Home Potato How many general secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee were there in the USSR? Years of Stalin's reign

Potato

How many general secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee were there in the USSR? Years of Stalin's reign

Image caption Royal family hid the illness of the heir to the throne

The controversy over the state of health of President Vladimir Putin brings to mind Russian tradition: the first person was considered as an earthly deity, the commemoration of which was disrespectful and not supposed to be in vain.

Possessing virtually unlimited lifelong power, the rulers of Russia fell ill and died like mere mortals. They say that in the 1950s, one of the liberal-minded young “stadium poets” once said: “They only have no control over heart attacks!”

Discussion of the personal lives of leaders, including their physical condition, was prohibited. Russia is not America, where analysis data of presidents and presidential candidates and their blood pressure figures are published.

Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich, as you know, suffered from congenital hemophilia - a hereditary disease in which the blood does not clot normally, and any injury can lead to death from internal hemorrhage.

The only person capable of improving his condition in some way still incomprehensible to science was Grigory Rasputin, who was, in modern terms, a strong psychic.

Nicholas II and his wife categorically did not want to make public the fact that their The only son- actually disabled. Even the ministers only knew in general terms that the Tsarevich had health problems. Ordinary people, seeing the heir during rare public appearances in the arms of a hefty sailor, considered him a victim of an assassination attempt by terrorists.

Whether Alexey Nikolaevich would subsequently be able to lead the country or not is unknown. His life was cut short by a KGB bullet when he was less than 14 years old.

Vladimir Lenin

Image caption Lenin was the only Soviet leader whose health was an open secret

The founder of the Soviet state died unusually early, at 54, from progressive atherosclerosis. An autopsy showed cerebral vascular damage incompatible with life. There were rumors that the development of the disease was provoked by untreated syphilis, but there is no evidence of this.

Lenin suffered his first stroke, which resulted in partial paralysis and loss of speech, on May 26, 1922. After this, he spent more than a year and a half at his dacha in Gorki in a helpless state, interrupted by short remissions.

Lenin is the only Soviet leader whose physical condition was not a secret. Medical bulletins were published regularly. At the same time, his comrades-in-arms assured him until his last days that the leader would recover. Joseph Stalin, who visited Lenin in Gorki more often than other members of the leadership, published optimistic reports in Pravda about how he and Ilyich cheerfully joked about reinsurance doctors.

Joseph Stalin

Image caption Stalin's illness was reported the day before his death

In recent years, the “Leader of Nations” suffered from severe damage to the cardiovascular system, probably aggravated by an unhealthy lifestyle: he worked a lot, turning night into day, ate fatty and spicy foods, smoked and drank, and did not like to be examined and treated.

According to some reports, the “doctors’ affair” began when professor-cardiologist Kogan advised a high-ranking patient to get more rest. The suspicious dictator saw this as someone’s attempt to remove him from business.

Having started the “doctors’ case,” Stalin was left without qualified medical care at all. Even those closest to him could not talk to him about this topic, and he intimidated the staff so much that after a stroke that happened on March 1, 1953 at the Nizhny Dacha, he lay on the floor for several hours, since he had previously forbidden the guards to disturb him without calling him.

Even after Stalin turned 70, public discussion of his health and forecasts of what would happen to the country after his departure were absolutely impossible in the USSR. The idea that we would ever be left “without him” was considered blasphemous.

The people were first informed about Stalin's illness the day before his death, when he had long been unconscious.

Leonid Brezhnev

Image caption Brezhnev "ruled without regaining consciousness"

In recent years, Leonid Brezhnev, as people joked, “ruled without regaining consciousness.” The very possibility of such jokes confirmed that after Stalin the country had changed a lot.

The 75-year-old Secretary General had plenty of aging diseases. Mention was made, in particular, of sluggish leukemia. However, it is difficult to say what exactly he died from.

Doctors spoke of a general weakening of the body caused by the abuse of sedatives and sleeping pills and causing memory loss, loss of coordination and speech disorder.

In 1979, Brezhnev lost consciousness during a Politburo meeting.

“You know, Mikhail,” Yuri Andropov said to Mikhail Gorbachev, who had just been transferred to Moscow and was not accustomed to such scenes, “we must do everything to support Leonid Ilyich in this situation. This is a question of stability.”

Brezhnev was politically killed by television. In earlier times, his condition could have been hidden, but in the 1970s, regular appearances on screen were avoided, including in live, it was impossible.

The obvious inadequacy of the leader, combined with the complete absence official information caused an extremely negative reaction from society. Instead of pitying the sick person, the people responded with jokes and anecdotes.

Yuri Andropov

Image caption Andropov suffered from kidney damage

Yuri Andropov suffered from severe kidney damage for most of his life, from which he eventually died.

The disease caused increased blood pressure. In the mid-1960s, Andropov was intensively treated for hypertension, but this did not produce results, and there was a question about his retirement due to disability.

Kremlin doctor Yevgeny Chazov made a dizzying career thanks to the fact that he gave the head of the KGB the correct diagnosis and gave him about 15 years of active life.

In June 1982, at the plenum of the Central Committee, when the speaker called from the podium to “give a party assessment” to the rumor mongers, Andropov unexpectedly intervened and said in a harsh tone that “ last time warns" those who talk too much in conversations with foreigners. According to researchers, he meant, first of all, leaks of information about their health.

In September, Andropov went on vacation to Crimea, caught a cold there and never got out of bed. In the Kremlin hospital, he regularly underwent hemodialysis - a blood purification procedure using equipment that replaces the normal functioning of the kidneys.

Unlike Brezhnev, who once fell asleep and did not wake up, Andropov died long and painfully.

Konstantin Chernenko

Image caption Chernenko rarely appeared in public and spoke breathlessly

After Andropov's death, the need to give the country a young, dynamic leader was obvious to everyone. But the old members of the Politburo nominated 72-year-old Konstantin Chernenko, who was formally the No. 2 man, as general secretary.

As he later recalled former minister USSR health care Boris Petrovsky, they all thought exclusively about how to die at the posts; they had no time for the country, and even more so, no time for reforms.

Chernenko had been suffering from pulmonary emphysema for a long time, while heading the state, he hardly worked, rarely appeared in public, spoke, choking and swallowing his words.

In August 1983, he suffered severe poisoning after eating fish on vacation in the Crimea that he had personally caught and smoked from his dacha neighbor, USSR Minister of Internal Affairs Vitaly Fedorchuk. Many were treated to the gift, but nothing bad happened to anyone else.

Konstantin Chernenko died on March 10, 1985. Three days earlier, elections to the Supreme Soviet were held in the USSR. The television showed the Secretary General walking up to the ballot box with an unsteady gait, dropping a ballot into it, languidly waving his hand and muttering: “Okay.”

Boris Yeltsin

Image caption Yeltsin, as far as is known, suffered five heart attacks

Boris Yeltsin suffered from severe heart disease and reportedly suffered five heart attacks.

The first president of Russia was always proud of the fact that nothing bothered him, he went in for sports, swam in ice water and largely built his image on this, and was accustomed to endure ailments on his feet.

Yeltsin's health deteriorated sharply in the summer of 1995, but with elections ahead, he refused extensive treatment, although doctors warned of "irreparable harm to his health." According to journalist Alexander Khinshtein, he said: “After the elections, at least cut them, but now leave me alone.”

On June 26, 1996, a week before the second round of elections, Yeltsin suffered a heart attack in Kaliningrad, which was hidden with great difficulty.

On August 15, immediately after taking office, the president went to the clinic where he underwent coronary artery bypass surgery. This time he conscientiously followed all the doctors’ instructions.

In conditions of freedom of speech, it was difficult to hide the truth about the state of health of the head of state, but those around him tried their best. In extreme cases, it was recognized that he had ischemia and temporary colds. Press secretary Sergei Yastrzhembsky said that the president rarely appears in public because he is extremely busy working with documents, but his handshake is ironclad.

Separately, the issue of Boris Yeltsin’s relationship with alcohol should be mentioned. Political opponents constantly discussed this topic. One of the main slogans of the communists during the 1996 campaign was: “Instead of the drunken Elya, we will choose Zyuganov!”

