I.V. Stalin during the Great Patriotic War was the main leading figure of the country, all the levers of party and state administration were concentrated in his hands. All the most important issues of the war, domestic and foreign policy were resolved under his leadership. The results of his activities were of crucial importance for the socialist state, the people and the army.

The name of Stalin is associated with the solution of the grandiose problems of that era, the enthusiasm and heroism of millions of Soviet people. In the years of severe trials, the people recognized him as a leader capable of saving the country. JV Stalin showed tremendous will, firmness, unprecedented energy, decisiveness in leading the army and the state, in achieving victory over the enemy.

As the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Stalin had the burden of direct participation in the planning, preparation, and leadership of every major operation in the theater of war.

This required him to work at the utmost strain of all mental, moral and physical forces. The work took place (especially during the first period of the war) in an extremely tense, nervous, rapidly changing environment, replete with the most acute crisis situations. It was selfless work.

Even Stalin’s furious ill-wisher, D. Volkogonov, notes: “The Supreme Commander did not leave the office for several days, forgetting himself with an anxious sleep in the rest room, after instructing Poskrebyshev: wake him up in two hours ... When once Poskrebyshev, taking pity on a deadly tired person, woke him up at half an hour later than the specified time, Stalin, looking at his watch, quietly scolded his assistant ... Stalin, returning in the morning to his dacha, half-closed his eyes, went over in his memory a lot of operations "passed" through his brain, nerves, will. Time is fleeting, but almost every minute he has some kind of memories associated with him, anxiety gone into the past, a warm feeling from another success ... He was drilled by the thought: within the framework of fifty defensive and offensive operations (and only them ?!) its battles, battles, defeats and victories. And all this "passed" through the head and heart, immediately greatly aging the already elderly Supreme." I.V. Stalin was a hard worker who did not spare himself in his work in the name of achieving the great goal - Victory.

The well-known political figure A.F. Kerensky, who was prime minister and commander-in-chief in 1917, said in an interview: "Stalin raised Russia from the ashes. Made him a great power. Defeated Hitler. Saved Russia and mankind."

P. Ustinov in the book "My Russia" had reason to say: "Probably no other person, except Stalin, could have done the same in the war, with such a degree of ruthlessness, flexibility or purposefulness, which was required by the successful conduct of the war in such inhuman scale."

The strict centralization of political and military power established by Stalin during the war, strict exactingness and responsibility at all levels of the military and civil apparatus, the purposeful and hard work of the country to save us from the fascist invasion played an outstanding role in achieving victory. The Great Patriotic War embodied the invaluable experience of nationwide rallying the people to repel Nazi aggression.

The former dissident, philosopher, sociologist and writer A. Zinoviev has reason to assert: “And we could win the Great Patriotic War only thanks to the communist system. After all, I saw the war from the first day, went through it all, I know what and how it happened. If not Stalin, not the Stalinist leadership, would have crushed us already in 1941."

And here is the testimony of a person of a completely different social stratum, a contemporary of I.V. Stalin, a witness of the terrible days of the beginning of the war, scientist V.I. Vernadsky. In his diary in November-December 1941, he wrote: “I remembered the statements of Ivan Petrovich Pavlov ... He definitely believed that the rarest and most complex brain structures are statesmen, by God’s grace, so to speak, inborn. It is especially clear for it becomes me when Stalin's speech is heard on the radio ... such power over people and such an impression on people ... ".

“If in world history,” wrote M. Sholokhov, “there was no war as bloody and destructive as the war of 1941-1945, then never has any army in the world, except for the native Red Army, won more brilliant victories, and not a single the army, except for our victorious army, did not rise before the astonished gaze of mankind in such a radiance of glory, power and greatness.

Of great value in solving this issue is the role of I.V. Stalin in the Great Patriotic War of 1941 - 1945. K.Simonov has records of his conversations with famous commanders in the postwar years, after the campaign launched by N.S. Khrushchev, and when time weeded out that superficial that accompanies emotional outbursts and subjective assessments of current events.

K. Simonov writes: "For Zhukov, Stalin during the war is a man who took on his shoulders the most difficult position in a belligerent state." Speaking about the activities of I.V. Stalin as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Zhukov noted: “Stalin dealt with strategic issues from the very beginning of the war. The strategy was close to his usual sphere of politics, and the more direct the impact of political issues were questions of strategy, the more confident he was felt himself in them ... his mind and talent allowed him to master the operational art during the war so much that, calling the front commanders to him and talking with them on topics related to the conduct of operations, he showed himself to be a person who understands this not worse, and sometimes even better than his subordinates. At the same time, in a number of cases, he found and suggested interesting operational solutions."

K. Simonov emphasized that "Zhukov's view of Stalin, which took shape during the war, is of particular value, because this view is based on a vast four-year experience of joint work."

And here is what A.M. Vasilevsky said about Stalin’s activities as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief: “The truth must be written about Stalin as a military leader during the war years. He was not a military man, but he had a brilliant mind. He knew how to penetrate deeply into the essence of the matter and suggest military solutions.

Marshal I.S. Konev argued that: “Stalin’s reaction to our proposal to confer on him the title of Generalissimo was very interesting. This was already after the war. Zhukov, Vasilevsky, I and Rokossovsky (if not I am mistaken). At first, Stalin refused, but we persistently put forward this proposal. I spoke about this twice. And I must say that at that moment I sincerely considered it necessary and deserved. We motivated by the fact that, according to the status of the Russian army, a commander who won great victories, victoriously ending the campaign is awarded such a title.

Outstanding military talent, deep comprehensive knowledge, enormous willpower, inexhaustible performance, perseverance and energy in the struggle to achieve the goals set by I.V. Stalin as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief were the most important components of our Victory in the Great Patriotic War.

During the war, I.V. Stalin repeatedly showed the ability to brilliantly resolve the most complex problems, when military-political, strategic, diplomatic and psychological factors were woven into one knot.

Cordell Hull, US Secretary of State during the war years, noted: “Stalin is an amazing personality. He is endowed with extraordinary abilities and intelligence, as well as the ability to grasp the essence of practical issues. a responsibility that no man will know for the next 500 years."

More than half a century ago, I. Ehrenburg wrote: “Stalin was not one of those distant commanders whom history knew. Stalin encouraged everyone, understood the grief of the refugees, the creak of their carts, the tears of the mother, the anger of the people. Stalin, when necessary, shamed the confused, shook hands with the brave, he lived not only in Headquarters, he lived in the heart of every soldier.We see him as a working man, working from morning to night, not refusing any hard work, the first master of the Soviet land... Gifts are sent to Stalin. , whose daughter was shot by the Nazis, sent Stalin the only thing left of her child - a hat. No one will receive such a gift, and there are no scales on which such love can be weighed ... "

V. Soloukhin's statement about the attitude of the people towards I.V. Stalin is noteworthy. In his work "The Cup", published after his death, he wrote that the people "... loved him selflessly. Didn't millions of Russians sob on the days of his funeral, starting with housewives, ending with marshals Rokossovsky and Zhukov (and Rokossovsky managed to already "sit" before he was called to command). Don't hundreds of poems and songs about Stalin speak of sincere love for this ambiguous person? Why is there not a single poem about Khrushchev, about Brezhnev? Just anecdotes! ".

