Osadchiev Alexander Dmitrievich Born on April 25, 1919 in Borisoglebsk, Tambov province. He graduated from 9 classes and in 1939 - the Kachin Military Aviation School. He served in the Far East. Osadchiev began combat work on the Yak-7B as part of the 43rd IAP on the Voronezh Front, in

Petrov Alexander Dmitrievich

Petrov Alexander Dmitrievich Petrov (Alexander Dmitrievich) is the most famous Russian chess player (1867), considered to have no equal in Russia. His “Chess Game” (St. Petersburg, 1824) was the second original Russian work on this subject. From 1840 P. lived in Warsaw, occupying

Balashov Alexander Dmitrievich

Gai Alexander Dmitrievich

Gai Alexander Dmitrievich Gai Alexander Dmitrievich [b. 26.7 (8.8).1914, Ekaterinoslav, now Dnepropetrovsk], Ukrainian Soviet actor, People's Artist of the USSR (1977), professor (1977). Member of the CPSU since 1939. In 1936 he graduated from the 2nd Moscow Art Theater School, in 1938 - the Moscow Music College. A. K. Glazunova, in

Petrov Alexander Dmitrievich (organic chemist)

Petrov Alexander Dmitrievich (chess player)

Grigoriev Alexander Dmitrievich

previous on other topics………… next on other topics


The day of December 21st is approaching, associated with memorable date 130th anniversary of the birth of I.V. Stalin. In this regard, we have already read and heard a lot of things and will hear and read even more in the coming week. I would also like to speak on this topic.

Here’s what’s interesting: my generation grew up in complete ignorance about the personality and role of Stalin. IN school curriculum according to history, it was spoken about rather mutely, mostly it was a few lines about the 20th Congress - that the party condemned the cult of personality. In the history of the CPSU it is approximately the same. It was said about Khrushchev that he was a voluntarist, but we ourselves remembered something about him, for example, numerous jokes. There were few jokes about Stalin. The elders hardly remembered Stalin either. In general, it must be said that Soviet society in the 60s and 70s did not really live in the past - they thought more about the future. The only thing I can remember is my grandmother’s story about how during the evacuation a cook named Dzhugashvili worked with her in the dining room. He said that he was a distant relative of Stalin, and was very offended by him. The fact is that my grandmother was taken from Moscow to the north, to Kotlas, by the husband of my grandfather’s sister, who served in the Gulag. This was the territory of the camp and the village for its guards, where civilians, like my grandmother (she cleaned there), exiles, like the German Kolya, who was sent to Kotlas only because of his nationality, and criminals, among them, worked in one canteen. this Dzhugashvili. He was imprisoned for hacking to death the chairman of his collective farm with an ax, but he believed that Stalin could have helped him in a related way. They gave him something like 10 years. His dream was to go out and kill Stalin with an ax. Nobody interfered in this sibling squabble. The beautiful Marusya also worked there, killing her husband. The cook, Uncle Vanya, was also a killer. I have a photo of the entire staff of this wonderful canteen. The grandmother there is young, beautiful, her mouth is full of beautiful white teeth. After her stay in Kotlas, they fell out of scurvy, and for the remaining 52 years she wore dentures. And Uncle Seryozha, the husband of my mother’s aunt, was soon sent to the front for some offense, where he reached Berlin, despite shell shock and wounds. And so he respected Stalin very much and hated Khrushchev, despite the fact that he himself was a crest.

The attitude towards Stalin was approximately the same as towards Voldemort in Harry Potter: whose name cannot be said out loud. Still would! All the monuments, and there were a lot of them, were removed, the portraits were scraped off the metro walls, the names were changed. And the films did not show where he was - neither documentaries nor fiction. Books about him were not republished. The only place Where Stalin was remembered was Georgia. Everyone who came there was very surprised by this. It was a real sensation when he was shown in some film, it seems, in “Liberation.”

They started talking about Stalin during Perestroika, starting with the novel “Children of the Arbat,” where Stalin smoked a pipe, thought a lot to himself about who else he should kill among his old friends, and always went to bed in socks. Rybakov was especially proud of this last detail, saying that he did not know that Stalin actually did this, but simply entered into his image to such an extent that he imagined how southern man It’s cold in Moscow, and I wrote about it. Apparently, he believed that since he had guessed correctly with the socks, he was not mistaken in the other one either. But there was no ideological assessment of Stalin’s role - it was considered established that Stalin was wrong because he deviated from the Leninist norms of party leadership.

And only after 1991 Stalin began to return in earnest, and the further he went, the more so. They began to ask questions that were unthinkable before: who is Stalin - a villain or a hero? Was he right or wrong? And these questions divided the country into 2 parts.