Meanwhile, Yeltsin appeared in public “under the influence” the only time - during the famous conducting of the orchestra in Berlin.

The former head of the presidential security, Alexander Korzhakov, who had no reason to defend his former boss, wrote in his memoirs that in September 1994, in Shannon, Yeltsin did not get off the plane to meet with the Prime Minister of Ireland not because of intoxication, but because of a heart attack. After a quick consultation, the advisers decided that they should let people believe the “alcoholic” version rather than admit that the leader was seriously ill.

Resignation, regime and peace had a beneficial effect on Boris Yeltsin’s health. He lived in retirement for almost eight years, although in 1999, according to doctors, he was in serious condition.

Is it worth hiding the truth?

According to experts, the disease is statesman, of course, is not a plus, but in the era of the Internet there is no point in hiding the truth, and with skillful PR you can even extract political dividends from it.

As an example, analysts point to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who made good publicity out of his fight against cancer. Supporters got a reason to be proud that their idol does not burn in the fire and even in the face of illness thinks about the country, and they rallied around him even more.

Lavrentiy Pylych Beria
Didn't justify the trust.
Remained from Beria
Just fluff and feathers.

(folk ditty 1953)

How the country said goodbye to Stalin.

During his lifetime, Stalin appeared in the Soviet state, where atheism denied any religion - an “earthly god.” Hence his “sudden” death was perceived by millions of people as a tragedy on a universal scale. Or, in any case, the collapse of all life until this Judgment Day - March 5, 1953.

“I wanted to think: what will happen to all of us now?” the front-line writer I. Ehrenburg recalled his feelings that day. “But I couldn’t think. I experienced what many of my compatriots probably experienced then: numbness.” Then there was a nationwide funeral, a nationwide mourning of millions of Soviet citizens, unprecedented in scale in world history. How did the country cope with this death? This was best described in poetry by the poetess O. Berggolts, who lost her husband during the repressions after serving time on false charges:

“My heart bleeds...
Our beloved, our dear!
Grabbing your headboard
The Motherland is crying over You.”

A 4-day mourning period was declared in the country. The coffin with Stalin's body was carried into the Mausoleum, over the entrance to which two names were inscribed: LENIN and STALIN. The end of Stalin's funeral was heralded by lingering beeps at factories across the country, from Brest to Vladivostok and Chukotka. Later, the poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko said about this: “They say that this multi-tube howl, from which the blood ran cold, resembled the hellish cry of a dying mythical monster...”. The atmosphere of general shock, the expectation that life could suddenly change for the worse, hovered in the public atmosphere.

However, there were other moods caused by the death of the seemingly immortal Leader. “Well, this one has died...” Uncle Vanya, a legless disabled medal-bearer, addressed his 13-year-old neighbor, who had brought her felt boots to be repaired and then seriously pondered for two days whether she should go to the police or not” (Quoted from Alekseevich. S. Enchanted by Death .).

Millions of prisoners and exiles, languishing in camps and living in settlements, received this news joyfully. “Oh joy and triumph!” the exiled Oleg Volkov later described his feelings at that time. “The long night will finally dissipate over Russia. Just - God defend! Reveal your feelings: who knows how else it will turn out?... When the exiles meet, they do not dare express their hopes, but they no longer hide their cheerful gaze. Three cheers!"

The palette of public sentiments in the country frozen by the Stalinist dictatorship was varied, but on the whole the atmosphere of general shock dominated, the expectation that life could change for the worse overnight. However, it became clear that with the death of the one who was considered a superman and an “earthly god,” power was now deprived of its divine aura. Since all of Stalin’s successors at the top looked like “mere mortals” (according to E.Yu. Zubkova).

New collective leadership headed by G. Malenkov

Stalin had not yet died, lying in an unconscious position, when his closest associates began an open and behind-the-scenes struggle for power at the very top. To some extent, the situation of the early 20s was repeated among the party leadership, when Lenin was hopelessly ill. But this time the count was in days and hours.

When on the morning of March 4, 1953, a “government message about the illness of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR ... Comrade Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin” was broadcast on Moscow radio, it was reported there, in particular, that “... the serious illness of Comrade Stalin will entail more or less less long-term non-participation in leadership activities...” And as it was further reported that government circles (party and government) “... take seriously all the circumstances associated with Comrade Stalin’s temporary departure from leading state and party activities.” This is how the party and state elite explained to the population the convening of an urgent Plenum of the Central Committee on the distribution of power in the country and the party at the time of the incapacity of the leader who was in a coma.

According to historian Yuri Zhukov, a great expert on this issue, already on the evening of March 3, some kind of agreement was reached among Stalin’s comrades-in-arms regarding the occupation of key posts in the party and government of the country. Moreover, Stalin’s associates began to divide power among themselves, when Stalin himself was still alive, but could not stop them from doing this. Having received news from the doctors about the hopelessness of the sick leader, his comrades-in-arms began to divide their portfolios as if he were no longer alive.

Joint meeting of the plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Presidium Supreme Council began its work on the evening of March 5, again when Stalin was still alive. There, power roles were redistributed as follows: the position of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which had previously been occupied by Stalin, was transferred to G. M. Malenkov, who, in fact, from now on acted as the No. 1 figure in the country and represented it abroad.

Malenkov’s first deputies were L.P. Beria, V.M. Molotov, N.I. Bulganin, L.M. Kaganovich. However, for a number of reasons, Malenkov did not become the new sole leader of the party and state. Politically “clever” and the most educated, Malenkov, due to his personal qualities, was not capable of becoming a new dictator, which cannot be said about his political “ally” - Beria.

But the power pyramid itself, which had developed under Stalin, has now undergone decisive changes by his comrades, who no longer took into account the will of the leader who passed away late in the evening (at 21.50 Moscow time) on March 5. The distribution of key roles in power structures was carried out privately, and main role Beria and Malenkov played a role in this. According to the historian R. Pihoy (who has worked well archival documents), back on March 4, Beria sent Malenkov a note in which the most important government posts were distributed in advance, which were approved at a meeting the next day on March 5.

The Stalinist secretariat, elected at the 19th Congress, was abolished. The Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, consisting of 25 members and 10 candidates, was reduced to 10 members (consisting of Malenkov, Beria, Voroshilov, Khrushchev, Bulganin, Kaganovich, Saburov, Pervukhin, Molotov and Mikoyan) and 4 candidates; most of them entered the government.

Younger Stalinist promoters were immediately relegated to the background. This, like the very fact of the return of Molotov, previously disgraced, to the political Olympus under Stalin (he was returned to the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR) was a kind of sign of the beginning of the rejection of Stalin’s last political reshuffles. According to Yuri Zhukov, the inclusion of Molotov required the expansion of a new narrow leadership to the “five” - Malenkov, Beria, Molotov, Bulganin, Kaganovich. This organization of power was subsequently presented as “collective leadership,” which was largely temporary in nature, formed on the basis of a balance of conflicting views and interests of the then top leadership.

L. Beria gained enormous power and headed the Ministry of Internal Affairs, united after the merger of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of State Security, which became a kind of super-ministry that also carried out a number of national economic tasks. The well-known political figure of the Soviet era, O. Troyanovsky, in his memoirs gives the following description: “Although immediately after Stalin’s death, Malenkov was considered the number one figure as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, in fact, Beria played the leading role. I never encountered him directly, but I knew from eyewitness accounts that he was an immoral man who did not disdain any means to achieve his goals, but had an extraordinary mind and great organizational abilities. Relying on Malenkov, and sometimes on some other members of the Presidium of the Central Committee, he consistently worked to consolidate his leadership.”

N.S. became the third key figure in the collective leadership, after Malenkov and Beria. Khrushchev, who already in the last years of Stalin's rule had great political influence.

In fact, already in March 1953, 3 main centers were formed in the highest echelons of the party, headed by Stalin’s associates - Malenkov, Beria, Khrushchev. In this struggle, everyone relied on and exploited their own nomenklatura capabilities associated with the peculiarities of the situation in the party-state system. Malenkov’s base was the government of the country, Beria’s base was the security agencies, Khrushchev’s was the party apparatus (Pyzhikov A.V.).