I believe that no matter how "democratic" propaganda rages, the Great Patriotic War will forever remain in the history of our country as one of the brightest pages, testifying to the greatness of the spirit, heroism, and resilience of the Soviet people. A fact of epochal significance is forever imprinted on the tablets of the history of mankind - the Soviet people and its Armed Forces bore the brunt of the Second World War on their shoulders and made a decisive contribution to the defeat of fascist Germany and its allies, to the liberation of the peoples of Europe and Asia from the fascist yoke. In this titanic, victorious struggle of our people, the deeds and accomplishments of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Great War must find a worthy reflection.

I believe that today none of the rulers of Russia will be able to achieve comparable status or comparable importance as a symbol of the international communist movement.

Stalin's activities in managing a great country, successfully solving the tasks of building its economic and military power, the monolithic integrity of a multinational state, and leading the armed struggle in the greatest of wars must be treated with all responsibility and seriousness. This experience, many of its essential aspects, should be creatively demanded today to solve the problems of leading the country out of the deepest economic and socio-political crisis.

The experience of I.V. Stalin is the experience of creating a new civilization, alternative to the West, the experience of creating a great superpower. This is an experience of great accomplishments in conditions of international isolation and constant military threat, in conditions of an acute shortage of historical time, material resources, and a lack of personnel. This is the experience of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War against Hitler's fascism and its allies, Japanese militarism. Discrediting this colossal experience, neglecting it is criminal in relation to the present and future of our people, our country.

The publicist V. Nilov is right when he writes: "The reassessment of the Soviet regime and the role of Stalin is strongly dictated by the terrible present - the loss of the status of the world's second superpower, the collapse of a thousand-year-old empire, the collapse of the economy, dying science, multimillion-dollar unemployment, the eradication of national consciousness from the people, a collapsed and starving army for which meager funds are released from the budget ...

Only now, against the background of what Russia has become, it becomes clear what the country led by Stalin did, only now can we fully appreciate the feat accomplished by him!

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was a great thinker, politician, statesman, commander. He fought for the honor and independence of his country, his people. He looked far ahead, directed the course of events, foresaw the consequences of decisions made. And he never, under any circumstances, liked to rest on his laurels, he did not allow others to do the same.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin is still considered to be an extremely controversial nature. Opinions about its significance for the country were divided into two camps. Someone is ready to put the leader on a pedestal again, saying: "Stalin is not enough for you," and someone supports the words of M. S. Gorbachev: "Stalin is a man covered in blood." However, no one is indifferent. So what did this man do and did not do for Russia in the almost 30-year history of his leadership? We will consider the pros and cons of Stalin's rule in history in the most important events of 1924-1953.

Collectivization

"Land to the peasants, power to the people" is the main slogan of the communists. Everything should be common, and the earth is no exception. The kulaks as a class had to be eliminated and collective farms created to provide Soviet citizens with everything they needed. Collectivization is one of the stages on the way to industrialization.

The civil war and the revolution greatly undermined the work of the peasants. As a result, 1927 was a low-yielding year. This angered Stalin, because in the USSR there can be no shortage of anything. As a result, it was decided to start mass collectivization, that is, to make all agriculture collective. What did it lead to?

Pros and cons of Stalin's rule during the years of collectivization 1928-1937.

• The liquidation of the kulaks as a class. About 15 million people were exiled to Siberia, shot and evicted from their homes.
• The terrible famine of 1932-1933, the cities took the entire harvest of the peasants, as a result, according to various estimates, from 5 to 10 million people died from starvation, mainly children.
• In agriculture, the private sector was completely destroyed.
• Collectivization created the conditions for industrialization. The state received funds for the development of industry.
• The livestock population fell by 50%.
• Grain production fell by 3%.
• 93% of peasant farms were transferred to collective farms.
• Agricultural production is completely subordinated to the state.
• The mass exodus of peasants to the city.

Constitution of 1936

The main idea of ​​the constitution is freedom. The adopted constitution said that the state belongs to the workers and peasants. Councils and teams have been created. The united communist party must protect the worker. And everything would be fine, but now everything, absolutely everything within the state, belongs to the state, including the person.

Repression

Speaking of Stalin's rule, one cannot but mention the repressions. Until now, many justify his actions. Political crimes are the main reason for repression, or rather the reason. The political crime was expressed not only in deeds, but also in words, in a look, in relatives abroad, in expressing an opinion that was different from the ideology of communism. Fear acquired such proportions that for many years after Stalin's death it was terrible to pronounce his name.

We will consider the pros and cons of Stalin's rule below.

• Formation of a cult of personality.
• Manipulation of society by means of fear.
• Formation of a certain social consciousness.
• About 5 million people were convicted for political reasons.
• About 800 thousand people were sentenced to capital punishment.
• About 6.5 million people were expelled from Russia.
• There was practically no corruption in Russia.

in 2007, President V. V. Putin will say this:

We all know well that 1937 is considered the peak of repression, but it (this year 1937) was well prepared by previous years of cruelty. Suffice it to recall the executions of hostages during the Civil War, the destruction of entire estates, the clergy, the dispossession of the peasantry, the destruction of the Cossacks. Such tragedies have been repeated in the history of mankind more than once. And this always happened when ideals, attractive at first glance, but empty in reality, were placed above the main value - the value of human life, above human rights and freedoms. For our country, this is a special tragedy. Because the scale is enormous. After all, hundreds of thousands, millions of people were exterminated, exiled to camps, shot, tortured to death. Moreover, these are, as a rule, people with their own opinion. These are people who are not afraid to express it. These are the most efficient people. This is the color of the nation. And, of course, we still feel this tragedy for many years. Much needs to be done to ensure that this is never forgotten.

• The prisoners constituted a free labor force, at the expense of the victims of the labor of the repressed, such objects were created as: the White Sea-Baltic Canal, the Volga-Don Canal, the Nizhny Tagil Metallurgical Enterprise, about ten hydroelectric power stations, the Kola Railway, the Northern Railway, highways, etc.
• A number of Russian cities were built by Gulag prisoners: Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Vorkuta, Ukhta, Pechora, Nakhodka, Volzhsky and others.
• The prisoners also contributed to agriculture.
• Migration of thousands of Russian citizens, the best minds, the intelligentsia, the creative elite.

The Great Patriotic War

The pros and cons of Stalin's rule during the Second World War are very blurred. On the one hand, Stalin won the war, but on the other hand, the war was won by the people under the leadership of great commanders. You can argue endlessly. The whole country worked for the good of the front. Russia breathed in one big organism. The economy, industry, agriculture, transport, factories, culture - everything worked together in order to win the war. People rallied in one common grief. All these structures worked very clearly and harmoniously, and in this there is undoubtedly Russia entered the war, being "backward" in industrial terms in relation to Germany, and emerged from the war as a strong military power.

Russia lost 27 million people in the war, Germany - 7 million people. It turns out that for every German soldier, there are 4 Soviet soldiers killed. This is the price of victory. Russia was not ready for war, and this is a fact. Repressions of generals and officers, ignoring by Stalin of warnings about an attack from both intelligence officers and Churchill. As a result, in the first days of the war, hundreds of thousands of soldiers were taken prisoner and all Soviet aviation was destroyed! Can we assume that Russia won the war thanks to Stalin? Or is it despite his mistakes?

