On the eve of Stalin's birthday, the newspaper Kultura decided to ask the opinion of three different people about him. I was one of those to whom the publication asked a number of questions.
“On December 21, when some Russians will prepare for the end of the world, some for New Year's corporate parties, and the majority work hard, hoping to catch up with what was planned for the outgoing year, many will remember one non-circular historical date. According to the official version, exactly 133 years ago in the small Georgian town of Gori, the son of Joseph was born in the family of a handicraft shoemaker Vissarion Dzhugashvili.
Who this man became four decades later, we all know. And there are practically no people who are indifferent to his life path, which radically influenced the history of Russia in the 20th century. Differ - and polar - interpretations and assessments.
Today we decided to give the floor to the speakers of three points of view on this difficult figure. The characters were not chosen by chance. The 900-page "Stalin" by the historian and writer Svyatoslav Rybas in the famous "ZhZL" series "Young Guard" is being reprinted for the third time. In early autumn, the publishing house "Piter" published the bestseller of the publicist Nikolai Starikov "Stalin. Let's remember together”, perhaps the most popular apology of the Generalissimo today. The same publishing house also published a book of the opposite sign by the famous TV presenter Leonid Mlechin “Stalin. Russia's obsession".
Same questions, different answers. Choose whose opinion is closer to you.
1. Recently, more and more books about Joseph Stalin have been published. Notebooks with his portrait on the cover appeared on sale, on the street you can meet people in T-shirts with the image of the leader. What is it - just a fashion or a sign of a change in public mindset?
2. There is an opinion that Stalin's popularity is actually a dream of a hero-ruler. Why do our people demand such an image?
3. How do you feel about the actively discussed idea of returning the name Stalingrad to Volgograd? How realistic do you think it is?
4. Industrialization has become one of the symbols of building a great power. Does our country need a similar project today?
Svyatoslav Rybas: "Stalin's image feeds on current realities"
1. What do you want? Stalin died 60 years ago. Since then, the authorities have launched an anti-death campaign at least four times in order to divert public attention from their mistakes. And what have they achieved? In the end, this practice began to hit its initiators. Since the beginning of the last "de-Stalinization" campaign, which began during the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev, sociologists have noted a sharp increase in the authority of the Generalissimo. But even Churchill said in relation to Khrushchev that he entered into a fight with a dead lion and emerged from it as a loser. The subsequent wrestlers also lose.
2. There are three levels of international rivalry: the first is military-strategic, the second is geo-economic, and the third is mental. Regardless of our desire, they constantly interact, and they must always be taken into account. For example, Nazi Germany tried to combine the first two in a "blitzkrieg" strategy. But at the third level, the whole world united against the Germans. Today it is permeated with the struggle of ideas and meanings. It is meanings that govern the world. See how one of Zbigniew Brzezinski's sharp ideas is now being implemented: to equate Stalin with Hitler, and declare the Soviet Union the instigator of World War II. What is the answer to this? And what does our political class do? He still has not offered his own picture of the world that would suit society. This is where the void is filled.
In my opinion, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe “architect of perestroika” Alexander Yakovlev is still working - first with the “good” Lenin to beat the “bad” Stalin, then with the “good” Plekhanov - the “bad” Lenin, and then overturn the Soviet power. But today's Stalin is a convincing example of how meanings that meet expectations come to the fore against the will of the authorities. Moreover, the image of Stalin and the real Stalin are still different things. The Stalinist image is fed by current realities. This is a kind of public criticism... Here on our federal TV channels there is an unspoken instruction in films about Stalin to show positive and negative in the proportion of 30 to 70. And is this a serious response to the challenge? Some Kindergarten! By the way, Mao Zedong said that Stalin's actions were 70 percent correct and 30 percent wrong, but the scale of what was done must be taken into account. What can be the answer to this fact? Twenty days before his death, Stalin signed a government decree on the start of work on the R-7 rocket, which launched Yuri Gagarin's ship into space ... Therefore, it is obvious: today's practice will change, and Stalin will calmly go to historians, where he belongs.
3. Sooner or later they will return. Not today. Although, as far as I know, this was discussed in the Kremlin. We stopped a step away from making a decision, replaced the inscription on the name of the hero city near the Eternal Flame. Now there - "Stalingrad".
4. It is necessary to revive not in words. It seems to me that Stalin's appearance on the historical stage was predetermined not by his "evil will" or by the efforts of Lenin, but by the collapse of Stolypin's reforms and the conspiracy of the imperial elite against the tsar. Stalin is the other side of the failure of the Stolypin reforms. If it were not for Joseph Vissarionovich, Russia still needed to find a leader who would carry out modernization. And now his image, like the shadow of Hamlet's father, encourages action. And above all, the authorities and the political class must answer the questions: where is the country heading? What are her ideals? What were these upheavals for?
Nikolai Starikov: “There is a backlash - respect for the person who won the war”
1. We live in a democratic society, which means that everyone is free to wear the clothes they like and read the books they like. Images of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin on covers and T-shirts do not violate the law. The de-Stalinizers have achieved the opposite result: the more violently they scold the leader, the more people want to understand this controversial figure. People are immersed in documents, in memoirs and are convinced that what is told about Stalin is often a blatant lie. And then there is a backlash: respect for the man who won the most terrible war in the history of Russia. People put on a T-shirt with his image, hang his portrait at home and try to buy a notebook for their child, on the cover of which he is depicted.
2. Unfortunately, modern Russians have a lot of heroes. Complete disarray. Someone has Stalin, someone has Khodorkovsky, and someone has a blogger who writes his posts with grammatical errors. It is this fragmentation that is one of the key problems of modern Russian society. I would not speak for everyone, but there are the results of the audience voting on the "Name of Russia" project in 2008. In a sense, the results of this competition can be considered a sociological cut. Then Alexander Nevsky won, although there are suspicions that Joseph Stalin took the first place. It was just "intolerant". And in the end, Stalin was given third place.