In the established triumvirate (Malenkov, Beria and Khrushchev), Beria became the second person in the state. Beria, now heading all the all-powerful punitive agencies in the country, had all the necessary information - a dossier on all his associates, which could be used in the fight against his political competitors (Zhilenkov M.). From the very beginning, the triumvirators began to carefully revise Stalin's policies, starting with the refusal of sole decision-making. Moreover key role Malenkov and Beria played a role in this, and not Khrushchev, as is commonly believed.

Already in Malenkov’s funeral speech at Stalin’s funeral on March 9, 1953, which spoke about foreign policy problems, the thought “untraditional” for the Stalin era appeared about “the possibility of long-term coexistence and peaceful competition of two different systems - capitalist and socialist.” In domestic policy Malenkov saw the main task as “steadily achieving further improvement in the material well-being of workers, collective farmers, intelligentsia, and all Soviet people” (quoted from Yu.V. Aksyutin).

The day after Stalin’s funeral (March 10), Malenkov invited the ideological secretaries of the Central Committee M.A. Suslov and P.N. Pospelov, as well as the editor-in-chief of Pravda D.T., to an extraordinary closed meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee. Shepilov. At this meeting, Malenkov told everyone present about the need to “stop the policy of the cult of personality and move on to the collective leadership of the country,” reminding members of the Central Committee how Stalin himself strongly criticized them for the cult implanted around him (quoted from Openkin L.A.). This was the very first stone thrown by Malenkov to debunk Stalin’s personality cult, followed by others. Already from March 20, 1953, Stalin’s name ceased to be mentioned in the headlines of newspaper articles, and his citations were sharply reduced.

Malenkov himself voluntarily withdrew part of his powers when, on March 14, 1953, he resigned from the post of Secretary of the Central Committee, transferring this post to Khrushchev. This to some extent divided the party and state authorities, and, of course, strengthened the position of Khrushchev, who gained control over the party apparatus. However, at that time the center of gravity was greater in the government apparatus of the Council of Ministers than in the party Central Committee, which of course did not please Khrushchev.

The socio-economic program of the triumvirate received in the first official report of G.M. Malenkov at the meeting of the fourth session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on March 15, 1953. From Malenkov’s speech: “The law for our government is the obligation to relentlessly care for the welfare of the people, for the maximum satisfaction of their material and cultural needs..." ("Izvestia" 1953).

This was so far the first test of strength in further correction of the Stalinist model of economic development, with its traditional priority in favor of heavy and military industry. In 1953, the mandatory minimum production of workdays on collective farms, introduced in May 1939, was abolished.

Beria - the mysterious reformer

Lavrentiy Beria began to show even greater reformist ardor. He, being a power-hungry and cynical man, at the same time, of course, had great organizational talent, probably one of the best in the post-war USSR. On March 27 of this year, on his initiative (Beria wrote a note on amnesty to the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee on March 26), an amnesty was announced for prisoners whose sentence did not exceed 5 years, as well as minors, women with children and pregnant women. A total of 1.2 million prisoners were released (except for political prisoners convicted of “counter-revolutionary crimes”), although this immediately had a negative impact on the crime rate, which literally jumped in the cities.

Due to the increasing frequency of crimes, units of internal troops were brought into Moscow, horse patrols appeared (Geller M.Ya. Nekrich A.M.). On April 2, Beria submitted a note to the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, in which it was clear that the charges against S. Mikhoels were falsified, and he himself was killed. The note actually named Stalin, Abakumov, Abakumov’s deputy Ogoltsov and former Minister of State Security of Belarus Tsanava as the organizers of his murder. This was the first serious accusation against the divine idol, Stalin.

On April 4, the “case of poisoning doctors” was discontinued, and a week later the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted a resolution “On violation of laws by state security bodies,” thereby opening the possibility of reconsidering many cases. On April 10, 1953, again on the initiative of Beria, the Central Committee of the CPSU cancels the previously adopted decisions to justify the repressed and completely closes the so-called “Mingrelian case” (Resolutions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of November 9, 1951, and March 27, 1952). It was on Beria’s initiative that the dismantling of Stalin’s Gulag began. The largest “great construction projects” built by the hands of prisoners, such as the Salekhard-Igarka railway in the tundra, the Karakum Canal and the underwater tunnel (13 km) to Sakhalin, were abandoned. The Special Meeting under the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor's Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Supreme Court received the right to review decisions in cases of special jurisdiction (“troikas”, Special Meeting and boards of the OGPU).

On April 4, Beria signed an order that prohibited the use, as it was written in this document, of “savage “interrogation methods” - brutal beatings of those arrested, round-the-clock use of handcuffs on the hands turned behind the back, prolonged sleep deprivation, confinement of those arrested undressed in a cold punishment cell.” . As a result of these tortures, the defendants were driven to moral depression, and “sometimes to the loss of human appearance.” “Taking advantage of this condition of the arrested,” the order said, “the falsifying investigators slipped them prefabricated “confessions” about anti-Soviet and espionage-terrorist activities” (quoted by R. Pihoya).

Another part of Beria's mass amnesty policy was the decree of May 20, 1953, which lifted passport restrictions for citizens released from prison, allowing them to find work in large cities. These restrictions, according to various estimates, affected three million people (Zhilenkov M.).

The April revelations of illegal state security practices, coupled with the death of the main architect of repression, Stalin, caused a lively protest response in the camps and exiles, as well as among the relatives of prisoners. Complaints and petitions for reconsideration of cases literally poured in from all over the country to newspaper editorial offices, the prosecutor's office and party bodies. There was unrest in the camps themselves. On May 26, 1953, an uprising broke out in Norilsk Gorlag, which was brutally suppressed by troops, and the number of those killed was several hundred people.

Beria knew firsthand about the nationalist underground in the western republics of the USSR, since he had mercilessly suppressed it for many years. Now he offered more flexible methods in national policy, such as: indigenization, partial decentralization of the union republics, some assumption of national and cultural characteristics. Here his innovation was expressed in proposals for a broader replacement of Russians in leadership positions in the Union republics with national personnel; the establishment of national orders and even the possibility of creating national military units. In an acute situation political struggle for power in the Kremlin, Beria, thus, also expected to receive support and support from the national elites in the union republics of the USSR. Subsequently, such Beria initiatives on the national question were regarded as “bourgeois-nationalist”, as inciting “enmity and discord” between the peoples of the USSR.

The omnipresent Beria tried to carry out reforms in foreign policy. He was clearly trying to end the emerging “cold war” with the West, the fault for starting which, in his opinion, lay with the inflexible Stalin. His boldest proposal was to unite Germany from its two parts - the eastern (under the control of Soviet troops) and the western - controlled by the Anglo-Americans, allowing a single German state to be non-socialist! Such a radical proposal by Beria was met with objection only by Molotov. Beria also believed that socialism along the Soviet model should not be rapidly imposed in other countries of Eastern Europe.

He also tried to restore relations with Yugoslavia, which had been damaged under Stalin. Beria believed that the break with Tito was a mistake, and planned to correct it. “Let the Yugoslavs build what they want” (according to S. Kremlev).

The fact that the partial dismantling of the punitive system began to be actively carried out by Beria with the support of Malenkov and other high-ranking members of the party and Soviet leadership today does not raise any doubts in anyone. The debate is based on Beria’s “liberal” reformism. Why did the main “punisher of the country” of recent decades turn out to be the most “liberal” of all Stalin’s associates? Traditionally, many authors and biographers (mostly of the liberal camp) of Beria were inclined to consider his reform initiatives solely as the desire of the initially “vicious villain and intriguer” to wash away the image of the main “Stalinist executioner.”

Of course, such motives were present in the real, and not the “mythological-demonic” Beria (as he was represented in the 90s). However, it would be wrong to explain all of Beria’s reformism in the short period of 1953 with these motives. Even during Stalin’s lifetime, he more than once expressed the enormous danger for the country in continuing the course of “tightening the screws” and especially the super-exploitation of the collective farm peasantry. However, being a careful and diligent person, Beria carried out all Stalin’s instructions as energetically and efficiently as possible, which earned him the respect of the “master”.