In the post-war period, totalitarianism reached its apogee. Control was established over all spheres of society. Repression after the war also continued. Fear shrouded the country until the death of the leader.

Industrialization

Already in 1947, the industry was completely restored, and after 10 years, economic well-being increased almost 2 times. None of the countries that suffered in the war, by this time even reached the pre-war level. Russia has become a great military power.

Pros and cons of the reign of Joseph Stalin:

• Under Stalin, more than 1,500 major industrial facilities, plants and factories were built. These are DneproGES, Uralmash, KhTZ, GAZ, ZIS, plants in Magnitogorsk, Chelyabinsk, Norilsk and Stalingrad.
• Nuclear missiles were created. Although there are still disputes about the role of Stalin in this area.
• For the benefit of industrialization, a lot of agricultural resources were thrown, which noticeably made life harder for the peasants.

After Stalin

Joseph Stalin died at the age of 73. The cause of death is still a mystery. Someone says that Khrushchev and his associates poisoned him, someone is inclined to believe that it was a heart attack. In any case, it is Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev who becomes the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Over the 11 years of his leadership, Russia has already had other ups and downs.

Pros and cons of the rule of Stalin and Khrushchev in comparison:

• Stalin built socialism, Khrushchev destroyed it.
• Stalin staked on industrialization, Khrushchev on agriculture.
• Khrushchev destroyed the personality cult of Stalin, freed many innocent citizens from exile, but did not stop the repressions.

The pros and cons of Stalin's rule are still disputed by historians, society and witnesses of those years. The contradictory personality of the leader also makes his achievements contradictory. Now a lot of literature has been written and a lot of documentaries have been shot, but these are all theoretical disputes. It is impossible to prove the correctness of either side.

Results

The era of Stalin is unique. For 30 years, the country has experienced civil war, famine, repression, the terrible Great Patriotic War, post-war reconstruction. It is not for nothing that the people say "Khrushchev's thaw", and under Stalin they said "Hammer and sickle, death and hunger." After Stalin's death, fear slowly began to disappear from people. The pros and cons of Stalin's rule cannot be summarized briefly. Joseph Dzhugashvili had too much of a role in history.

The results of Stalin's rule, the pros and cons:

• The country's resources were national, free medicine, education, recreation, housing, cultural pastime (theaters, museums).
• Great educational reform, many schools and institutes built.
• Scientific progress, nuclear and missile areas of development.
• Victory in the Second World War and the rapid economic recovery of the country.
• Industry development, industrialization.
• The population decreased during the years of the civil war, revolution, famine, repression and the Second World War.
• The blind, undeniable ideology is still alive in the minds of the Soviet generation, its scale was so great.

The great era of Stalin is over, and everyone perceives the results of his leadership in different ways.

/ Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin / Dzhugashvili / /

(Rose 12.11.2006 13:54:01)
And in my opinion, Stalin was just a copy of Hitler, in the sense that his policy and political regime in the state resembled the regime in Germany under Hitler - tough totalitarianism, dictatorship and relative stupidity (nearness) ... besides, he distorted Lenin's socialism ...
But as a person, he must be given his due, he was a truly historical person, only thanks to him the Great Patriotic War was won ...

(Andrew 20.02.2007 20:50:55)
rose,

Closeness? Yes, Stalin had a library of 20,000 volumes! He read Plato in the original! He wrote all his speeches cleanly, but he kept the numbers in his head - everyone was amazed in general ... It was a colossal intellect, and there is nothing to bullshit. And as for the distortion of socialism ... and rightly so, that he distorted it. Socialism is an ideology of destruction, and our historical experience has confirmed this. If they hadn't retreated, they would have lived now under an eagle and a swastika.

(ANCA 04.05.2008 03:46:53)
Rose, for a moment imagine yourself at the head of a great country in such a difficult (always difficult for RUSSIA) time! What the hell can you do without dictate, so thanks to Comrade STALIN and his predecessors!

(ALex 16.10.2009 00:33:14)
For me, Stalin is a real bandit who, with his "wise" leadership, ruined the thinking stratum of the population, knocked out the most working peasants, deprived the people of land and property, drove everyone into rotting collective farms, declared engineers to be pests, rotted millions in camps. He brought the people to poverty, hunger and complete distrust of each other. And the goal of all this was very simple: the easiest way to manage a hungry cattle.

And those who answer me that Stalin is a great figure, try to imagine that your mother was sent to Kolyma to plow the ground in 40 degrees below zero to build a dugout, they put you in a cell without a slop bucket (you can put it in a boot, after turning it inside out), and children were sent to an orphanage (without the right to receive an education).

You have been deprived of property, children, all kinds of civil liberties! You do not even know the laws by which you were judged, it is simply impossible to get the Criminal Code (what if you are a spy?). And there are no problems to start a case against you, especially under Article 58!

Please read Solzhenitsyn, Orvel, Vardam Shalamov. And if you are not a stupid person (without brain anomalies), but simply ignorant, then these books will reveal a lot to you.

(Yarik 03.11.2009 06:55:33)
Alex and who is Solzhenitsyn, a filthy Jew who will naturally write dregs alone. I read different books and so on. from 30-40 Stalin rotted 800 thousand Jewish Bolsheviks who wanted to turn Russia into a Jewish state. He did the right thing that spread rot, Chechen, etc. executed. (Chechens generally fought for Hitler)
Stalin everywhere put even in the union republics Russih in the hands of the post, and he wanted Russia to always be the most powerful state.
Remember Peter the Terrible and so on. When the ruler kicks everyone, our country prospers, and when drunks like Yeltsin are in power, then PPC.

(Andrew 07.10.2010 00:29:35)
Stalin was a sadist and possessed a Jesuit character. But, in my opinion, he sincerely believed that only such methods could rule Russia. In his own way, he was a patriot. Now, looking at how the current government is resting, you involuntarily remember the Boss, who himself worked hard for 16 hours a day and demanded this from others. Looking at their thousand-dollar suits, you involuntarily remember Stalin, who was by no means chasing updates.

(IRAMAS 26.10.2010 22:37:44)
And these, in suits for thousands of dollars, came down to us from the sky? They are the only possible product of that era, a link in a single chain of a monstrous deposition of a Personality, devoid of ALL moral guidelines and any stop signals. I cannot remember a single political figure of the caliber of Mr. Dzhugashvili, who exterminated "his" people in all possible ways. Although, far from foreign dictators before our Master of All Russia, they have nowhere to turn around, and Russia is big after all. back and led to its large-scale economic, political and spiritual blockade.

Board results

Stalinism is violence and terror that grew out of revolutionary permissiveness. And Stalin, with his difficult, broken character and specific Eastern mentality, played a huge and truly sinister role here. But people from his environment also contributed to the course of these processes - gifted, ambitious, but with a meager education and low culture. They idolized their leader, and they "trampled" him after his death, while keeping the Stalinist system itself almost untouched. Discussing this system, A.N. Sakharov, we will inevitably come to the conclusion that it has not completely disappeared even today, especially if we have in mind our psychology. The thing is that it gave a simple little man some kind of exclusive position, making him the "white bone" of society. Therefore, fragments of it remain part of Russia's movement towards the future, some new unknown world.