It must be said that the liberals were the first to start. Nobody asked them to remember Stalin with an unkind word from morning to night and accuse us of being Stalinists, etc. If you turn on “Echo of Moscow” at any time of the day, then within 5 minutes you will hear this name. Especially if Svanidze or Mlechin are there. No matter how much you brush it off, don’t turn it off, something remains, and gradually the absurdity of the accusations gets to you: all these 50-70 million killed, etc. Moreover, at the same time they tell you what caught fire there, drowned here, and there’s nothing good to expect from anywhere . And so people looked at the figure of Stalin differently.

So, who is Stalin? There is nothing stupider than to say that Stalin is an effective manager. They say that they wrote this in some teacher’s manual that no one has seen. But the liberals repeated this so many times that they all remembered it. They repeated with indignation - this is what it has come to! Truly a disgrace! What kind of manager is Stalin? He was the leader. And the leader is not your manager.

Liberals also like to say that Stalin was a tyrant. A tyrant is a person who has usurped power; people hate him and try to overthrow him. But no one encroached on Stalin’s power, they loved him, they could not imagine their life without him.

In Stalin's time they said that Stalin is Lenin today. During Perestroika this was precisely refuted, and today Lenin and Stalin are contrasted, only with a different sign. Previously, the advantage was on Lenin's side, now it is on Stalin's side. But Stalin constantly talked about himself as a student of Lenin and a continuer of his work. Why don't we believe Stalin? After all, he himself probably knew better whose student and successor he was? And Lenin taught that the subject of history is the people.

At one time, Joseph Vissarionovich himself also said that Stalin is not him, Stalin is the USSR. I think that by this he wanted to say that he was the kind of leader that the people of the USSR needed in order to build the state that they had. It was a state built on a fundamentally different basis than everything before it and its field. In it, property belonged to the state, and therefore to everyone. (It was later that the enemies of the USSR said that “the state is nobody’s”). It was the same with power. What is the purpose of power in the state? Protect property and owner. In the USSR, property belonged to the state - and it was the government that protected it. Why was the government so tough? Because there was probably no other way to preserve the property. I think this was due precisely to the nature of property in a socialist state - since it belongs to everyone, it is more people who want to appropriate it for themselves. The number of these people is potentially equal to the number of potential owners. The authorities in those states where they protect the property of the upper class are also very cruel to those who want to appropriate it, to the same revolutionaries.

So, this was a period when the people had not yet become disillusioned with such a state; they themselves considered it necessary to observe the necessary cruelty against their own erring members. “We are such a people that we need to be stricter with us.” People saw the benefit of everyone building together new life so that improvement occurs steadily, for everyone at once. Roughly speaking, to keep them warm in winter, they did not build a personal stove in their house, did not buy a heater, but first built a thermal power plant, installed a centralized heating system, and then warmed themselves by the radiators.

I believe that the people have a collective mind and a sense of self-preservation. Then people knew that there would soon be a war, that they had to hurry, and they temporarily abandoned dreams of a beautiful and calm life. Stalin was their leader precisely because he was the best at mobilizing people for work and heroism.

Surprisingly Lately liberals began to give Stalin credit as a leader who carried out modernization. When they begin to wonder what they would have done if they had been in his place at that time, they have nothing else to offer.

So, 1924. After the Civil War, the country is in ruins. There is no industry, traditions have been destroyed, but the people have stockpiles of weapons, these are no longer peaceful peasants - almost every one of them knows how to fight and kill. In the cities there is a mass of lumpen population, a lot of criminals, especially since the Provisional Government managed to release all the hardened criminals. However, they would have fled to war anyway. How many offended representatives of the former ruling classes are left? What about the nationalists? And what, that spy and terrorist networks were not created abroad, that there was no angry diaspora of emigrants of all stripes? And foreign governments, didn’t they hate the USSR? And you will assure that Soviet power were there any enemies?

But Stalin urgently needs to carry out modernization. Recreate and re-create the heavy, and especially the defense industry. They do not give loans to the USSR. Our only export product then was grain. But in the fields distributed to the peasants in accordance with the Decree on Land, not much grows. The village lacks equipment, high-quality grain, breeding cattle, etc. There is a normal stratification into large owners and outsiders. In 50 years, large latifundia would probably have formed again, and the peasants left without land would have become agricultural workers or gone to the city. And there, from small industries, you see, large ones would start up. But, excuse me, that’s not why we made the socialist revolution, we fought, and there was no time to wait. Stalin carried out collectivization, forming large farms from above. And they already contain tractors, high-quality grain and breeding cattle. Hospitals, schools, kindergartens, and cultural clubs are built on collective farms. But, most importantly, the grain was exported, and factories began to be built with the proceeds. Do you think the peasants were glad that their land was taken away from them again? Yes, they only supported the Reds for her sake. Some went to the city - at first this was not prevented, since personnel were needed for industry, others protested, especially, of course, those who were considered wealthy. I already wrote that these were not peaceful villagers, but men with weapons who survived the Civil War. So they were repressed. In total there was repression, i.e. moved with his family to Siberia, about 5% of all peasants. In percentage terms this is not much, but in absolute numbers it is a lot. The only surprising thing is that today, no matter who you look at, everyone’s great-grandfathers were kulaks, and no one’s were poor people, or even descendants of those who carried out these repressions. (This is for those who admit that they are from peasants. The rest of us are more from princes).