But with the passing of the charismatic Stalin, Beria, being the person most knowledgeable about the mood of Soviet citizens, well understood the need to abandon many of the most odious repressive features of the Stalinist system. The country, compressed like a spring, living for a long time under wartime laws, was in dire need of respite and, finally, easier life.

At the same time, he, as a strong, power-hungry personality, certainly laid claim to the role of Stalin's main successor. But to do this, he had to bypass his many rivals in the collective leadership, especially such political heavyweights as Malenkov (to whom he was formally subordinate). And it was possible to bypass them only by seizing the initiative for reformatory changes in the country. And Beria did this well at first.

In fact, under the weak-willed Malenkov, Beria became the shadow ruler of the country, which, of course, could not but cause deep discontent among many of his “comrades-in-arms.” The very logic of the struggle that unfolded in the highest echelons of power indicated that it was necessary to eliminate a dangerous rival who could turn into a “new Stalin.” It is not surprising that yesterday’s political comrades of Beria (especially Malenkov) are joining forces to bring down the most dangerous political figure, Beria, through a conspiracy.

Neither ideological disputes, nor possibly different opinions on the further development of the USSR or its foreign policy were the motive for this game; the decisive role here was played by fear of Beria and the secret police belonging to him (E.A. Prudnikova). The leaders from the collective leadership were very concerned about Beria’s plans to curtail the influence of the party and subordinate party structures to government bodies, and those, in turn, to the all-powerful Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

As evidenced by documents of that time, the leading role in the conspiracy against Beria was played by Khrushchev and Malenkov, relying on the party activists and all members of the Presidium of the Central Committee. It was they who brought into action the most significant political component - the army, or rather the military leadership, and, above all, Marshals N.A. Bulganin and G.K. Zhukov (Alexey Pozharov). June 26, 1953 during a meeting of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which then developed into a meeting of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, since all its members were present.

At this meeting, Khrushchev voiced accusations against Beria: of revisionism, an “anti-socialist approach” to the situation in the GDR, and even of espionage for Great Britain in the 20s. When Beria tried to protest the charges, he was arrested by a group of generals led by Marshal Zhukov.

Hot on its heels, the investigation and trial of the all-powerful marshal from Lubyanka began. Along with Beria’s real crimes in organizing “illegal repressions” (which, by the way, were organized by all his “accusers”), Beria was charged with a whole set of standard charges for that time: espionage for foreign states, his hostile activities aimed at eliminating the Soviet workers peasant system, the desire for the restoration of capitalism and the restoration of the rule of the bourgeoisie, as well as moral decay, abuse of power (Politburo and the Beria case. Collection of documents).

His closest associates from the security agencies ended up in the “Beria gang”: Merkulov V.N., Kobulov B.Z. Goglidze S.A., Meshik P.Ya., Dekanozov V.G., Vlodzimirsky L.E. They were also repressed.

From Beria’s last words at the trial on December 23, 1953: “I have already shown the court what I plead guilty to. I hid my service in the Musavatist counter-revolutionary intelligence service for a long time. However, I declare that, even while serving there, I did nothing harmful. I fully admit my moral and everyday decay. The numerous relationships with women mentioned here disgrace me as a citizen and former party member. ... Recognizing that I am responsible for the excesses and distortions of socialist legality in 1937-1938, I ask the court to take into account that I did not have any selfish or hostile goals. The reason for my crimes is the situation of that time. ... I don’t consider myself guilty of trying to disorganize the defense of the Caucasus during the Great Patriotic War. When sentencing me, I ask you to carefully analyze my actions, not to consider me as a counter-revolutionary, but to apply to me only those articles of the Criminal Code that I really deserve.” (Quoted from Janibekyan V.G.).

Beria was shot on the same day, December 23, in the bunker of the headquarters of the Moscow Military District in the presence of the USSR Prosecutor General R. A. Rudenko. The first shot, on his own initiative, was fired from his personal weapon by Colonel General (later Marshal of the Soviet Union) P. F. Batitsky (according to the memoirs of prosecutor A. Antonov-Ovseenko). As in the recent past, the massive demonization of Beria’s image in the Soviet press caused violent indignation among Soviet citizens, who literally began to compete with each other in the sophistication of branding the “fierce enemy” more strongly. That's how gr. Alekseev (Dnepropetrovsk region) expressed his righteous anger about Beria in poetic form:

"I don't ask, I demand by right
Wipe you snake off the face of the earth.
You raised the sword to my honor and glory,
Let it fall on your head." (TsKhSD. F.5. Op. 30. D.4.).

Beria turned out to be a convenient scapegoat for everyone, especially for his comrades, who also had blood on their hands. It was Beria who was blamed for almost all the crimes of the Stalin era. Especially the destruction of the leading cadres of the party. They say that it was he who, having ingratiated himself into Stalin’s trust, deceived the “great leader.” Acting through Stalin, Beria killed many innocent people.

It is significant that at that moment Stalin was beyond criticism. According to A. Mikoyan, who commented on the time before the 20th Congress of the CPSU (1956): “We did not immediately give the correct assessment of Stalin. Stalin died, we didn’t criticize him for two years... We didn’t psychologically reach such criticism then.”

Khrushchev vs. Malenkov

The fall of Beria marked the end of the first triumvirate. The prestige and influence of Khrushchev, the main organizer of the anti-Beria conspiracy, increased significantly. Malenkov had lost his support in party circles and was now increasingly dependent on Khrushchev, who relied on the party apparatus. Khrushchev could not yet dictate his decisions, but Malenkov could no longer act without Khrushchev’s consent. Both still needed each other (Geller M.Ya., Nekrich A.M.).

The struggle between the two political heavyweights took place over socio-economic programs. The initiator of the new course was initially G. Malenkov. In August 1953, Malenkov formulated a new course, which provided for the social reorientation of the economy and the priority development of light industry (group “B”).

On August 8, 1953, Malenkov made a speech at the VI session of the USSR Supreme Council in which he noted the troubles Agriculture and called: “The urgent task is to sharply increase the population’s supply of food and industrial goods—meat, fish, butter, sugar, confectionery, clothing, shoes, dishes, furniture—within two to three years.” In his speech, Malenkov proposed halving the agricultural tax for collective farmers, writing off arrears from previous years, and also changing the principle of taxation of village residents.

The new prime minister also called for changing the attitude towards the personal farming of collective farmers, expanding housing construction, and developing trade turnover and retail trade. In addition, significantly increase investment in the development of the light, food, and fishing industries.

Malenkov’s proposals, fateful for millions of the people, were accepted. The fifth five-year plan that began in 1951 was eventually revised in favor of light industry. During the transformations, the size of collective farmers' personal plots increased 5 times, and the tax on them was halved. All old debts from collective farmers were written off. As a result, over 5 years the village began to produce 1.5 times more food. This made Malenkov the most popular politician of that time among the people. And the peasants even had a story that Malenkov was “Lenin’s nephew” (Yuri Borisenok). At the same time, Malenkov’s economic course was cautiously perceived by the party and economic elite, brought up on the Stalinist approach of “heavy industry at any cost.” Malenkov’s opponent was Khrushchev, who at that time defended a slightly adjusted old Stalinist policy, but in favor of the preferential development of group “A”. “Narodnik” Khrushchev (as Stalin once called him) was much more conservative in his political programs than Beria and Malenkov at the time.

But Malenkov finally called for a fight against the privileges and bureaucracy of the party and state apparatus, noting “complete neglect of the needs of the people,” “bribery and the corruption of the moral character of a communist” (Zhukov Yu. N.). Back in May 1953, on the initiative of Malenkov, a government decree was adopted that halved remuneration for party officials and eliminated the so-called. “envelopes” - additional remuneration that is not subject to accounting (Zhukov Yu.N.).