In the report, d.h.s. A.S. Senyavsky "What legacy did I.V. Stalin leave: the results of Stalin's rule and their impact on the national history of the second half of the 20th century." It was noted that in the history of Russia of the XX century. there is no other historical figure of such magnitude. If Lenin - this "destroyer of the old world" influenced events mainly ideologically, then Stalin not only during his lifetime for three decades practically created a new society, spreading its influence and ideology throughout the world, but even after his death he retained this influence through his legacy - the Soviet system and the "world system of socialism". Stalin's worldview and methods of activity are not an accident, but a natural product of an entire historical era, largely predetermined by the patriarchy and backwardness of Russia in the conditions of the "modernization imperative" and the "marginalization" of society. The liberal alternative in our country at the beginning of the 20th century. was a utopia, an attempt to implement which only provoked a revolutionary explosion. The only real alternatives to the left radicals were the right-wing radicals, i.e. tough general dictatorship, but her country, as you know, also rejected, accepting the dictatorship of the social marginals - the Bolsheviks. The moral and psychological shock of the world and civil wars by the beginning of the 1920s. made violence the norm. The matrix of inner-party norms of underground revolutionaries was transferred to the system of government of the whole country. It is here that the roots of the repressiveness of the Bolshevik regime as a whole, including the period of Stalin's rule, lie. The leader formed the system, the system adjusted the leader “for itself”. It is scientifically incorrect to evaluate Stalinism from the standpoint of morality, because there is no moral politics. Stalinism is an inseparable unity of crimes, failures and historical victories, social suffering, violence, repression and social achievements. Stalinism is a socialized version of the modernization breakthrough of a backward country under conditions of severe external pressure and the "historical time pressure" in which the Soviet government found itself. Therefore, any one-sided assessments of him are biased and inadequate.

In reality, Stalin did the following: 1) finally formed the entire Soviet social system with its political, social, economic institutions and principles (socialist statism, state ownership, directive-planned economy, etc.); 2) radically changed the doctrinaire ideology of Bolshevism, abandoning the course of "world revolution" and turning the international revolutionary movement into an instrument of real defense of the interests of the USSR; 3) curtailed the NEP and carried out a forced industrial modernization of the country, using the mobilization of all internal resources in the absence of external ones; 4) in the situation of an imminent new world war, he prevented the formation of a united front of the Western powers against the USSR; 5) provided fundamental (industrialization) and situational (political strategy, gaining allies, military-political leadership) conditions for victory in World War II; 6) laid the foundation for the transformation of the USSR into a superpower (post-war world order, possession of a high scientific, technical, military, nuclear potential). The speaker emphasized that there are no moral justifications for Stalin's repressions, but they should be understood as a product of the era and a continuation of the methods of the Civil War. Russia in this was not something unique, since the 20th century is the apogee of violence in world history. Collectivization became an alternative to agrarian "Stolypin-style modernization." The latter did not work out in Russia, but led to an aggravation of social hatred, which manifested itself in the revolution of 1917 and in the Civil War. Stalin carried out this modernization, ensuring industrialization at the expense of the village, but retaining as his support the social matrices of peasant communal traditionalism. The success of industrialization, for all its incompleteness, allowed the USSR almost single-handedly to resist the military and economic potential not only of fascist Germany, but of almost all of Western Europe.

Under Stalin, the USSR turned into a world power, one of the two leaders of opposing social systems, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a country that controlled the center of Europe, many countries of the disintegrating colonial world, the world communist, labor and, to a large extent, national liberation movement. The borders of the USSR were reliably protected by both geopolitical acquisitions and a powerful army. The main result of Stalin's rule is that Russia has become a modern power. No wonder W. Churchill said: Stalin took Russia with a plow, and left it with a nuclear bomb and missiles. But something else is also important: the Soviet system preserved the "civilizational genotype" of Russia, providing the modernization potential for further development on its own socio-cultural basis. How it will be used depends both on the system created by Stalin and on the activities of his heirs. In the middle of the XX century. The USSR was on the rise, almost at the zenith of its power. The potential laid down under Stalin inertially provided our country with several more decades of stable development and rapid transformation into a military-economic superpower. But later it was wasted. Stalin turned out to be capable of adapting ideology, politics, and the socio-economic system to the requirements of the time and the current tasks of the USSR. Subsequent leaders proved to be less flexible and far-sighted.

The system was supposed to be transformed according to historical changes, but this did not happen. Finding out the reasons for this is one of the key tasks of historical science. Before us is a wide field for scientific analysis of the relationship between regularity and chance, the role of social institutions and the individual in history. The categorical verdict of the fundamental inability of the Soviet model for effective transformation seems to the speaker to be unfounded and premature. "There is no other way" - the apotheosis of a fatalistic, non-alternative approach to history, "a simple answer to a complex question", behind which stand the profanation of science and elementary political engagement.

Report by Doctor of History Yu.N. Zhukov was devoted to the problem of Stalin's legacy in the political sphere and its overcoming. The speaker noted that Stalinism is a complex phenomenon, for the understanding of which several points are important. It merged both the revolutionary heritage and what it never was. The author saw confirmation of this thesis, in particular, in the position of Milyukov, who believed that Stalin actually realized the "ideals of the white movement" (which, by the way, was Milyukov's argument in favor of appealing to white émigrés in 1941 with a call to stand up for the defense of the USSR). The Stalinist course was fundamentally different from what it was in the days of Lenin, Trotsky and Zinoviev: the interests of the USSR became the main ones for the country's leadership. Another important point was that no socialism, according to Stalin, can be fully built in the USSR as long as the country is surrounded by capitalism. It is also important that already in the mid-1930s. Stalin made an attempt to remove the partyocracy from power. According to the speaker, both the constitutional reform and the attempt to hold elections on an alternative basis were connected with this in order to remove the nominees from the period of the revolution and the Civil War from power. It was not Stalin, but precisely the partyocracy that unleashed mass repressions, creating a situation in which alternative elections that did not meet its interests became impossible. Finally, for understanding Stalinism, a natural, as Zhukov believes, attempt to turn a multinational country into a unitary state is important, since fragmentation into separate regions along national lines created a threat to the country's security, which was most acutely revealed during the Second World War, when it was necessary recruit representatives of all nationalities into the army, and many recruits could not even follow the orders of commanders because of their lack of knowledge of the Russian language. History resolved the dispute between Lenin and Stalin on the national question in favor of Stalin: the result of Lenin's national policy and the formation of the USSR was, according to Zhukov, 1991. The speaker also stressed that he did not find evidence in the archives that Stalin was not omnipotent, since he could not step over the decisions of the Politburo and the Central Committee. Characteristically, Malenkov also tried to limit the power of the partocracy, depriving it of most of the privileges and "envelopes". He suggested stopping the arms race and raising the living standards of the people. And then the September plenum of the Central Committee (1953), in violation of the decisions of the March one, liquidated the system of collective leadership of the party, recreated the post of first secretary of the Central Committee and elected Khrushchev to this post. As a result of these changes, the development of heavy industry again became a priority, the omnipotence of party officials was strengthened, regardless of their abilities, education and practical experience. How it ended is known.