3. Our organization - the Trade Union of Citizens of Russia - collectively decided to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the defeat of the Nazi troops near Stalingrad to appeal to the country's leadership with a request to restore historical justice - to return to the city on the Volga the name under which it entered world history. How likely is this to happen? I believe the probability is 50%. The outcome largely depends on our civil position.
4. Today, Stalin's industrialization is often blamed for the fact that the main moment in the economic breakthrough of the 1930s was the siphoning of resources from the countryside. But it's not. Problems in the countryside arose as a result of certain actions of our geopolitical "friends", because the capitalist countries agreed to sell industrial equipment and generally conduct any trade with the USSR only in exchange for grain. The famine that happened in our country was one of the consequences of this policy. There was no malicious intent of the Soviet leadership here.
The source for the new industrialization is our natural resources, which must be nationalized and placed at the service of the people. They should not belong to individual individuals and legal entities.
The fact that Stalin and, as they say today, his team, were statesmen is a completely obvious fact. Even liberals recognize this. As you know, cadres are everything. And today, I have no doubt, there is no shortage of patriots. Another thing is that the existing principles of selection do not allow these people to be nominated. The criterion, in my opinion, should be simple. It is necessary to nominate ideological people for whom the main thing is to serve their country. And the salary is just a nice addition to the idea.
Leonid Mlechin: "Russian patriot will not say good things about Stalin"
1. People like Stalin and Hitler will always attract attention, because a normal person is simply not able to imagine the full scale of their atrocities. These scales fascinate a person, he tries to find motives, builds some kind of logical assumptions. In addition, such an interest is also associated with people's heavy disappointment in today, a sense of historical failure, despair and disbelief in themselves. This is very typical of our society. But people do not look forward, do not look for new recipes for solving problems, but look back, hoping to find answers in the past. And since the imprint of great victories is imposed on the image of Stalin, it seems to many that it is he who should be taken as an example. This is due, firstly, to a complete ignorance of their past, and secondly, to the unwillingness of people to think about what path Russia would have taken, what successes it would have achieved if it were not for this historical distortion, which was the Soviet and, in particular, Stalinist period.
2. As children, my brother and I assembled detector receivers from small parts and were happy. But today's child does not need to give such a receiver, he needs something completely different. So now we do not need a sample of Stalin. We must move forward and look for other images.
I traveled half of Russia, and everywhere there are monuments to either politicians or generals. As a rule, both categories are very dubious characters. And in our history there were, are and will be outstanding people who left an unambiguous positive mark. We must appreciate not those who killed and crushed someone, but those who raised, educated, saved and promoted. Scientists, doctors, naturalists, teachers, just some ascetics. We need to take a different look at our past and change our orientation towards morality. For the time being, it is absent from our estimates. People who say kind words about Stalin do not understand how immoral and unpatriotic they are behaving. A real Russian patriot will not say good things about Stalin.
3. A certain number of people have been running around with this idea all their lives, as far as I remember - there are always those who want it. Once, Alexander Evgenievich Bovin, now deceased, said that “... it is necessary to rename. Most Soviet people were born after the war. They should know the name of the man who allowed the Germans to reach Stalingrad.” In this sense, I agree with him, because the name of Stalin is a symbol of suffering and tragedy. But in general, if you really want to change the name - I would speak in favor of the return of Tsaritsyn, a good old Russian name.
4. New industrialization is necessary - after all, the world is changing, does not stand still and develops. But the industrialization carried out in the Stalinist style was a disaster for the country. Having forcibly destroyed the economy, artificially cutting themselves off from the world, the Bolsheviks first destroyed the Russian peasantry, and then began to build an ill-conceived industry. And we are still confronted with the results of this illiterate industrialization. After all, our industry turned out to be inflexible, incapable of responding to circumstances. And all because the original industrialization plan was not correct, it was drawn up by illiterate people.
Short course
When a spy or a traitor is caught, the indignation of the public knows no bounds, it demands execution. And when a thief is operating in front of everyone, plundering state property, the surrounding public is limited to good-natured chuckles and a pat on the shoulder. Meanwhile, it is clear that a thief who plunders the people's wealth and undermines the interests of the national economy is the same spy and traitor, if not worse. (“On the economic situation and policy of the party”)
The question of oil is a vital question, because whoever has more oil will determine who will command in a future war. Whoever has more oil will determine who will command world industry and trade. ("XIV Congress of the CPSU (b)")
I think that it would be possible to start gradually curtailing the production of vodka, introducing into business, instead of vodka, such sources of income as radio and cinema. In fact, why not take these most important means in hand and put in this business shock people from real Bolsheviks who could successfully inflate the matter and finally make it possible to curtail the production of vodka? ( "XV Congress of the CPSU (b)")
The workers cannot have faith in leaders where the leaders are rotten in the diplomatic game, where words are not backed up by deeds, where leaders say one thing and do another. (“Speech to the German Commission of the 6th Plenum of the ECCI”)
… democracy is not something given for all times and conditions, because there are times when it is neither possible nor meaningful to carry it out. (“XIII Conference of the RCP(b)”)
You want to make your country advanced in terms of raising its statehood - raise the literacy of the population, raise the culture of your country - the rest will follow. (“IV meeting of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with senior officials of the national republics and regions”)”
My assessment of Stalin
Often comrades ask - what assessment do you give to Stalin? This puts me in a difficult position, because it is impossible to characterize Stalin in monosyllables. This is a complex figure by nature, and he had a difficult path in the party and the state. In different periods, he looked different: either sticking out the positive aspects of his character, then, on the contrary, in other conditions, negative traits prevailed. In this sense, the characterization of Stalin given by Lenin in the so-called "testament" must be considered absolutely correct and accurate, confirmed by all subsequent events.