This was a serious challenge to the main owner of the country, the party apparatus. Malenkov literally played “with fire”; it is not surprising that he immediately alienated the masses of the party elite, who were accustomed to consider themselves the main administrator of state property. And this, in turn, gave N.S. Khrushchev a chance, acting as a defender of the interests of this party and economic elite and relying on it, to neutralize another competitor in the struggle for power.

Historian Yuri Zhukov cites facts indicating that party officials literally bombarded Khrushchev with requests for the return of additional payments for them in envelopes and an increase in their amounts. As in the 20s, the rivalry between leaders was only masked by political programs, but most of all it took place between the leaders of two political forces: the government-economic apparatus, represented by Malenkov, and the party, represented by Khrushchev. Obviously, the second force was more powerful and more consolidated.

Already in August 1953, Khrushchev made a “knight’s move”, he was able to return the previously canceled “envelopes” to the party workers and returned the unpaid amounts to the party officials for 3 months. The support of bureaucrats from the Central Committee, regional committees and city committees elevated Khrushchev to the pinnacle of power. As a result, the September Plenum of the Central Committee, having restored the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee, immediately gave it to Khrushchev, his “defender”. As Khrushchev’s son-in-law Adzhubey pointed out, “he only seemed like a simple-minded person and even wanted to look like that” (Boris Sokolov).

From that time on, Khrushchev, relying on the powerful support of the party apparatus, began to confidently bypass his main rival, Malenkov. Khrushchev was now making up for lost time, trying to win the approval of the popular masses. That is why at the September (1953) Plenum of the Central Committee, Khrushchev essentially repeated Malenkov’s proposals - to support rural development and stimulate the development of light industry, but on his own behalf.

The fact that the party bureaucracy was on Khrushchev’s side and fully supported him is evidenced by this fact. In November 1953, a meeting was held in the Central Committee, in which G. Malenkov once again made a speech condemning bribery among employees of the apparatus. According to the memoirs of F. Burlatsky, there was a painful silence in the hall, “bewilderment was mixed with fear.” It was broken only by Khrushchev’s voice: “All this, of course, is true, Georgy Maximilianovich. But the apparatus is our support.” The audience responded to this remark with stormy and enthusiastic applause.

By the end of 1953, the situation in party and government circles was such that there was no longer a triumvirate, but not even a duumvirate (Malenkov and Khrushchev). Khrushchev outplayed Malenkov on the “main field” itself, becoming the head of the party, the backbone of Soviet statehood. However, Khrushchev's leadership throughout the country was not yet so obvious. The form of collective leadership was preserved, and Malenkov, as prime minister, had even greater weight in government circles. But his power and influence in the state was much inferior to the authority of Khrushchev, a more ambitious and powerful man. Khrushchev became the new leader of the entire country, in which the processes of de-Stalinization were increasingly gaining momentum.

Lessons from the USSR. Historically unresolved problems as factors in the emergence, development and decline of the USSR Nikanorov Spartak Petrovich

9. USSR after Stalin's death

Characteristics of the stage

Learning from this historical stage is of particular importance. This stage is the rapid, in just 40 years, destruction of what was achieved by Stalin. Of course, the course of history at this stage consists not only of destruction; there are also remarkable achievements in many, including key areas. But a careful examination of them shows that they are all just repetitions of the line defined and pursued by Stalin. Many in the country, of course, not all, clearly were aware of their historical mission. For Stalin, the greatness of the country was higher value than a happy life for the population. Stalin was a sovereign. Individuals or groups that openly or covertly undermined the USSR were destroyed. Not “everyone is busy with their own business,” but “everyone is doing one common thing.” After the death of Stalin, of the five General Secretaries, this idea was continued only by Brezhnev.

The common feature of the entire post-Stalin era of the USSR (March 1953 - December 1991) is in the loss of perspective and focus, clarity and rigidity of the work of the state apparatus, which is incompatible with the principles of Soviet socialism. The centralized planning system was ineffective in conditions of rapid scientific and technological development due to the fact that local initiatives required numerous approvals. Weakening of goal setting and goal achievement, a sluggish response to the necessary ongoing changes, the nominal nature of planning and reports on the implementation of the plan, the postponement of deadlines, the decline of the culture and discipline of leadership, the war in Afghanistan, which only led to great casualties. Growing lag in scientific and technological development. Hence the desire of high management to shift their functions to lower levels, constant delays in the formation of the annual budget, and the subsequent reorganization of the state apparatus. Control over the activities of organizations has weakened. The distrust of organizations that arose in government agencies led to the desire to “squeeze” the organization into plans “descended from above.” As a result, there are various imitative tricks of organizations in implementing the decisions of the Center. Under Stalin, all this was impossible. In the language of management theory, the reason was the negative feedback that had developed in government management.

However, the strictly centralized system of government continued to maintain its advantages over the market West. In some areas, the impact of Soviet science and technology was many times greater than that of the West. The USSR surpassed the United States in arms exports. In mass production of consumer goods and in the quality of services, the USSR was inferior, in limited production it was equal or ahead. The development of production in the USSR was limited by the fact that the world market did not accept its products. But this restriction was partially lifted by the CMEA countries. Therefore, the excess production capacity available in the USSR and in the CMEA countries controlled by it (possible only under socialism) could not be fully used. In terms of the share of production, the USSR did not lag behind, and in conditions of severe isolation it developed on the principles of self-sufficiency, producing everything it needed for itself. But the share of consumption was small compared to the share of mechanical engineering. The independence of the activities of engineering industries and organizations led to low unification of parts and types of materials, which is impossible in a market economy. The planned economy was not focused on ensuring its technical and economic efficiency. Nevertheless, the USSR developed faster than anyone, including the United States, and provided significant savings in resources.

Stalin was in power for 31 years. From the moment of his death on March 2, 1953, when he was 74 years old, until the liquidation of the USSR in 1992, 39 years passed. During this time, five General Secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee replaced each other. An average of eight years each. Between their lines, in addition to the acute hidden war for the power of one or another party clan, there was a struggle to change or preserve political ideology, domestic and foreign policy, social and state form of the USSR.

The first to take power in 1953 N.S. Khrushchev(1894–1971). He was 59 years old. From the age of 32 N.S. Khrushchev at party work in the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Ukraine. In 1944–1947 – Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of Ukraine, then – 1st Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine. During the Great Patriotic War he was a member of a number of Front Councils. Since 1949 - Secretary of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and 1st Secretary of the Moscow Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). In 1953 (it’s clear why) he becomes 1st (and not General) Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Member of the CPSU Central Committee N.S. Khrushchev was from 1934 to 1966, a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee from 1939 to 1964. Some authors claim that Khrushchev could neither read nor write. Probably thought well...

N.S. Khrushchev at the end of the 30s was one of the largest organizers of repressions in Moscow and Ukraine. It is known that the organizers of the repressions, in order to curry favor with Stalin, increased the number of repressed people beyond what was really necessary. The decision to carry out the punishments provided for in the list of repressed persons could only be made by Stalin personally. When such a list was brought to him for approval, Stalin pointed out those who needed to be excluded. To which they sometimes told him: “You were busy, the sentences have already been carried out.” Well, Khrushchev managed to become a support for Stalin in order to kill and curse him?

In the second half of the 40s, he was one of the organizers of the fight against cosmopolitanism (worship of “foreignness”). But this did not stop him from initiating a “thaw” in domestic and foreign policy, which is supposedly better than harsh discipline. In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, he exposed Stalin’s “cult of personality.”

The regime established by Mao Zedong was harsher than Stalin's. However, in China, the cult of worship of Mao as the great founder of the PRC and the leader of the nation continues even after his death, and no one thinks of “taking Mao out of the mausoleum.”

The policy pursued by N.S. Khrushchev, was inconsistent and anti-Stalinist. He transferred the management of the national economy from a sectoral principle to a territorial one. This led to the collapse of the centralized form of management and the inefficiency of the sectoral one. As a result, this will lead to huge losses in the national economy and a delay in its development. This transformation was canceled under L.I. Brezhnev, and the sectoral principle was restored.