Doctor of History B.S. Ilizarov presented a report on the topic "The Historiosophy of Stalinism." The speaker emphasized that he had a different view of Stalin, his time and the influence of Stalinism on the present than the previous speaker. Lenin and his comrades-in-arms only cleared the "construction site", while Stalin was the true creator and the only free manager of the USSR. There was an alternative to his policy, but Stalin successfully fought for the implementation of his plans. Contrary to the opinion of Yu.N. Zhukov, Stalin was omnipotent. By the end of the 1920s. he has achieved an incredible concentration of power and levers of total control in his hands. The speaker compared the state created by Stalin with the "Tower of Babel", which lasted more than seventy years, but collapsed in a historic overnight, because there were irreparable flaws in the "project" itself, and human blood was the bonding material. As soon as at least one repressive bond was weakened in the structure of the state, the death of the entire structure became inevitable. But the legacy remains in the social memory of the people, the ideological constructs and Stalinist dogmas are preserved, imposed on them by the system of propaganda, education and upbringing. Stalin left his "philosophy of history", his "picture of the world", which included both the personal biography of the leader and the interpretation of many historical events. This philosophy was recorded in the "Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks", as well as in a number of history textbooks. The history of Russia was placed at the center of the world process, and in it the Russian people. The history of one party - the Communist Party, the October Revolution and the Civil War - became the apotheosis of the history of Russia-USSR, and the "leader of all times and peoples" became the central figure. Before the collapse of the USSR, the fundamental idea and supporting elements of Stalinist historiosophy did not change. And today our past "shoots at our present." Any attempt to establish a new unitarism in any form will lead to the same result - another "Tower of Babel" with all the consequences. In his report "The Polish Version of Stalinism", Professor E. Durachinski (Poland), using the example of one of the countries of the "Soviet bloc", examined the history of the implementation of the Stalinist model outside the USSR. The speaker noted that Poland, contrary to Moscow's policy of unification, was different from the rest of the countries of the Eastern Bloc and was "not the most successful student in the school of Stalinism." But she also had to go through in 1948-1956. difficult period of totalitarianism. Already at that time, Polish authors outside the country, and since 1956 in Poland itself, used the concept of "Stalinism" in a negative sense and tried to analyze it as a criminal system. E. Durachinsky joins those who define Stalinism as "left totalitarianism" and the post-Stalin era as a period of "communist authoritarianism."

The speaker dwelled in detail on the historiography of the issue, considering specific Polish works of different times. In Poland, the problems of repressions, anti-totalitarian resistance, the role of the Roman Catholic Church as a defender of national and human values ​​are well studied. Many works have been published on the history of the political crisis of 1956, mass student protests in 1970, workers' protests in 1976, a giant strike in August 1980, as well as on the birth and activities of the Solidarity trade union headed by Lech Walesa.

Without Poland's dependence on Moscow, Stalinism in it would have been simply impossible. At the same time, the mechanism of such subordination and its forms changed. After 1956, it became less and less noticeable to society, and in the field of culture, it was almost invisible at all, although the policy of unifying the countries of the Eastern Bloc, forcibly copying the Soviet system and introducing Stalinism, and then "real socialism" continued. But in Poland, far from everything turned out the way Moscow demanded. This is especially true of the village, the church and the sphere of culture. The country's leadership was forced to reckon with the resistance of the peasantry, so it was not possible to carry out collectivization in Poland, and in the pro-Soviet bloc it remained the only state dominated by the private sector. Over time, the level of fear also decreased, and by the beginning of the 1980s. most Poles were not afraid of almost anyone and nothing. And here it is worth remembering Stalin himself, who once said that it is easier to saddle a cow than to build socialism in Poland, as he understood it. Stalinism in Poland is already a thing of the past. In the village, he did not have time to take root, but in other areas he was quickly outlived and, first of all, in the spiritual life. But Stalin left a legacy (not only bad) and a memory of himself: he dictated the Polish borders and thereby saved the country from potential conflicts with Lithuania and Ukraine. In the report, d.h.s. B.C. Lelchuk, the central theme was the legacy of Stalinism in the field of industrialization. They say, he said, that thanks to industrialization, the USSR won the war. But this is not serious! Did we fight one on one with Hitler? And what did we manage to do for the army before 1941? It is also necessary to answer the question of what was meant by industrialization by Lenin and Stalin? Lenin at the end of the 19th century. introduced the term "industrialization of the population", which requires not only equipment, but also personnel, educated specialists. In other words, we need people who will raise technology in Russia to the world level. Let us now recall the main slogan of the first five-year plan: "Technology decides everything!" It is quite obvious that Stalin, who liked to quote Lenin, departed from him here. By the end of the five-year plan, however, it turned out that the technicians had bought a lot, but could not master it. Then a new slogan was thrown: "Cadres who have mastered technology decide everything!" But how many training schools were opened then? Stalin declared industrialization completed three times - the last time in 1939. 202

But the main issue has not been resolved: the West has even more overtaken us in terms of labor productivity. In the USSR, almost everything was built by hand and at what cost! There were not enough workers - they began to create camps. NEP made it possible to solve the problem of accumulation for industrialization. Why was it discarded? Yes, because Stalin needed a country that would unquestioningly obey him and only him. Post-war industrialization was also slowed down by Stalin: read "The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR". The example of the atomic bomb is typical: back in 1939, our specialists proposed a project that was better than the American one, but it was shelved, and in 1946 the bomb was created according to American drawings. As a result, our industrialization has not yet been completed. Now it is necessary to catch up with already post-industrial, "information" societies, and it will be very difficult to do this because of the consequences of the domination of the command-administrative system. In the speech, Ph.D. G.V. Kostyrchenko "Stalin and the national question in the USSR" touched upon the most acute problem in Russian history, which turned out to be fatal for the fate of the Soviet state in the 20th century. Surprisingly, in pre-revolutionary times, the national question was perceived by the majority of Russian parties as secondary. Only the Social Democracy, especially the Bolsheviks, paid significant attention to it, and it was Stalin, on the instructions of Lenin, who took up its theoretical development. However, he was not original. The Bolsheviks initially preached the inequality of peoples, whose rights were made dependent on their numbers, the size and location of the occupied territories, and other factors. The program of cultural and national autonomy criticized by Stalin was by no means "curious": it contained a rational scheme for solving national problems on the basis of a homogeneous territorial and administrative division of the country into provinces with the unification and equality of regional and municipal bodies. Only the humanitarian sphere (national culture, education, information, religion) was to be regulated by ethnic communities. National-cultural autonomy was projected on the basis of the principle of extraterritoriality, which was supposed to serve as a deterrent to national separatism inherent in territorial autonomies.