I emphasize the correctness now, because, firstly, when we got acquainted with Lenin’s “testament”, internally we were not quite ready for such an assessment, we were convinced that Lenin was not right in everything in his personal characterization of Stalin.
When you now try to characterize Stalin and determine your attitude towards him, you find yourself in a very difficult position.
First. How, in fact, did I feel about him at certain periods in the history of our Party, the early periods, say, before 1934? I not only shared the political line of the party, in determining which Stalin played a large role, but also agreed with him in the methods and tactics of work, although at certain moments he had breakdowns that we noticed, but such breakdowns were rare, therefore did not spoil the general relationship and trust. I completely trusted him.
Relations began to change for the worse after the assassination of Kirov, during the years of unjustified mass repressions against the Leninist cadres and their entourage, and in general against the broad masses of the people in 1936–1940.
Now I have a different view on many questions, because at that time we did not know a lot of facts, documents that covered the activities of Stalin. The original documents about the facts of repressions were not sent to us. They sent us only those documents, as it now became clear, which it was advantageous to send out in order to set us up in the desired spirit. For example, protocols of interrogations of prominent comrades were sent, in which they confessed to absolutely incredible crimes that could not have occurred to anyone, and they signed under them. Stalin said so: "Unbelievable, but true - they themselves admit it." Stalin later, trying to give a more truthful character to the testimony, sent out protocols of interrogations, where on each page was the signature of the accused, in order, as he said, "to exclude falsification and forgery."
For example, the cases of the military: Tukhachevsky, Uborevich, Yakir and others. Somehow, not in the usual manner at a meeting of the Politburo, but in Stalin's office, where we, members of the Politburo were invited, Stalin began to state the message that, according to the NKVD, these military leaders were German spies, and began to read out some passages from documents. He then added that he had doubts as to how correct the NKVD report was, but these dissipated after a recent message was received from the Czechoslovak President Beneš that their intelligence had information through their agents in German intelligence that the listed military leaders had been recruited by the Germans.
It was incredible. But not everyone was amazed - it was clear that this message was previously discussed by Stalin with Voroshilov as with the people's commissar of defense, because he was not surprised, did not object, did not express doubts.
I told Stalin: “I personally know Uborevich very well, I also know others, but Uborevich is the best. This is not only an excellent military man, but also an honest person, devoted to the party and the state. Uborevich told me a lot about his stay in Germany, in the German headquarters to improve his skills. Yes, he highly appreciated General von Sekt, saying that he had learned a lot from the Germans, in terms of military science and technology, and methods of warfare. Being already here, he did everything to re-equip our army, to retrain it for new methods of warfare. I rule out that he could have been recruited, could have been a spy. And why should he be a spy, occupying such a position in our state, in our Armed Forces, having such a past in the civil war?
Stalin, on the other hand, began to prove that it was precisely when Uborevich was in the German headquarters for training that he was recruited by the Germans. This is evidenced by the data that the NKVD has. True, he said that these data are subject to verification. “We will include in the composition of the court only military people who understand the matter, and they will figure out what is true and what is not.” Budyonny was placed at the head. Blucher was also there. I don't remember who else Stalin named.
We were somewhat reassured by the news that the military people would look into this matter and, perhaps, the charges would fall away.
I worked on the fringes and was not familiar with many of the facts of the Civil War period and the early 1920s that we know today. And the thing was the following. Stalin and Voroshilov, Budyonny, Yegorov, Kulik, Shchadenko, Mekhlis, Tyulenev, Timoshenko, Afanasenko and others who worked with him took a position against military experts in the army, that is, against recruiting former officers of the tsarist army into the army for command and staff positions.
When Stalin was in Tsaritsyn, Voroshilov and Budyonny were members of the Military Council. They expelled specialists from the army, many were shot. True, real traitors came across among them, but innocent people also died with them. There were attempts to complain to Lenin, who was on the side of attracting military experts, since most of them worked in good faith.
I did not know about the conflict between Stalin and the Cavalry Army, on the one hand, and the commander of the Western Front, Tukhachevsky, who was advancing on Warsaw, on the other hand.
The fact was that at the most critical moment, the Politburo of the Central Committee, under the leadership of Lenin, decided during the attack on Warsaw to support the left flank of Tukhachevsky to introduce the Cavalry Army. Stalin, being with the Cavalry Army, was against this decision and did not give an order to implement the decision of the Politburo.
The Central Committee insisted on its decision. Stalin persisted. He was forced to leave for Moscow. These differences were sorted out at the commission of the Central Committee, where Tukhachevsky and Stalin clashed. It took about a week - time was lost.
Not knowing all this, I was extremely surprised that the military court confirmed the "facts" of their espionage activities, and Tukhachevsky, Uborevich, Yakir were executed, of course, with the consent of Stalin.
Voroshilov did not take an active part in the rehabilitation of these comrades, but he did not raise any objections either. Openly and Budyonny did not speak, although he was the chairman of the court.
Voroshilov and Budyonny later, even in 1960, believed that the decisions of their court were justified. Once, in a conversation with Artem Ivanovich Mikoyan, Budyonny said: “We shouldn’t have rehabilitated them.” Then, when Voroshilov was already retired, I came to his birthday party. He and Budyonny again began to resent the revision of the trial of military leaders. “They say they were not enemies,” Budyonny roared excitedly. “But do you remember how they called for us to be removed from the army?” And Voroshilov agreed with him. This is their understanding of sabotage, it turns out.