But N.S. Khrushchev limited the privileges of the party and state apparatus (to eliminate the “Stalinists” from it?). He improved the living conditions of the population, organized the massive construction of residential buildings (“Khrushchevka”), and made society more open. In 1954, two rings were introduced air defense around Moscow and the first in the world nuclear power plant. In 1957, the first satellite was launched, in 1961 - Gagarin's space flight. Strived to expand international relations.

At the same time, N.S. Khrushchev suppressed “dissidents”, sent troops into Hungary in 1956, shot a workers’ demonstration in Novo-Cherkassk in 1962, escalated the confrontation with the West (the Berlin crisis, 1961, created the Caribbean crisis , 1962). He set unattainable goals for the country: “to catch up and overtake America,” “to build communism by 1980.” He threatened with the shoe he had taken off his foot from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly. After a visit to the United States at the invitation of Eisenhower, he becomes a liberal communist. By decision of N. S. Khrushchev, A. N. Kosygin was preparing the transfer of part of the national property National economy on private property. Although in 1952, in the book “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” Stalin argued that the transfer of private property to the state is the best form of nationalization, but already at the end of 1952 he spoke out against the state monopoly in the economy. Stalin outlined these reforms six months before his death for approval at a meeting of the CPSU Central Committee.

By 1962, the party and state apparatuses were convinced of the ostentatious activities and the inability of N. S. Khrushchev to lead the socialist state. By decision of the CPSU Central Committee in October 1964, N.S. Khrushchev was removed from his duties as 1st Secretary and member of the Politburo of the Central Committee, but remained a member of the Central Committee for another 2 years. N.S. Khrushchev was in power for 11 years. He resigned from his post when he was 70 years old.

The 58-year-old was elected to the post of 1st Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee in October 1964 at the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee L.I. Brezhnev (1906–1982), who organized the removal of N.S. Khrushchev. In 1966, the post began to be called "Secretary General" again. L.I. Brezhnev held this post for 18 years until his death, which occurred when he was 76 years old. In the last years of his life he was seriously ill. He was not a destroyer of the line pursued by Stalin, like Khrushchev, but he was unable to deeply understand it and correctly implement it in completely new conditions. The consequence was his superficial, outward imitation of Stalin.

When the Great Patriotic War began, L. I. Brezhnev was 36 years old. During the war and after it, until the end of his life, he was in party work: 1st Secretary of the Regional Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine, 1st Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Moldova. In 1953 - Head of the Political Directorate of the Soviet Army and Navy. Then - 2nd and 1st Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan. From 1952 to 1964 (with interruptions) - Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the USSR Defense Council. As under Stalin, the authoritarian regime remained under Brezhnev.

Since 1965, measures have been taken to improve the functioning of the national economy. The next congress of the CPSU pointed out the need to create associations, use “economic methods” in management, higher rates of growth in labor productivity and profitability of production, strengthen economic accounting, accurately record the deadlines for completing tasks, select options that will give the fastest return, encourage time saving and strict monitoring its waste, eliminating unnecessary links in bureaucratic procedures, ensuring prompt decision-making. It provided for the constant development of all sectors of the economy, the creation of conditions for the use of the abilities of all members of society, the rapprochement of science and technology, the acceleration of the development and implementation of new effective technology. The reform of 1965 began the practical use of commodity-money “levers” in the body of socialist production relations. These decisions had great political economic significance.

It was assumed that these measures would create a “mature socialist society", "developed socialism".

In fact, during the reign of L. I. Brezhnev, negative phenomena gradually increased in the economy, in the social and spiritual life of society. The economy became increasingly extensive and consumerist. For example, the mechanical engineering industry of the USSR began to produce mainly equipment for the production of consumer products. The reason was the extreme conservatism of social forms. The country began to live off the sale of oil and gas. At the beginning of L. I. Brezhnev’s reign, a policy was pursued to ease international tension, and then he began to carry out increased militarization of the country, thereby supporting the arms race provoked by the United States. L.I. Brezhnev, having listened enough to his assistants, insisted in public speeches on the use of system analysis. The Defense Department of the CPSU Central Committee supported the development of the target planning system used by the United States (the then famous PERT). But the conservative system of centralized planning of the entire country was unable to master either system analysis or target planning. It is possible that the United States understood the subversive nature of these attempts.

In 1965, the Chief Engineer of one of the defense design bureaus, Anatoly Vasilyevich Pivovarov, told me: “Not a single Government Resolution is being implemented.” Under Stalin this was absolutely impossible.

At the same time, the 2nd Secretary of the Komsomol Central Committee, Yuri Vladimirovich Torsuev, invited two then famous researchers P. G. Kuznetsov and S. P. Nikanorov and invited them to answer one question:

“Komsomol with the party or with the party?”

A month later, he was presented with a voluminous report, which substantiated the need for the Komsomol to be independent youth organization, which takes into account the policies pursued by the party. Torsuev, having briefly read the report, said: “Do you want me to be arrested?” Soon the Komsomol Central Committee relieved him of his post as 2nd Secretary of the Komsomol Central Committee.

In 1966, a group of specialists, of which I was a member, was invited by the boss Technical management Ministry of Machine Tool Industry of the USSR. She asked us one question: “Why did almost the entire world abandon metal cutting and switch to physical processing methods, while we continue to cut?” Under " by physical methods“was understood, for example, to produce precise, fully finished metal products (such as a car body) from a sheet of metal of the required thickness by means of a single hydraulic shock on the sheet lying above the mold, with a water pressure of thousands of atmospheres. Our answer was unequivocal: because the centralized planning system in the form used by the USSR suppressed initiative. It was believed that only the top understand everything correctly, and only they look forward, everyone else - favorite word in the USSR - performers.

In 1969, an international meeting was held “Tasks of the struggle against imperialism in modern stage and unity of action of the communist and workers' parties and all anti-imperialist forces."

In 1973, brigade cost accounting was introduced in construction, in 1976 - brigade contracting, 1977 - end-to-end brigade contracting. In 1977, all house-building plants were transferred to self-financing, which resulted in an improvement in their economic indicators.

During this period, changes were made in capitalist countries that brought them closer to the forms used by the USSR. State stimulation of production carried out by monopolies was introduced by providing them with an increasingly larger share of national income. The government is financing industrial development programs and scientific research. Programs for the country's economic development are being drawn up.

In 1974, “Methodological instructions for the development of state plans for the development of the national economy” were put into effect.

In the mid-late 70s and early 80s, under the impression of the economic difficulties of the USSR, the use of socialism was abandoned around the world. Worldwide disappointment in the results of direct state management. In England, the state’s refusal to participate in economic activity: “it is necessary to look for more flexible forms of public control.” Massive denationalization took place in Africa. Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia abandoned socialism. Deng Xiaoping said when introducing socialist capitalism in China: “It doesn’t matter whether the cat is black or white. It’s important that she catches mice.” Gandhi in India declared that "socialism is depleting the people's wealth." There was an anti-state and anti-socialist revolt of the world economy.

From the book History of Russia. XX - early XXI centuries. 9th grade author Volobuev Oleg Vladimirovich

§ 34. THE COUNTRY AFTER THE DEATH OF STALIN THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER. On March 5, a few hours before the doctors’ official conclusion about Stalin’s death, a joint meeting of members of the CPSU Central Committee and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR was held in the Kremlin. Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR was

From the book Stalin's Assassins. Main secret XX century author Mukhin Yuri Ignatievich

After Stalin's death, the Security immediately saw that Stalin had lost consciousness, moved him to the sofa and immediately called his direct superior, Ignatiev. He immediately arrived with Khrushchev and Stalin’s attending physician, Smirnov. The doctor diagnosed intoxication and suggested

From the book of Molotov. Semi-power overlord author Chuev Felix Ivanovich

Around the death of Stalin I was visiting Natalya Poskrebysheva on January 7th. Vlasik’s daughter Nadya also came to her. Her father, Stalin's security chief, was arrested in December 1952. When they took him away, he said that Stalin would soon be dead, hinting at a conspiracy. - Wasn’t he in it?

