This was facilitated by massive repressions that swept across all corners of the vast country. The punitive body represented by the NKVD put this process on a broad track. Any person could be convicted, exiled to a camp or shot with virtually no trial or investigation.

Stalin did not spare military specialists, whose hostility remained with him from the time of the defense of Tsaritsyn (since 1925 Stalingrad). Large-scale purges swept through the ranks of military personnel. Many people of outstanding intelligence and remarkable abilities were crushed by the punitive machine.

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

If you look from the other side, raising the country from ruin and instilling a new ideology in the population is a huge and thankless job. Therefore, tough and even repressive measures are not a whim, but rather a necessity according to the era. There is no proven effective system based on loyalty and liberalism that would work well in such difficult conditions.

Collectivization and industrialization

Years of “dekulakization” and the forced organization of peasants into collective farms are still blamed on Stalin. But this is a double-edged sword. Undoubtedly, the collectivization process took place extremely harshly and at an accelerated pace. This was a consequence of the devastation and food crisis in the country. Whether there was another way in this situation and how it was possible to help the Soviet Union rise from the ruins is not an idle question. It remains open to this day.

When agricultural products began to be produced in abundance, the head of state began to sell them abroad. In exchange, industrial equipment was purchased to develop the country's industrial production, which was limping on both legs. Stalin wanted to transform the young Soviet republic from a backward agrarian appendage into an industrial power.

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

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

He succeeded completely. By the end of the thirties, that is, over two five-year plans, Soviet Russia became a leader in industrial growth and indicators of technical progress. The development of all sectors of the national economy proceeded at a tremendous pace.

Poster “Give industrialization”

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

Stalin did not forget about promoting his policies among the people. Never tired of declaring himself a faithful follower of Lenin's cause, by the end of the 30s he announced that the construction of socialism in one particular country was completed. And all the hindrances and obstacles at that moment are organized by malicious units who want to prevent the Soviet government from fulfilling the will of the people.

Under this sauce, a real hunt for “enemies of the people” unfolded. Everyone who in one way or another supported Trotsky’s opinion, or was in the opposition bloc organized by Kamenev and Zinoviev, was subjected to severe repression or destroyed.

Stalin is the commander in chief. The Great Patriotic War

One can argue a lot about Stalin’s qualities as the head of the Supreme High Command (during the war he had the rank of marshal), but the fact remains that he led the country to victory over Nazi Germany. It made a huge difference. Stalin, the commander-in-chief, not only defeated the “brown plague”, he proved to the whole world that there would be no success in the war against the Soviet Union. Despite the obvious hostility and policy of opposing communism, not a single capitalist country dared to attack the USSR anymore.

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

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

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

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

In addition, Stalin rallied the multinational people so that Hitler’s specialists were unable to create the notorious “fifth column” to divide people and destroy the country from within. This, by the way, was a phenomenon of that time. Western historians have never been able to explain it.

They note Stalin's high merits as a negotiator. It was he who managed to organize an alliance with England and the USA against Hitler and convinced them to open a second front. In all conferences during the war, he played a leading role, while seeking agreements from his opponents on the necessary terms. It was Stalin who insisted on convening the Nuremberg Trials so that the world would learn about all the crimes of the Nazis and, in addition, innocent people would not suffer.

Surprisingly, the leader of the victorious country used the spoils of war and glory more than modestly. Surely there is a rational explanation for this.

One of Stalin's major contributions to peace policy was the creation of the United Nations, which exists virtually unchanged to this day.

The low supply of mechanized military equipment played an important role in the defeats of our troops in 1941-1942. Germany was head and shoulders ahead of us in this sense, if not more. This is understandable - industrialization has just begun in our country, while the Germans have been successfully promoting technological progress for a long time.

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

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

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

Post-war Stalinism

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

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

The head of state had to mobilize all his strength and skills, as well as available resources, in order to once again bring the country to the forefront in the shortest possible time. And he succeeded, despite everything. The USSR, under the leadership of I.V. Stalin, even turned into a powerful nuclear power.

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

During his reign, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin managed to raise our country to such a height that it not only stood on a par with developed capitalist countries, but even ahead of them in many respects. The great dictator and tyrant did so much for the USSR that not a single general secretary could surpass him.

It was not for nothing that cities, streets, districts, millionaire collective farms, automobile factories (the famous ZIS, later the Likhachev plant) were named after Stalin; even a turbo-electric ship was named “Joseph Stalin”. Revolutionary at that time, tanks of the IS family (Joseph Stalin) are the pride of tankers. They were so ahead of their era that their prototypes are still in service with the Russian army.

Personal life of the leader

Until some time this topic was taboo. They only knew about her what was allowed to be covered. His family and children were carefully protected from prying eyes. All photographs and other evidence of this aspect of Stalin's life were destroyed.

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

Family

It is known that Stalin’s first wife was the sister of his classmate Ekaterina Svanidze. She lived only three years after the wedding, managing to give birth to her husband’s son, Yakov. After the death of his mother, the boy was raised by her parents throughout his childhood, since the father, due to his extreme workload with revolutionary affairs, could not independently take care of his son.

Ekaterina Svanidze - Stalin's first wife

Stalin married for the second time fourteen years later. His wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, was a good two decades younger than her husband. But this did not interfere with their marriage and the birth of children. They say that the leader loved his wife very much, who bore him a son and daughter - Vasily and Svetlana.

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

Little is known about his marriage life with Nadezhda Alliluyeva. This is not surprising - given the leader’s extreme suspicion, his wife’s social circle was incredibly narrowed. Some were not allowed to approach her for a cannon shot, others were afraid to approach her themselves - it was an uneven time to give Stalin food for suspicion.

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

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

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

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

Of Stalin's direct descendants, he had a grandson, Joseph Alliluyev. However, he is known very little, especially since Stalin’s descendants were forgotten after the leader’s daughter Svetlana emigrated to the USA.

Stalin in photographs

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

For ceremonial photos, Stalin usually posed with awards. As for the awards, the leader had something to be proud of. Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin had many orders and medals, and was three times a recipient of the Order of the Red Banner. But in general, he didn’t really boast about them and didn’t strive to put on a ceremonial jacket every time. Although he loved the jackets themselves and wore them almost everywhere.

Death of Stalin

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

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

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

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

Be that as it may, the date of Stalin’s death meant the end of an entire era.

Stalin's personality. Debunking the cult of personality

After Stalin passed away, at one of the party congresses, namely at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, General Secretary N.S. Khrushchev read a report in which he debunked the cult of personality of the great dictator. The congress delegates were in great shock; they did not at all expect such a turn of events.

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

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

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

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

Great historical figure - Joseph Stalin