It seemed to me that those catastrophic breakdowns in Stalin's character that took place during the years of repression would never be repeated, that the victory won in the Great Patriotic War, the great prestige of our country in this period, a country that was little known before - all this would lead to to the fact that Stalin will embark on the path of socialist democracy, let's say, as it was in the 1920s.
But this did not happen. Of course, what happened in 1937-1938 did not repeat itself; it was impossible now. But I was deeply disturbed by the lack of understanding of the motives of his behavior. Of course, I tried to guess what caused it, what goals it pursues. But these were only guesses, unconvincing for me. So I didn't have a strong opinion. For example, after the victory in the Great Patriotic War, Stalin suddenly began to seek arrest and conviction, this time not the death penalty, as it would have been in 1938, but the imprisonment of the Minister of Aviation Industry Shakhurin (at the same time, the role of Malenkov, who oversaw this industry, is not clear) , who throughout the war as a whole worked well, conscientiously, led the aviation industry well, understood the matter. (For example, I think that it was indecent on the part of the aircraft designer Yakovlev not to find kind words about Shakhurin in his memoirs. Yakovlev did not even consider it necessary to note that Shakhurin was wrongly repressed and then rehabilitated.)
The same fate befell the commander of the Air Force, Chief Marshal of Aviation Novikov, who had been in command almost the entire war, visited the fronts, where the most important events took place, more than in the center.
The head of the Aviation Industry Department of the Central Committee, a communist engineer Grigoryan, was also arrested, whom I personally did not know well, but Malenkov greatly appreciated him, and Grigoryan was his right hand in leading the aviation industry throughout the war.
The same thing happened to Marshal of Artillery Yakovlev. Throughout the war, he headed the GAU (Main Artillery Directorate) and was responsible for all the supply of weapons to the front, except for tanks and aircraft. From February 1942, he was appointed by the State Defense Committee as my deputy for supplying the front with weapons, since this duty was assigned to me as a member of the State Defense Committee. It was good for me to work with him - he understood in two words what he was talking about, spoke little, but accurately and clearly, was the master of his word. An independent man, he did not support some front commanders at the expense of others. He often visited the State Defense Committee and Headquarters with me, together and separately, and I never heard that he received comments from Stalin. Stalin was pleased with his work, his behavior.
What was the motivation and reason for their arrest?
Shakhurin was accused of supplying planes that were still unfinished, and Novikov accepted them in this form and sent them to the front, which Stalin considered wrecking, that Yakovlev immediately after the start of the war accepted a batch of 40 or 50 new anti-tank guns, not completely finished in order to train the troops to manage them and conduct military tests.
These facts really took place. But this was the only correct decision on the part of these comrades. If during the war the new aircraft would have been carefully modified, strictly according to the program, then the front would not have received as many aircraft as required. After all, it is a fact that now, many years after the war, when time permits, two or three years pass before the finished aircraft is put into service and put into production. Then there was no time to waste!
The military is right when even excellent machines are required to make the aircraft better. For example, the MiG-19 aircraft is the best aircraft. It was so good that the government decided to start mass production after many disputes with the military. But still, the military continued to accept manufactured aircraft with reservations that in the future it was necessary to eliminate some defects and improve the aircraft. In a word, several thousand of these aircraft were made. Entered service in the army. But the military did not agree to this, and no government decision was made to accept these aircraft into service. In fact, the aircraft was in service.
Soon a new MiG-21 aircraft was created, and we gave the MiG-19 to the Chinese. We gave them all the documentation and helped build the plant. The MiG-19 quickly went with them. They still, for more than a decade, continue to produce this aircraft and sell it to Pakistan. And Pakistan is very pleased with this aircraft. Now, after many years, they say that against the current American "phantoms" this aircraft would be more suitable than the MiG-21.
And, returning again to the comrades mentioned above, I firmly come to the conclusion that they really could have some shortcomings in their work, but there was no reason to say that they deliberately harmed. Even if their approach was not accepted, considered negative, they could be dismissed, removed from their posts, in extreme cases, lowered in rank, but not arrested.
And one more thing should be said. At that time, Stalin secured the arrest and trial of Marshal Kulik and General Gordov. I personally did not know the latter, but I knew Kulik well. But Gordov was highly praised by Khrushchev, who was a member of the Military Council of the Stalingrad Front. The reason for their arrest was not clear to us. But I remember that Kulik somewhere said that they fought and won, they, the military, and not those who are in power.
Kulik committed a serious misconduct in 1941, when he commanded on the Karelian Isthmus. When the Germans blockaded Leningrad, Kulik had the opportunity to send one or two divisions there to help Leningrad in order to keep the railway from being captured by the Germans. The military council of the front asked him about it, but he refused, believing that this was "not his section." But it was not this fact that Stalin blamed him for.
Kulik and Gordov were shot after the war. This struck me very much. Why were they shot? If Kulik was illiterate, poorly prepared, then it was not him who should be blamed for getting into such a high position, but the one who put him in it should be blamed. Personally, he was neither an enemy nor a dishonorable person. Still, he was at the front throughout the war. And he was in the Civil War. It was necessary to demote him from the marshals, but not shoot him.
Apparently, Stalin would have dealt with Zhukov as well. But the authority of Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov was so high that Stalin was afraid to do this and sent him as commander to the Ural Military District, away from everyone, that is, in essence, into isolation.
Some comrades say that those who worked together with Stalin during these years, even though they did not agree with him, did everything out of fear, everyone supported him, and when he was gone, they “gave courage” and began to dump everything on Stalin, as if they themselves nothing.
It must be said that everyone who worked with Stalin in the leadership of the party bears this or that share of responsibility. Not the same, of course, especially not the same as Stalin. But those who criticize us are partly right.
So much power was concentrated in the hands of Stalin that he was able to present the issue in the form in which he wanted, without bringing us complete and truthful information. This has now been proven. We didn't know much...