After the fall of the autocracy, Stalin advocated the introduction of "regional autonomy", but then supported Lenin, who insisted on recognizing the right of nations to self-determination, up to and including complete secession. In this way, while remaining unitarians at heart, the Bolsheviks sought political allies in their struggle for power. When they became the masters of the country, they had no choice but to officially declare the right of nations to self-determination and to enshrine the principle of federation in legislation. Within the party itself, in 1919, the principle of unitarism finally triumphed, which finally "divorced" political declarations and real politics in the national question. Real unitarism was provided by the party apparatus, and a little later, a decorative multi-stage structure of the USSR was erected. Knowing the sad outcome of this experiment, it can be argued that the unrealized Stalinist plan, which provided for the preservation of a united Russia as the basis of the Soviet state, could be more viable. The "indigenization of cadres" in the national republics stimulated centrifugal tendencies on the outskirts, which led to the collapse of the multinational state, as soon as the paralysis of the central government and unifying structures, primarily the party, set in. Ph.D. A.V. Golubev made a presentation on the topic "The Evolution of Foreign Cultural Stereotypes of the Soviet Society: Stalinism and 50 Years After". Foreign cultural stereotypes that have ethnic and foreign policy components are part of the national self-consciousness, characterizing the nation's vision of its place in the world, its attitude to other cultures and value systems. In the course of modernization, irreversible changes occur in the system of values ​​and culture, and, based on this, the speaker traced the dynamics of the perception of the West by the population of Russia as both a reference and an alternative cultural-historical type. At the beginning of the XX century. new politicized stereotypes are replacing the traditional ethnic stereotypes of mass consciousness (reflected primarily in folklore), which mainly reflected the personal qualities inherent in other nations. The image of a German, an Englishman, a Pole is replaced by the image of Germany, Great Britain, Poland, etc. The First World War turned out to be only a prologue to stronger social, political, cultural, and psychological upheavals. The victory of the 1917 revolution strengthened the mythologization of mass consciousness, especially in the era of totalitarianism, which sought to control not only social actions, but also the emotions and thoughts of the population. One of the means used for this was the mobilization of society to achieve a national goal, in which the Stalinist regime put forward a program for the qualitative renewal of the country, i.e. essentially 203

its modernization program. Thus, there was a general politicization of mass consciousness, deliberately pushed through the propaganda system. The picture of the outside world as an arena of struggle between the forces of progress and reaction was the core of the new official mythology. At the same time, the surrounding world was presented as a source of both a real military threat to the USSR and possible technical or food assistance, an ally in a future war, and so on. First speaking as convinced Westerners, the Bolsheviks, as a result of the dogmatization and mythologization of Marxism under the dominance of traditional consciousness, then came to xenophobia, which became an essential characteristic of Soviet political culture. Isolationism dominated most of Soviet history, culminating in the Cold War. The West was perceived as a "dark" danger zone dominated by hostile forces. But at the same time, the idea of ​​Western-style technological progress remained attractive. If for some the image of the West, in accordance with the official mythology, was drawn in gloomy colors, then for others it appeared as a mirror alternative to everything that was happening in the USSR, but with a positive sign. In the mass consciousness, the notion that the USSR was one of the main world "centers of attraction" for the workers of the West and the revolutionaries of the East was affirmed, which did not correspond much to reality. At the same time, the image of our country as a positive alternative to the West was created. Soviet propaganda emphasized the decisive influence of the USSR on the entire system of international relations, the superiority of Soviet culture over Western culture. Since 1933, the role of the main enemy passed to Nazi Germany, but after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the outbreak of World War II, at least on the political and propagandistic level, Great Britain replaced it. During the war years, Germany firmly secured the first place on the list of enemies, and after the war, this place was taken by the United States of America. In the first post-war years, the Soviet leadership actively tried to minimize the consequences of many Soviet people's acquaintance with the everyday life of the West. "Thaw" multiplied channels of information. At the next stage, in 1964-1985. In the USSR, the intensive establishment of contacts between Soviet citizens and foreigners continued. The formation of elements of civil society, the growth of alternative state sources of information about the West led to the erosion of established foreign policy stereotypes. Representation in the 1930s about the West as an "anti-world" was replaced by a reverse myth about a world where everything is much better than ours. Since 1985, the Cold War stereotypes have begun to crumble. The minuses were replaced by pluses, the definition of "civilized countries" appeared, from which Russia was excluded. They expected loans, investments, humanitarian aid from the West and, as a result, a sharp increase in living standards. The results of perestroika and market reforms led to the fact that the inversion occurred once again, reviving the traditional stereotypes that demonized the West. But the absence of total propaganda, the possibility of real contacts, the change of generations leads to the fact that the process of blurring stereotypes is accelerating. Ideas about the West lose their mythological component and become more and more adequate to reality. Doctor of History O.Yu. Vasilyeva devoted her report to the topic "The Russian Orthodox Church after Stalin." Before considering the stated topic, she considered it necessary to make two remarks. One belongs to the Bishop of Smolensk in the 19th century. Ioann Sokolov: "The Russian Church outside the walls of the temple is not free from secular power." The second - to the professor of the Theological Academy L. Voronov, who was subjected to repressions during the period of Stalinism: "The Russian Church greatly honors Stalin and everything that he did for her during the war years."

By the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the ROC came up almost organizationally destroyed: since 1918, local and bishops' councils had not met, less than 10% of priests remained free, of the many thousands of pre-revolutionary churches on the territory of the Russian Federation, a little more hundreds. The church was deprived of the rights of a legal entity, and its activities were limited exclusively by the walls of the temple, and even charity was prohibited. But this Russian Church, destroyed by the Bolsheviks, not only did not meet the enemy, but supported the Soviet government. Why? The ROC was separated from the state, but not from the people. The war became a key moment both in its history and in the history of its new relations with the authorities. No wonder the period 1943-1953. in the history of state-church relations is called the "golden decade". Orthodoxy has become an important spiritual lever for the redistribution of the world, especially Orthodox Eastern and Southeastern Europe, through the creation of a system of Orthodox unity under the auspices of Moscow. The rapid organizational restoration of the ROC began. A patriarch was elected, a Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church was created, the surviving priests were returned from the camps, and the network of existing churches expanded. During the period of the US nuclear monopoly, the Russian Orthodox Church rendered a considerable service to its country in solving a number of diplomatic tasks. Interchurch relations took an anti-Vatican direction. A lot has been done. Stalin granted the Russian Orthodox Church the status of a legal entity, opened up for it the possibility of renting land, constructing buildings, etc., which his heirs later fought against. The "liberal" Khrushchev resumed the fight against religion, tightened state control over the Russian Orthodox Church, increased its taxation, deprived the clergy of the rights of administrative, financial, economic activities in religious associations, etc. Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov did not have, like Stalin, a clear concept of relations with the Church, and they ruined much of what was done in 1943-1953. in relations between the Church and the state, including to the detriment of the state itself. This position, according to the speaker, remains today. The final report on the topic "International Relations and Foreign Policy after Stalin" was made by Doctor of Historical Sciences. L.N. Nezhinsky. He noted that at least since April 1922, when Stalin was elected General Secretary of the Central Committee of the party, he was increasingly involved in the formation of the international strategy of the Soviet government. Since the mid 1930s. and literally until the last days of his life, Stalin almost single-handedly solved all the most important problems, consulting only with a narrow circle of people. He was capable of very sharp turns in politics, one of which, and quite justified, was to move away from the narrow class approach in creating the anti-Hitler coalition. But after the end of the Second World War, the class approach prevailed again, which manifested itself in the turn to the "cold war" with elements of the "hot" (war in Korea and Vietnam). The main confrontation took place not only along the West-East line, but also along the US-USSR line. And here there was a partial return to the old doctrinal principles (capitalism constantly rots, imperialism inevitably gives rise to wars, etc.), although some of Stalin's practical steps diverged from these postulates. As a result, the idea of ​​the need for peaceful coexistence was relegated to the background. Did Stalin's foreign policy reflect the national-state interests of the country in the international arena? The answer to this question is ambiguous. Yes, it did when it comes to emergency measures to eliminate the US nuclear monopoly that threatened the very existence of the USSR, which was planning an atomic attack on the main cities of the USSR. On the other hand, in the conditions of the most severe famine in the country in 1946-1947. Stalin instructed to send hundreds of thousands of tons of grain to Czechoslovakia and Romania to support the communists there in the elections.