From the book Stalin's Inner Circle. Leader's Companions author Medvedev Roy Alexandrovich

The first year after Stalin's death Stalin's physical decrepitude progressed, and this was obvious to his inner circle, but his death took not only the whole country, but also the leadership of the party by surprise. It was hard to believe that the man who was looked upon as

From the book Unknown USSR. Confrontation between the people and the authorities 1953-1985. author Kozlov Vladimir Alexandrovich

The first “new construction” conflicts after the death of Stalin Immediately after the start of campaigns to recruit young people for the development of virgin and fallow lands and in areas of new industrial construction in the East, the CPSU Central Committee received information about the increased conflict of new settlers and

From the book The Main Secret of the GRU author Maksimov Anatoly Borisovich

Afterword. Life after death. Not obvious, but perhaps probable, the life of Oleg Penkovsky after his official execution (the author’s reconstruction) ... In an interview with the newspaper “Vek” in 2000, the author replied that the “Penkovsky case” will be solved in fifty years.

From the book Beyond the Threshold of Victory author Martirosyan Arsen Benikovich

Myth No. 38. After Stalin’s death, Marshal of the Soviet Union G.K. Zhukov objectively assessed especially the military talents of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. The myth arose and developed under the influence of Zhukov’s memoirs, as well as all kinds of his private statements. Still very often

From the book Domestic History: Lecture Notes author Kulagina Galina Mikhailovna

20.1. The struggle for power in the country's leadership after the death of I.V. Stalin After the death of I.V. Stalin, as a result of behind-the-scenes struggle, the first places in the party-state hierarchy were occupied by: G.M. Malenkov - Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR; L.P. Beria - first deputy G.M.

From the book Moscow versus St. Petersburg. Leningrad affair of Stalin author Rybas Svyatoslav Yurievich

Chapter 15 Intra-elite struggle after the death of Stalin Great achievements, achieved through colossal effort and sacrifice, are associated with the name of Stalin. This leader appeared in Russia after Witte’s modernization, Stolypin’s economic transformations and constitutional

From the book by Georgy Zhukov. Transcript of the October (1957) plenum of the CPSU Central Committee and other documents author History Author unknown --

No. 11 AFTER STALIN'S DEATH Recording the memories of T.K. Zhukov" It was March 1953. I had just returned to Sverdlovsk from tactical exercises of the district troops. The head of the secretariat reported to me: Minister of Defense BULGANIN just called on HF and ordered him

From the book New “History of the CPSU” author Fedenko Panas Vasilievich

VI. After the Second World War - until the death of Stalin 1. A radical change in the international situation Chapter XVI of the History of the CPSU covers the period from the end of the Second World War until the death of Stalin in 1953. With great satisfaction, the authors note a fundamental change

From the book Domestic History: Cheat Sheet author author unknown

96. STRUGGLE FOR POWER AFTER THE DEATH OF I.V. STALIN. XX CONGRESS OF THE CPSU Long-term leader of the USSR, dictator with unlimited powers, head of the Communist Party and Soviet government I.V. Stalin died on March 5, 1953. Among his former entourage, a

, [email protected]

The path of the Soviet Union finally ended in 1991, although in some ways, its agony lasted until 1993. Final privatization began only in 1992-1993, simultaneously with the transition to a new monetary system.

The brightest period of the Soviet Union, or rather its dying, was the so-called “perestroika”. But what brought the USSR first to perestroika, and then to the final dismantling of socialism and the Soviet system?

The year 1953 was marked by the death of the long-term de facto leader of the USSR, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. After his death, a struggle for power began between the most influential members of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee. On March 5, 1953, the most influential members of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee were Malenkov, Beria, Molotov, Voroshilov, Khrushchev, Bulganin, Kaganovich, Mikoyan. On September 7, 1953, at the plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, N. S. Khrushchev was elected first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.

At the 20th Congress of the CPSU in February 1956, Stalin's personality cult was condemned. But the most important mine was planted under the very structure of the Leninist principle of the Soviet state at the XXII Congress in October 1961. This congress removed the main principle of building a communist society - the dictatorship of the proletariat, replacing it with the anti-scientific concept of a “state of the whole people”. What was also scary here was that this congress became a virtual mass of voiceless delegates. They accepted all the principles of an actual revolution in the Soviet system. The first shoots of decentralization of the economic mechanism followed. But since pioneers often do not stay in power for long, already in 1964 the plenum of the CPSU Central Committee removed N. S. Khrushchev from the post of First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.

This time is often called the “restoration of Stalinist orders”, the freezing of reforms. But this is just philistine thinking and a simplified worldview, in which there is no scientific approach. Because already in 1965, the tactics of market reforms won in the socialist economy. The “state of the whole people” came into its own. In fact, the result was summed up under the strict planning of the national economic complex. The unified national economic complex began to unravel and subsequently disintegrate. One of the authors of the reform was Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A. N. Kosygin. Reformers constantly boast that as a result of their reform, enterprises gained “independence.” In fact, this gave power to the directors of enterprises and the right to conduct speculative transactions. As a result, these actions led to the gradual emergence of a shortage of necessary products for the population.

We all remember the “golden times” of Soviet cinema in the 1970s. For example, in the film “Ivan Vasilyevich Changes Profession,” the viewer is clearly shown how actor Demyanenko, who plays the role of Shurik, buys the semiconductors he needs not in stores that are for some reason closed for repairs or for lunch, but from a speculator. A speculator who was sort of “reproached and condemned” by Soviet society of that period.

The political economic literature of that time acquired a unique anti-scientific terminology of “developed socialism.” But what is " developed socialism"? Strictly following Marxist-Leninist philosophy, we all know that socialism is a transitional period between capitalism and communism, a period of the withering away of the old order. Intense class struggle led by the working class. What do we get as a result? That some incomprehensible stage of something appears there.

The same thing happened in the party apparatus. Seasoned careerists and opportunists, rather than ideologically seasoned people, began to willingly join the CPSU. The party apparatus becomes virtually uncontrollable by society. There is no longer any trace left of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In politics at the same time, there is a tendency towards the irreplaceability of leading personnel, their physical aging and decrepitude. Careerist ambitions appear. Soviet cinema also did not ignore this moment. In some places this was ridiculed, but there were also brilliant films of that time that gave a critical analysis of the ongoing processes. For example, the 1982 film - the social drama "Magistral", which posed with all directness the problem of decomposition and degradation in a single industry - the railway. But in the films of that time, mainly in comedies, we already find direct glorification of individualism and ridicule of the working man. The film “Office Romance” especially distinguished itself in this field.

Trade is already experiencing systematic disruptions. Of course, now the directors of enterprises are actually the masters of their inheritance, they have “independence”.

Anti-communists often mention in their “scientific” and anti-scientific works that in the 1980s the country was already seriously ill. Only an enemy can be closer than a friend. Even if we do not take into account the outright slop that the anti-communists poured on the USSR, the situation in the country was actually quite difficult.

For example, I myself remember well how in the early 1980s we traveled from the “underdeveloped” Pskov region of the RSFSR to the “developed” and “advanced” Estonian SSR for groceries.

This is how the country approached the mid-1980s. Even from the films of that period, it is already clear that the country no longer believes in building communism. The 1977 film “Racers” clearly shows what ideas were in the minds of ordinary people, although they also tried to show the character in this film in a negative light.

In 1985, after a series of deaths of “irremovable” leaders, a relatively young politician, M. S. Gorbachev, came to power. His long speeches, the very meaning of which disappeared into emptiness, could last for many hours. But the time was such that the people, as in the old days, believed the deceiving reformers, since the main thing on their minds was changes in life. But how does it happen to the average person? What do I want - I don’t know?

Perestroika became a catalyst for the acceleration of all destructive processes in the USSR, which for a long time accumulated and smoldered. Already by 1986 they appeared openly anti-Soviet elements, which set as their goal the dismantling of the workers' state and the restoration of the bourgeois order. By 1988, this was already an irreversible process.