From the book of Asa of espionage author Dulles AllenCHAPTER 9 EVALUATION OF INFORMATION The work of the best intelligence officer and capable agents can be useless if, where their information goes, it is misused or comes too late, and even more so if it is evaluated.
From the book Recollection of the Development of My Mind and Character author Darwin Charles RobertAssessing My Mental Powers I have now listed all the books I have published, and since they have been milestones in my life, there is little left for me to say. I do not see any change in my state of mind during the last thirty years, except for one point, oh
From the book So it was author Mikoyan Anastas IvanovichChapter 44 This puts me in a difficult position, because it is impossible to characterize Stalin in monosyllables. This is a complex figure by nature, and he had a difficult path in the party and the state. AT
From the book The Invention of Theater author Rozovsky Mark GrigorievichCollision and then Evaluation Collision is a logical continuation of the counter search. The spectacle is constantly in need of crossover collisions of its characters, but the beauty of the theater is that they are led to these collisions.
From the book Purely Confidential [Ambassador to Washington under six US Presidents (1962-1986)] author Dobrynin Anatoly FedorovichThe Bush Administration's Appraisal of M. Gorbachev's Activities Thus, Gorbachev, pursuing a policy of reforms and new thinking, placed his main stake in foreign policy on cooperation with the United States. In fact, there was nothing reprehensible in this. I myself, as an ambassador,
From the book Great Mao. "Genius and Villainy" author Galenovich Yuri MikhailovichPosthumous assessment of Stalin and Mao Zedong Khrushchev recalled: “At the 20th Congress of the CPSU, we condemned Stalin for his excesses, for arbitrarily repressing millions of honest people, and for his one-man rule, which violated the principles of collective leadership. First Mao
From the book Wives of Chess Kings author Gik Evgeny Yakovlevich From Bruce's book author Filimon Alexander NikolaevichEvaluation of Artillery by Ch. Whitworth It should also be noted that in these first years of the war, the Feldzeugmeister General did not yet have a headquarters, there was no office, and in many cases J.V. Bruce was forced to personally correspond with the Artillery Order. For example, in response to a letter
From the book I survived in Stalingrad. Disaster on the Volga author Wieder JoachimSeidlitz's assessment of the situation On November 22, Paulus, with his immediate headquarters, which at first still remained in Nizhne-Chirskaya, was taken by plane to the "boiler" that had begun to outline, in order to set up his new command post near the railway
From the book Genius "Focke-Wulf". Great Kurt Tank author Antseliovich Leonid LipmanovichA sober assessment Kurt is sitting in his small, modestly furnished office. There are many folders with secret documents on the desktop. Late evening. Thick curtains on the windows block out the light of a large table lamp. Strict blackout requirement - there's a war going on and
From David Hume author Narsky Igor Sergeevich3. Hume "saves" causality. Evaluation of his doctrine of causal connections But now we have Hume's third problem. It was essential for him, because, unlike Berkeley, as we know, he did not intend to completely destroy the epistemological foundations of science. British
From the book Notes of a St. Petersburg Bukharian author Saidov GolibAuthoritative assessment Thin, small stature Zinaida Sergeevna, who works in the washing shop, was late for work. Knowing her as a responsible and punctual worker, I was extremely surprised. And that's what we managed to find out. Zina wakes up in the morning and can't do anything
From Warren Buffett's book. Biography author Schroeder Alice From the book Soldiers of Order author Chachin Vladimir MikhailovichI. Sivertseva, police captain THE HIGHEST EVALUATION OF LABOR By education I am a teacher, I started my career as a teacher in a kindergarten, later I worked at a school. But the children's militia room in Zhukovsky became the work of my life. She gave the best years. I love you very much
From the book Trajectory of Fate author Kalashnikov Mikhail TimofeevichEvaluation of the creative path As a twenty-year-old Red Army soldier, I began to improve military equipment. In 1940, having made a motor resource counter for a tank, I became an "army inventor." I consider this simple device to be my first creative
From the book Furious Zhirinovsky. Political biography of the LDPR leader author Andreev Alexander RadievichCritical assessment of the communist ideology of V.V. Zhirinovsky Since I am in favor of a new ideology for Russia, I will have to undertake a certain digression into the sphere of the ideological views of various ideological and political movements. For decades,
The first and very clear assessment of Stalin's personality was given by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in his Letter to the Congress. Firstly, he noted that the hostile relations between Stalin and Trotsky lead to a split within the party, and secondly, he noted Stalin's particular cruelty and intolerance towards his party comrades. Lenin also warned that Stalin should not be brought closer to power.
Stalin's opponent Lev Davydovich Trotsky in his book "Stalin" gave his assessment of the personality of Joseph Stalin.
Trotsky approached the story about the personality of Stalin himself very scrupulously.
Two circumstances should certainly be noted: the book is documented, moreover, the author conscientiously tries to evaluate the sources that he uses. It was Trotsky's work that served as the starting point for most authors characterizing Stalin's personality.
But, contrary to popular misconceptions, Stalin does not appear to Trotsky as a paranoid villain. He focuses on the formation of the personality of young Stalin (widely using the memoirs of friends), shows what attracted the unsociable seminarian to the camp of revolutionaries, tries to understand and reveal the motives for certain actions and decisions of the hero of his book.
After Stalin's death on March 3, 1953, more and more negative assessments rained down on him. For the first time, Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev criticized Stalin and Stalinism at the famous XX Congress of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1956. Khrushchev referred to Lenin's characterization of Stalin, also noted his excessive rudeness and intolerance. Khrushchev also notes that Stalin betrayed the cause of Lenin. Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev notes that at the XIII Party Congress, which took place shortly after the death of V.I. Lenin, his letters were brought to the attention of the delegations. As a result of the discussion of these documents, it was considered expedient to leave Stalin in the post of General Secretary, so that, however, he would take into account criticism from V.I. Lenin and drew all the necessary conclusions from it.