After Stalin's death, inconsistency was observed in the foreign policy of the USSR both in the conceptual and theoretical views of the country's leaders and in their practical actions. Khrushchev and his supporters seriously changed the foreign policy of our country, declaring that in the presence of the camp of socialism and non-aligned countries, the fatal inevitability of world war no longer exists and that peaceful coexistence is not a tactical slogan, but the main line of Soviet foreign policy. Diplomats now had to look abroad not only for enemies, but also for those with whom they could cooperate. The attitude towards the Social Democrats (under Stalin - "social fascists") also changed. A provision was put forward on the admissibility of the coming of the communists to power by peaceful means. But in foreign policy practice, Khrushchev was Stalin's heir: he crushed the uprising in Hungary, provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis, and so on. Both Khrushchev and his successor Brezhnev retained the mechanism of developing foreign policy decisions by a small Areopagus from among the top leaders of the country. The Politburo did not meet either when deciding on the deployment of missiles in Cuba or when troops were sent into Afghanistan, and during the years when Chernenko and Andropov were in power, our relations with the West worsened even more. Such a legacy went to Gorbachev. No matter how you treat him, but under him, foreign policy has changed dramatically, getting rid of the consideration of the struggle between capitalism and socialism as the dominant of world development. A search began for realistic ways to include the USSR in the world community, taking into account the interests of all interested parties. These approaches were retained in the subsequent period. President of Russia V.V. Putin also relies on them. Thus, the era of Stalinism in foreign policy ended in the second half of the 1980s. All nine reports (authors of eight of them are staff members of the IRI RAS) aroused considerable interest from the audience, numerous questions to the speakers and lively comments. A number of topics were discussed. Questions, remarks, speeches in the debate mainly concerned the concretization of the positions of the speakers, as well as the connection of some phenomena of the past with the current situation, the influence of the legacy of the Stalin era on our time. The "round table" revealed the deep interest of the scientific community in a serious analysis of the problems posed during this meeting. He demonstrated a wide pluralism of opinions about the personality of Stalin, Stalinism, and how the Stalinist legacy has been overcome today. The work of the "round table" was covered by the press and television, several speakers gave interviews, and in the following days spoke on a number of television channels. Materials of the "round table" are being prepared for publication.

A.S. Senyavsky, Doctor of Historical Sciences (Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences)

OPINIONS ABOUT STALIN

V.V. Leontiev (Economist, Nobel Prize winner): “During the Stalin era, communist leaders were busy with the unprecedented task of transforming, with literally dizzying speed, a technically backward, predominantly peasant country into an industrial military power aimed at further economic growth.”

A.A. Gromyko: “His erudition and erudition were manifested not only in speeches. His speeches contained examples that can only be given if one knows the relevant historical source.

In a word, Stalin was an educated person, and, apparently, no formal education could give him as much as work on himself gave. The result of such work was the well-known Stalinist language, his ability to simply and popularly formulate a complex thought.

B.M. Molotov: “Stalin had an amazing capacity for work. I know it for sure. What he needed, he thoroughly knew and followed. And he looked not in one direction, but in all directions. Politically important was, say, aviation - so aviation. Guns - so cannons, tanks - so tanks, the situation in Siberia - so the situation in Siberia, the policy of England - so the policy of England, in a word, that which the leader should not let out of his field of vision. Stalin will ask: “Important question?” - “Important". Then he climbs to the comma.

L. Feuchtwanger: “In the portraits, Stalin gives the impression of a tall, broad-shouldered, imposing person. In life, he is rather small in stature, thin; in the spacious room of the Kremlin, where I met him, he was somehow invisible.

Stalin speaks slowly, in a quiet, slightly muffled voice. He does not like dialogues with short, excited questions, answers, digressions. He prefers slow, deliberate phrases to them. He speaks very clearly, sometimes as if he were dictating. During a conversation, he paces back and forth around the room, then suddenly approaches the interlocutor and, stretching out the index finger of his beautiful hand towards him, explains, explains, or, formulating his deliberate phrases, draws patterns on a sheet of paper with a colored pencil.

I.A. Benediktov (from 1938 to 1958, People's Commissar and Minister of Agriculture): “I met and talked with Stalin dozens of times, I saw how he solves issues, how he treats people, how he thinks, hesitates, looks for ways out of the most difficult situations. I can say quite definitely: he, who lived in the highest interests of the party and the country, could not deliberately harm them, eliminating talented people as potential competitors. People who utter such nonsense with a learned air of connoisseurs simply do not know the true situation, how things were done in the country's leadership. Contrary to popular belief, all questions in those years. were resolved collegially in the Politburo. Disputes and discussions often flared up, various, often opposing opinions were expressed.

There were cases, although quite rare, when Stalin found himself in the minority when voting. This was especially true of the repressions, where Stalin, as I have already said, took a “softer” position than a number of other members of the Politburo.

Marshal A.M. Vasilevsky: “I.V. Stalin possessed not only a huge natural mind, but also surprisingly great knowledge. His ability to think analytically had to be observed during meetings of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Party, the State Defense Committee and during his constant work at the Headquarters. He slowly, slightly stooping, walks around, listens attentively to the speakers, sometimes asks questions, makes remarks. And when the discussion is over, he will clearly formulate the conclusions, sum up.

I think Stalin, during the period of the strategic offensive of the Soviet Armed Forces, showed all the main qualities of a Soviet commander. He skillfully directed the actions of the fronts.

G.K. Zhukov: “Short in stature and unremarkable in appearance, I.V. Stalin made a strong impression during the conversation. Deprived of posturing, he bribed his interlocutor with the simplicity of communication. A free manner of conversation, the ability to clearly formulate a thought, a natural analytical mind, great erudition and a rare memory made even very sophisticated and significant people gather and be on the alert during a conversation with him.

Stalin rarely laughed, and when he laughed, it was quiet, as if to himself. But he understood humor and knew how to appreciate wit and a joke. His eyesight was very sharp and he could read without glasses at any time of the day. He usually wrote by hand. He read a lot and was a well-informed person in a wide variety of fields of knowledge. Amazing performance, the ability to quickly grasp the essence of the matter allowed him to view and assimilate in a day such an amount of the most diverse material that only an outstanding person could do.

Secretary of the Central Committee P.K. Ponomarenko: “Meetings at Stalin’s often took place without any pre-announced agenda, but all the questions raised at them were thought out very carefully, down to the smallest detail. Going to Stalin with an unprepared report, without knowing the essence of the matter, was a very risky and reckless step, with all the ensuing consequences. But this does not mean that the atmosphere during meetings with Stalin or meetings with him was somehow tense, oppressive. Not at all. There were also discussions, and even sharp disputes.

Test pilot E.F. Baidukov: “Stalin had great knowledge in the technical equipment of aircraft. It used to be that he would gather professors one by one, sort out all the subtleties. Then, at the meeting, as soon as he starts to shoot with the most subtle questions, we will all open our mouths with surprise.