In the culture of that time, anti-Soviet groups of that period appeared - “Nautilus Pompilius” and “Civil Defense”. Following an old habit, the authorities are trying to “drive away” everything that does not fit into the framework of official culture. However, even here dialectics threw up strange things. Subsequently, it was “Civil Defense” that became a bright revolutionary beacon of anti-capitalist protest, thereby forever securing all the contradictory phenomena of that era in the Soviet era, as Soviet rather than anti-Soviet phenomena. But even the criticism of that time was not enough professional level, which was clearly reflected in the song of the group “Aria” - “What have you done with your dream?”, where the entire path traveled is actually overturned as erroneous.

In its wake, the era of perestroika brought out the most disgusting characters, the vast majority of whom were precisely members of the CPSU. In Russia, such a person was B.N. Yeltsin, who plunged the country into a bloody mess. This is the shooting of the bourgeois parliament, which, out of habit, still had a Soviet shell, this and Chechen War. In Latvia, such a character was former CPSU member A.V. Gorbunov, who continued to rule bourgeois Latvia until the mid-1990s. Soviet encyclopedias of the 1980s also praised these characters, calling them “outstanding leaders of the party and government.”

“Sausage commoners” usually judge Soviet era according to perestroika horror stories about Stalin’s “terror”, through the prism of one’s narrow-minded perception of empty shelves and shortages. But their mind refuses to accept the fact that it was the large-scale decentralization and capitalization of the country that led the USSR to such results.

But how much effort and intelligence the ideological Bolsheviks put into raising their country to a cosmic level of development by the mid-1950s and going through a terrible war with the most terrible enemy on Earth - fascism. The dismantling of communist development, which began in the 1950s, lasted for more than 30 years, preserving the main features of socialist development and a just society. After all, at the beginning of its journey, the Communist Party was truly an ideological party - the vanguard of the working class, a beacon of social development.

In this whole story, it is clearly evident that the lack of mastery of their ideological weapon - Marxism-Leninism, leads the party leaders to betrayal of the entire people.

We did not set out to analyze in detail all the stages of the decomposition of Soviet society. The purpose of this article is only to describe the chronology of some significant events Soviet life and its individual significant aspects of the post-Stalin period.

However, it would be fair to mention that the relative modernization of the country continued throughout the entire period of the country’s existence. Until the late 1980s, we saw positive developments in many social institutions and technological developments. In some places the pace of development slowed down significantly, in others it continued to remain at a very high level. Medicine and education developed, cities were built, and infrastructure improved. The country moved forward by inertia.

Our path into the dark ages has accelerated and become irreversible only since 1991.

Andrey Krasny

IN AND. Lenin

The first significant decision of the new Russian government was to refuse to participate in the bloody world war. Lenin managed to achieve it, despite the fact that some party members were against concluding peace on unfavorable terms (Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty). Having saved hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of lives, the Bolsheviks immediately put them at risk in another war - a civil one. The fight against interventionists, anarchists and White Guards, as well as other opponents Soviet power brought quite a few human casualties.

In 1921, Lenin initiated the transition from the policy of war communism to the New Economic Policy (NEP), which contributed to the rapid restoration of the country's economy and national economy. Lenin also contributed to the establishment of one-party rule in the country and the formation of the Union of Socialist Republics. The USSR in the form in which it was created did not satisfy Lenin’s requirements, however, he did not have time to make significant changes.

In 1922, hard work and the consequences of the assassination attempt on him by Socialist-Revolutionary Fanny Kaplan in 1918 made themselves felt: Lenin became seriously ill. He took less and less part in governing the state and other people took the leading roles. Lenin himself spoke with alarm about his possible successor, Party General Secretary Stalin: “Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, concentrated immense power in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be able to use this power carefully enough.” On January 21, 1924, Lenin died, and Stalin, as expected, became his successor.

One of the main directions to which V.I. Lenin paid great attention to the development of the Russian economy. At the direction of the first leader of the country of the Soviets, many factories for the production of equipment were organized, and the completion of the AMO automobile plant (later ZIL) in Moscow began. Lenin paid great attention to the development of domestic energy and electronics. Perhaps, if fate had given the “leader of the world proletariat” (as Lenin was often called) more time, he would have raised the country to a high level.

I.V. Stalin

Lenin’s successor Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (real name Dzhugashvili), who in 1922 took the post of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, pursued a more rigid policy. Now the name of Stalin is associated mainly with the so-called “Stalinist repressions” of the 30s, when several million residents of the USSR were deprived of property (the so-called “dekulakization”), were imprisoned or executed for political reasons (for condemning the current government).
Indeed, the years of Stalin's rule left a bloody mark on the history of Russia, but there were also positive features of this period. During this time, from an agricultural country with a secondary economy, Soviet Union has become a world power with enormous industrial and military potential. The development of the economy and industry took its toll during the Great Patriotic War, which, although costly to the Soviet people, but were still won. Already during the hostilities, it was possible to establish good supplies for the army and create new types of weapons. After the war, many cities that had been destroyed almost to the ground were restored at an accelerated pace.

N.S. Khrushchev

Soon after Stalin's death (March 1953), Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev became the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee (September 13, 1953). This leader of the CPSU became famous, perhaps, most of all for his extraordinary actions, many of which are still remembered. So, in 1960, at the UN General Assembly, Nikita Sergeevich took off his shoe and, threatening to show Kuzka’s mother, began banging on the podium with it in protest against the speech of the Filipino delegate. The period of Khrushchev's reign is associated with the development of the arms race between the USSR and the USA (the so-called “Cold War”). In 1962, the deployment of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba almost led to a military conflict with the United States.

Among the positive changes that occurred during the reign of Khrushchev, one can note the rehabilitation of victims of Stalin’s repressions (having taken the post of General Secretary, Khrushchev initiated the removal of Beria from his posts and his arrest), the development of agriculture through the development of unplowed lands (virgin lands), as well as the development of industry. It was during the reign of Khrushchev that the first launch of an artificial Earth satellite and the first human flight into space occurred. The period of Khrushchev's reign has an unofficial name - the “Khrushchev Thaw”.

L.I. Brezhnev

Khrushchev was replaced as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee by Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev (October 14, 1964). For the first time, a change of party leader was made not after his death, but by removal from office. The era of Brezhnev's rule went down in history as “stagnation”. The fact is that the Secretary General was a staunch conservative and an opponent of any reforms. The Cold War continued, which caused most of resources went to the military industry to the detriment of other areas. Therefore, during this period, the country practically stopped in its technical development and began to lose to other leading powers in the world (excluding the military industry). In 1980, the XXII Summer Olympic Games, which were boycotted by some countries (USA, Germany and others) in protest against the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan.

During Brezhnev's time, some attempts were made to defuse tensions in relations with the United States: American-Soviet treaties on the limitation of strategic offensive weapons were concluded. But these attempts were dashed by the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan in 1979. At the end of the 80s, Brezhnev was actually no longer capable of ruling the country and was only considered the leader of the party. On November 10, 1982, he died at his dacha.

Yu. V. Andropov

On November 12, Khrushchev’s place was taken by Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov, who previously headed the State Security Committee (KGB). He achieved sufficient support among party leaders, therefore, despite the resistance of Brezhnev's former supporters, he was elected General Secretary and then Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

Having taken the helm, Andropov proclaimed a course for socio-economic transformations. But all the reforms boiled down to administrative measures, strengthening discipline and exposing corruption in high circles. In foreign policy, confrontation with the West only intensified. Andropov sought to strengthen personal power: in June 1983 he took the post of chairman of the presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, while remaining general secretary. However, Andropov did not stay in power for long: he died on February 9, 1984 due to kidney disease, without having time to make significant changes in the life of the country.

K.U. Chernenko

On February 13, 1984, the post of head of the Soviet state was taken by Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko, who was considered a contender for the post of General Secretary even after Brezhnev’s death. Chernenko held this important post at the age of 72, being seriously ill, so it was clear that this was only a temporary figure. During Chernenko's reign, a number of reforms were undertaken, which were never brought to their logical conclusion. On September 1, 1984, Knowledge Day was celebrated for the first time in the country. On March 10, 1985, Chernenko died. His place was taken by Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev, who later became the first and last president of the USSR.