Thus, Khrushchev openly denounces Stalin not only for the fact that he compromised the principles of Socialism, but also for the problems that arose in the Soviet Union.
Over the years, many different assessments of Stalin's personality have evolved. Historian Alexander Shubin in his book identifies four main directions in these assessments: “Stalin’s images can be divided into positive and negative, communist (left) and anti-communist (right). Four main myths are obtained: right-wing Stalinism, characteristic of the sovereigns (Stalin revived the “normal order", the Russian Empire, defeated revolutionaries, separatists and external enemies, led the country along the path of progress); leftist Stalinism (Stalin is a faithful student of Marx and Lenin, the creator of socialism, who defeated anti-Soviet conspiracies and fascism); right anti-Stalinism, characteristic of liberals and supporters "white idea" (Stalin - the creator of a totalitarian empire, where all people, in fact, became "convicts", a killer of up to 100 million people), left anti-Stalinism, characteristic of Trotskyists and "children of the XX Congress" (Stalin is an enemy of Lenin's cause, a traitor who ruined the revolution and the revolutionaries)". Shubin himself does not attribute himself to any of the parties and speaks from the standpoint of objectivity, thus, to the four listed assessments, one can add a fifth - objectivist
During Stalin's lifetime, Soviet propaganda created around him the halo of a "great leader and teacher." A number of cities and streets in settlements in the USSR and countries of Eastern Europe were named after Stalin; many enterprises, institutions, collective farms, hydraulic structures received an additional “im. I.V. Stalin”; also, his name could be found in the names of Soviet equipment produced in the 1930-1950s. In the Soviet press of the Stalin era, his name was mentioned on a par with Marx, Engels and Lenin. He has been frequently referenced in songs, fiction, and films.
Estimates of Stalin's personality are controversial and there is a huge range of opinions about him, and they often describe him with opposite characteristics. On the one hand, many who spoke with Stalin spoke of him as a broadly and versatilely educated and extremely intelligent person. On the other hand, Stalin is often described negatively.
Some historians believe that Stalin established a personal dictatorship; others believe that until the mid-1930s the dictatorship was collective. The political system implemented by Stalin is usually referred to as "totalitarianism". According to the conclusions of many historians, the Stalinist dictatorship was a highly centralized regime that relied primarily on powerful party-state structures, terror and violence, as well as on the mechanisms of ideological manipulation of society, the selection of privileged groups and the formation of pragmatic strategies. According to Oxford University professor R. Hingley, for a quarter of a century before his death, Stalin had more political power than any other figure in history. He was not just a symbol of the regime, but a leader who made fundamental decisions and was the initiator of all significant state measures.
After the so-called. "Debunking Stalin's Personality Cult" By the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, N. S. Khrushchev, at the XX Congress of the CPSU, Soviet historians assessed Stalin taking into account the position of the ideological bodies of the USSR. This position, in particular, can be illustrated by a quote from the index of names to the Complete Works of Lenin, published in 1974, where the following is written about Stalin:
In Stalin's activities, along with the positive side, there was also a negative side. While holding the most important party and state posts, Stalin committed gross violations of the Leninist principles of collective leadership and the norms of party life, violation of socialist legality, unjustified mass repressions against prominent state, political and military figures of the Soviet Union and other honest Soviet people.
The Party resolutely condemned and put an end to the personality cult of Stalin alien to Marxism-Leninism and its consequences, approved the work of the Central Committee to restore and develop the Leninist principles of leadership and the norms of party life in all areas of party, state and ideological work, took measures to prevent such errors and distortions in the future.
Personality assessments by Stalin's contemporaries
During Stalin's lifetime, attitudes towards him ranged from benevolent and enthusiastic to negative. In particular, foreign writers who met with the Soviet leader left their comments on Stalin: English - Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells, French - Henri Barbusse. In particular, such statements by the Nobel Prize winner B. Shaw about Stalin are known: “Stalin is a very pleasant person and really the leader of the working class”, “Stalin is a giant, and all Western figures are pygmies.” In the book “The Experience of Autobiography”, G. Wells wrote about Stalin: “I have never met a person more sincere, decent and honest; there is nothing dark and sinister in him, and it is precisely these qualities that should explain his enormous power in Russia. I thought before, before I met him, maybe he was thought badly because people were afraid of him. But I found that, on the contrary, no one is afraid of him and everyone believes in him.<…>Stalin is completely devoid of the cunning and deceit of the Georgians. The words of A. Barbusse about Stalin became widely known in literature: “Stalin is Lenin today”; “This is iron man. The surname gives us his image: Stalin - steel "; this is a man "with the head of a scientist, with the face of a worker, in the clothes of a simple soldier."
Anti-Stalinist positions were occupied by a number of communist leaders who accused Stalin of destroying the party, of departing from the ideals of Lenin and Marx. This approach originated in the environment of the so-called. "Lenin Guard". The most significant opponent of Stalin, L. D. Trotsky, called Stalin "an outstanding mediocrity" who does not forgive anyone "spiritual superiority."
The former secretary of Stalin, Boris Bazhanov, who fled from the USSR in 1928, characterizes Stalin in his memoirs as a "little cultured", "cunning", "ignorant" person. In the book of memoirs "Stalin and the Tragedy of Georgia", published in Berlin in 1932 in German, Joseph Dzhugashvili's classmate at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, Joseph Iremashvili, argued that young Stalin was characterized by "vindictiveness, vindictiveness, deceit, ambition and lust for power."
Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR V. I. Vernadsky, in his diary entry dated November 14, 1941, describing his impressions of Stalin’s speech at the Parade on Red Square on November 7, 1941, noted: “Only yesterday we received the text of Stalin’s speech, which made a huge impression. Previously listened to on the radio from the fifth to the tenth. The speech, no doubt, of a very intelligent person. The Soviet military leader I. G. Starinov conveys the impression made on him by Stalin's speech: “We listened with bated breath to Stalin's speech. Stalin talked about what worried everyone: about people, about cadres. And how convincingly he spoke! Here I first heard: “Cadres decide everything.” Words about how important it is to take care of people, take care of them…”
Assessments of Stalin's personality by modern specialists
Describing the personality of Stalin, many historians note Stalin's tendency to read a large amount of literature. Stalin was a very readable, erudite person and was interested in culture, including poetry. He spent a lot of time reading books, and after his death, his personal library remained, consisting of thousands of books, on the margins of which his notes remained. Stalin, in particular, read the books of Guy de Maupassant, Oscar Wilde, N. V. Gogol, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, L. D. Trotsky, L. B. Kamenev. According to V. A. Reasonable Stalin preferred Kant to Hegel. Among the authors whom Stalin admired were Emile Zola and F. M. Dostoevsky. He quoted long passages from the Bible, the works of Bismarck, the works of Chekhov. Stalin himself told some visitors, pointing to a stack of books on his desk: "This is my daily norm - 500 pages." Up to a thousand books were produced this way a year. Historian R. A. Medvedev, speaking out against "often extremely exaggerated estimates of the level of his education and intellect", at the same time warns against underestimation. He notes that Stalin read a lot, and diversified, from fiction to popular science. In the pre-war period, Stalin paid most of his attention to historical and military-technical books, after the war he switched to reading works of a political direction, such as the History of Diplomacy, Talleyrand's biography. Medvedev notes that Stalin, being responsible for the death of a large number of writers and the destruction of their books, at the same time patronized M. Sholokhov, A. Tolstoy and others, returns E. V. Tarle from exile, whose biography of Napoleon he treated with great interest and personally oversaw its publication, suppressing tendentious attacks on the book. Medvedev emphasizes Stalin's knowledge of the national Georgian culture, in 1940 Stalin himself makes changes to the new translation of The Knight in the Panther's Skin
The English writer and statesman Charles Snow also characterized Stalin's educational level as quite high:
One of the many curious circumstances related to Stalin: he was much more educated in the literary sense than any of his contemporary statesmen. Compared to him, Lloyd George and Churchill are remarkably ill-read people. As did Roosevelt.
There is evidence that back in the 1920s, Stalin visited the play "Days of the Turbins" by the writer M. A. Bulgakov eighteen times. Stalin also maintained personal contacts with other cultural figures: musicians, film actors, directors. Stalin personally entered into polemics with the composer D. D. Shostakovich. Stalin also loved cinema and was willingly interested in directing. One of the directors with whom Stalin was personally acquainted was A.P. Dovzhenko. Stalin liked such films by this director as "Arsenal", "Aerograd". Stalin also personally edited the script for the film Shchors.
The Russian historian L.M. Batkin, recognizing Stalin's love of reading, believes that he was an "aesthetically dense" reader. Batkin believes that Stalin had no idea "of the existence of such a 'subject' as art", of a "special artistic world" and the structure of this world. According to Batkin's conclusion, Stalin brought "certain energy" of a semi-educated and average layer of people to a "pure, strong-willed, outstanding form." According to Batkin, Stalin's oratorical style is extremely primitive: it is distinguished by "the catechism form, endless repetitions and inversions of the same thing, the same phrase in the form of a question and in the form of a statement, and again it is the same through a negative particle." The Israeli expert on Russian literature, Mikhail Weiskopf, also argues that Stalin's argument was based "on more or less hidden tautologies, on the effect of stupefying pounding."
On the other hand, the Russian philologist G. G. Khazagerov elevates Stalin's rhetoric to the traditions of solemn, homiletic eloquence and considers it didactic-symbolic. According to the author’s definition, “the task of didactics is, based on symbolism as an axiom, to streamline the picture of the world and convey this ordered picture intelligibly. Stalinist didactics, however, took on the functions of symbolism. This was manifested in the fact that the zone of axioms grew to entire curricula, and evidence, on the contrary, was replaced by a reference to authority. Russian philologist V. V. Smolenenkova notes the strong impact that Stalin's speeches had on the audience. Smolenenkova explains the effect of Stalin's speeches by the fact that they were quite adequate to the mood and expectations of the audience. The English historian S. Sebag-Montefiore notes that Stalin's style was distinguished by clarity and, often, refinement.
Assessment of Russian officials
Bus with a portrait of Stalin in St. Petersburg
Russian President D. A. Medvedev, speaking of the Katyn tragedy, called this act a crime of Stalin: “For our part, all assessments have long been given. The Katyn tragedy is a crime of Stalin and a number of his henchmen. The position of the Russian state on this issue has long been formulated and remains unchanged.” In an interview with the Izvestia newspaper, the President, in particular, noted that “Stalin committed a lot of crimes against his people ... And despite the fact that he worked hard, despite the fact that the country achieved success under his leadership, what was done applied to one's own people cannot be forgiven." According to Medvedev's position, Stalin's role in the victory in the Great Patriotic War was "very serious", although Medvedev believes that the war was "won by our people". In general, according to Medvedev, Stalin “had both weak decisions and very strong decisions, including during the war period. This also cannot be ruled out."
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in 2009: “Obviously, from 1924 to 1953, the country, and the country was then led by Stalin, changed radically, it turned from an agrarian into an industrial one. True, the peasantry did not remain, but industrialization really took place. We won the Great Patriotic War. And no matter who and no matter what they say, the victory was achieved. At the same time, the prime minister noted the repressions that took place during that period. According to Putin, the Katyn massacre was Stalin's revenge "for the death of 32,000 Red Army soldiers who died in Polish captivity."