Ya.E. Chadaev (managing director of the Council of People's Commissars): “His strength was in the positive influence on others, in the unconditional trust that he instilled, in the firmness of his character. He showed an indisputable will in deeds, made people believe in his talent, wisdom, strength, instilling in them the enthusiasm and pathos of the struggle. Apparently, the strength of this influence consisted in the fact that Stalin was confident in the truthfulness, fidelity of his words, in the clarity of his thoughts, the infallibility of his proposals, and his confidence embraced and won over the masses. I wanted to do exactly as Stalin said, without hesitation, to fulfill all his instructions and orders with full responsibility.

L. Feuchtwanger: “Stalin is the flesh of the flesh of the people. He is the son of a village shoemaker and still maintains contact with the workers and peasants. More than any of the statesmen I know, he speaks the language of the people.

Stalin is definitely not a great orator. He speaks slowly, without any brilliance, in a slightly muffled voice, with difficulty. He slowly develops his arguments, appealing to the common sense of people who do not comprehend quickly, but thoroughly. But the main thing with Stalin is humor, detailed, cunning, calm, sometimes merciless peasant humor. He willingly cites humorous lines from popular Russian writers in his speeches, he chooses the funny and gives it practical application, some parts of his speeches resemble stories from old calendars. When Stalin speaks with his sly, pleasant grin, with his characteristic gesture of the index finger, he does not, like other speakers, create a gap between himself and the audience, he does not rise very effectively on the stage, while the rest are sitting below - no, he very quickly establishes a connection, intimacy between himself and his listeners. They are made of the same material as him; they understand his reasons; they laugh merrily with him at simple stories.”

N.K. Baibakov, a statesman: “He never allowed his interlocutor to shirk before him, to be lost from fear or from reverence. He knew how to immediately and imperceptibly establish confidential, business contact with people. Yes, many of the speakers at his meeting were worried, and this is understandable. But with some special human gift he knew how to feel the interlocutor, his excitement and either a question gently inserted into the conversation, or with one gesture to relieve tension, calm, encourage.

He always penetrated the very essence of the problem under study, while possessing some kind of mystical (I’m not afraid of this word) ability to feel and find the weakest and most vulnerable places in the interlocutor’s position.

G. Wells: “I confess that I approached Stalin with some suspicion and prejudice. An image was created in my mind of a very cautious, self-centered fanatic, a despot, an envious, suspicious monopolizer of power. I expected to meet a ruthless, cruel doctrinaire and self-satisfied Georgian highlander, whose spirit never fully escaped from his native mountain valleys.

All vague rumors, all suspicions ceased to exist for me forever, after I talked with him for a few minutes. I have never met a more sincere, decent and honest person; there is nothing dark and sinister in him, and it is precisely these qualities that should explain his enormous power in Russia.

From the book On the Edge of Despair the author Sechkin Heinrich

COMMENTS, OPINIONS

From the book Alexander the First and the secret of Fyodor Kozmich author Kudryashov Konstantin Vasilievich

III. Rumor in the people. - Opinions of historians. Rumor began to grow that the real emperor was alive, but hiding, and someone else's body was being carried in a coffin. It is curious that this rumor and rumors went ahead of the funeral procession, ahead of it. The coffin had not yet arrived in Moscow, and the capital was already

From the book The Past is with Us (Book Two) author Petrov Vasily Stepanovich

Different opinions Zotin, Andreev, Melikov followed the grandfather. The door closed behind him. - The hut... four hundred meters... - Andreev interrupted the silence with displeasure... - To hell with your... precautions, come in for an hour... to dry. No! Near the river. Where will the hungry, wet

From the book Memorable. Book One author Gromyko Andrey Andreevich

About Stalin at conferences At the Crimean and later at the Potsdam conferences, I happened to work and be close to Stalin. A short story about him, perhaps, deserves attention. A story about some traits of his character, his behavior, some tricks

From the book of Emil Gilels. Beyond the Myth [with Pictures] author Gordon Grigory Borisovich

From the book of Emil Gilels. Beyond the myth author Gordon Grigory Borisovich

Confirming opinions Let us return to Gilels the boy. The family still lived in great need; paid "public" concerts, in which Gilels was forced to participate, could not improve the situation. Something had to be done, and Reingbald decided to send Gilels

From the book Famous Writers of the West. 55 portraits author Bezelyansky Yuri Nikolaevich

Opinions and assessments of "Ulysses" and its author James Joyce attracted thousands of researchers, ruined the lives of hundreds of imitators, drove dozens of translators crazy. They want to understand Joyce, to penetrate into the inner world of his works, to disenchant and decipher the text. But,

From the book Nikita Khrushchev. Reformer author Khrushchev Sergei Nikitich

Again about Stalin In my father's secretariat they gave me a guest ticket to the congress, to the balcony, to the very gallery. I attended meetings regularly. In those days, a pass to the congress was the highest honor, and I was desperately bored there. The speakers spoke according to the written, monotonously lulling. I am every now and then

author

From the book Life and extraordinary adventures of the writer Voinovich (told by himself) author Voinovich Vladimir Nikolaevich

“Where did you serve under Stalin?” I forgot to say that I studied flying on the job. After working for two years at the Zaporozhye Aluminum Plant as a carpenter, I demoted myself in the profession and transferred to a construction site as a carpenter. Transferred because the construction site

From the Bazhenov book author Pigalev Vadim Alekseevich

RESPONSES, OPINIONS, COMMENTS Speaking about the virtues of a person, Jean de La Bruyère in his "Characters" noted that "some lack abilities and talents, others lack the opportunity to show them; therefore, people should be rewarded not only for the deeds they have done, but also

From the book by Mikhail Gorbachev. Life before the Kremlin. author Zenkovich Nikolai Alexandrovich

K. Chernenko: different opinions From the diary of Y. Golovanov (writer and journalist, specialized in space and scientific topics): “Now the most important person in the country is the clerk. They passed on his biography, they said that he graduated from a pedagogical institute, but what, not

From Derrida's book author Strathern Paul

Quotes and Opinions When I speak, I realize that I am present for what I think about, and also bring as close as possible to my thought some significant essence, some sound carried by my breath. the truth of such a discovery"

From the book The main secret of the throat-leader. Book two. Entered himself author Filatiev Eduard

Opinions of officials Vladimir Mayakovsky, encouraged by positive reviews of the performance staged according to his play, but knowing nothing about how Vladimir Ilyich reacted to "150,000,000", turned to the State Publishing House with a proposal to print "Mystery Buff". And received

From the book Saved Diaries and Personal Records. The most complete edition author Beria Lavrenty Pavlovich

About Comrade Stalin From the compiler and commentator, Beria, no doubt, was perfectly aware that his whole life had flowed and is flowing under the sign of Stalin, that Stalin is the main theme of his life and destiny. Today it is not so easy to collect everything that Beria

From the book Surrounding Stalin author Medvedev Roy Alexandrovich

CAREER UNDER STALIN A new secretariat of the Central Committee was formed after the 11th Party Congress, consisting of Stalin, Molotov and Kuibyshev. Stalin, who has now become general secretary, left Molotov in the secretariat not only because the latter showed full and