According to the position of the former President of the USSR M. S. Gorbachev, "Stalin is a man covered in blood."
According to the Chairman of the Federation Council S. M. Mironov: “Stalin is a bloody executioner, and no matter who says, he is and will be like that.”
According to the Chairman of the State Duma B. V. Gryzlov, as the leader of the USSR, Stalin “did a lot during the Great Patriotic War”, although “excesses in domestic politics” “do not adorn him”. “We know how much he was respected by those who opened a second front,” said the head of the lower house of the Russian legislature.
The State Duma, in its statement "On the Katyn tragedy and its victims" dated November 26, 2010, officially recognized that the execution of Polish officers near Katyn was carried out on the direct orders of Stalin and other Soviet leaders. According to Russian media reports, the majority of deputies from the United Russia, Just Russia and LDPR factions voted for the adoption of this statement. Deputies from the Communist Party faction voted against the adoption of the statement, insisting that the assertion that the Soviet leadership was guilty of the Katyn tragedy was based on falsified documents. Regarding the version of the communists about the “falsification” of documents, Russian President D. A. Medvedev on December 6, 2010 stated the following: “Stalin and his henchmen are responsible for this crime. And I have the relevant documents, which were obtained from the so-called "special folder". These documents are now available on the Internet, they are publicly available with all the resolutions. Attempts to question these documents, to say that someone falsified them, is simply not serious. This is done by those who are trying to whitewash the nature of the regime that Stalin created at a certain period in our country.”
Opinion polls
According to a public opinion poll on February 18-19, 2006, 47% of Russian residents considered Stalin's role in history to be positive, 29% - negative. Only in one socio-demographic group, among citizens with higher education, the historical figure of Stalin was perceived positively less often than negatively. 59% believed that "in Stalin's times, mostly innocent people ended up in camps and prisons", 12% - "mostly those who deserved it." Among citizens under the age of 35, 39% had a positive attitude towards Stalin and 30% negatively. At the same time, 38% believed that now Stalin and his activities are "denigrated", and 29% - "are assessed objectively."
Throughout the months-long electronic public opinion poll organized by the Rossiya TV channel, Stalin was in the lead by a wide margin. The final official data, according to which Stalin took second place, losing 5504 votes to Alexander Nevsky.
The formation of a totalitarian state in the USSR, substantiated in the works of most Western historians, as well as in Russian historical science in the 1990s, is described as follows. The laying of the foundations of totalitarianism began under V.I. Lenin. All the diversity of the economic, social, political and cultural life of Russia began to be brought to a single model (unified) in the very first months after the Bolsheviks seized power. The "cavalry attack on capital" and the nationalization of land created the conditions for undermining the institution of private property, which is the basis of civil society. A small retreat towards economic freedom, made during the years of the New Economic Policy, was doomed in advance due to the presence in the country of an all-encompassing administrative apparatus. Officials brought up on communist ideology were ready to overthrow the NEP at any moment. In the political sphere, the Bolshevik monopoly on power did not shake even during the years of the New Economic Policy. On the contrary, it was in the first years after the Civil War that all the sprouts of the Russian multi-party system were finally eliminated. In the ruling party itself, the resolution of the Tenth Congress of the RCP (b) “On Unity”, adopted on the initiative of V.I. Lenin, unanimity and iron discipline were established. Already under Lenin, state violence established itself as a universal means of solving the problems facing the authorities. There was also a repressive apparatus. The NKVD inherited and developed all the traditions of the Cheka. In Lenin's legacy, an important place was occupied by the assertion of the dominance of one ideology. In the first months after the October Revolution, with the closure of non-Bolshevik newspapers, the communists monopolized the right to mass information. At the beginning of the NEP, with the creation of Glavlit, the expulsion of dissident intelligentsia, etc., the ruling party placed the entire sphere of education under its control. Thus, the supporters of this concept argue, the foundation of a totalitarian state was laid in Russia by Lenin, and the Stalinist regime became an organic continuation of the Leninist revolution. Stalin brought to its logical conclusion what had been started under Lenin.
Interestingly, this approach of anti-communist historians fully coincides with the assessment of the role of Stalin during his reign and corresponds to the slogan of that time: “Stalin is Lenin today!”.
A different point of view on the role of Stalin and the state he created was formed in Soviet historiography after the 20th Congress of the CPSU and was revived in the second half of the 80s, during the “perestroika”. Supporters of this assessment (R. Medvedev) argue that the October Revolution and Lenin's plan to build socialism, which began to be implemented in the 20s, should have eventually led to the creation of a just socialist society in the country, the goal of which was to constantly improve the well-being of all citizens. However, having usurped power, Stalin betrayed the ideals of October, formed a cult of his personality in the country, violated the Leninist norms of inner-party and public life, relying on terror and violence. It is no coincidence that in the second half of the 50s - early 60s, the slogan appeared: "Back to Lenin!"
At present, in the historical and journalistic literature, authors from the so-called "patriotic" camp (V. Kozhinov) put forward a new assessment of Stalin's activities. In their opinion, V.I. Lenin, for the sake of the interests of the world revolution, destroyed the Russian Empire, which, with the fall of Poland, Finland and the Baltic states, lost significant territories. Together with Lenin, his closest associates came to power - revolutionaries of Jewish nationality (L.D. Trotsky, G.E. Zinoviev, L.B. Kamenev, Ya.M. Sverdlov, etc.), who eliminated the centuries-old way of Russian life, turning Russian population into disenfranchised masses. Stalin, on the other hand, was a patriot and a sovereign. He physically destroyed the "Leninist Guard", established a regime in the country that was close to the monarchic in spirit, and, having returned the lost territories, recreated the empire.