Further, the ruling elite continued to debate about how the country should develop further; there was a fierce struggle for power. This was not the time to start a discussion. Stalin treated his opponents harshly, but they also did not take others into account in their time. The new cadres who came to replace the old ones only strove to appropriate part of the public property for themselves. They got a little lazy - they were already building a two-story apartment with marble, etc. Both shoddy work and laziness were considered theft. All this was followed by punishment, which is now called repression. Was it possible to do without mass repressions? Don't know. Then they couldn't. Previously, it seemed to me that it was possible, but now, when I look at everything that is happening around me, it already seems to me that if it was so then, it would have been difficult to resist. Did they go too far with the repressions? Certainly. But I don’t like it when everything that Stalin, and now the USSR as a whole, did, comes down only to repression.

Then the people got tired. They wanted Perestroika, a market economy. Got. I must admit that if there is the will of the people, then this is correct. Another question is that then the people, in my opinion, wanted to survive, but now they want to die, but that is their right. But still people are more fair than our Westerners. They do not separate Stalin from themselves and believe that he did what was necessary then. And enough of cursing him.

Was Stalin a terrible tyrant or was he a good leader and a great visionary? The selection presents the memoirs of the Chief of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, Army General Sergei Matveevich Shtemenko.

I am counting primarily on the young reader (19-25 years old), because the majority of the adult generation has nothing to tell or explain on this topic...

From the first book, “The General Staff during the War,” 1975, I selected some points characterizing Stalin as the leader of a huge country, as a person, as a commander and as common man. Read and draw your own conclusions...

Comrade Ivanov... that’s what I.V. was called during the war. Stalin.
Let `s start…

I. Moment from the report of Antonov A.I. (First Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army):

Sit down and write a directive to Vatutin, Stalin ordered me (stenographed by S.M. Shtemenko). - Send a copy to Comrade Zhukov.
He himself armed himself with a red pencil and, walking along the table, dictated the first phrase:
- "Events last days have shown that you have not taken into account the experience of the past and continue to repeat old mistakes both in planning and in carrying out operations."
This was followed by a pause - Stalin collected his thoughts. Then, as they say, in one breath, a whole paragraph was dictated:
- “The desire to attack everywhere and to capture as much territory as possible without consolidating success and firmly securing the flanks of attack groups is an offensive of an indiscriminate nature. Such an offensive leads to the dispersal of forces and means and makes it possible for the enemy to strike at the flank and rear of our far advanced ones and not flanked groups."
The Supreme Commander stopped for a minute and read what was written over my shoulder. At the end of the phrase he added in his own hand: “and beat them piece by piece.” Then the dictation continued:
- “Under such circumstances, the enemy managed to reach the rear of the 1st Tank Army, located in the Alekseevka, Kovyagi area; then he struck the open flank of the 6th Guards Army formations that reached the Otrada, Vyazovaya, Panasovka line, and finally, using your carelessness, the enemy on August 20 launched a strike from the Akhtyrka area to the southeast against the rear of the 27th Army and the 4th and 5th Guards Tank Corps.

The Supreme Commander stopped again, read what was written, crossed out the words “taking advantage of your carelessness” and then continued:
“I am once again forced to point out to you the inadmissibility of the mistakes you have repeatedly repeated during operations, and I demand that the task of eliminating the enemy’s Akhtyrka group, as the most important task, be completed in the coming days.
You can do this because you have enough funds.
I ask you not to get carried away with the task of covering the Kharkov bridgehead from Poltava, but to focus all your attention on the real and specific task - the liquidation of the Akhtyrka enemy group, because without the liquidation of this enemy group, serious successes of the Voronezh Front became impossible."
At the end of the last paragraph, Stalin ran his eyes over it, again from behind my shoulder, strengthened the meaning of what was written by inserting the word “scatter” after “Please not” and ordered the final text to be repeated out loud.
“Please don’t waste your time, don’t get carried away with the task of coverage...” I read.
The Supreme nodded his head affirmatively and signed the paper. A few minutes later the telegram went to the front.

II. Lunch with Stalin at the Near Dacha:

I.V. Stalin then followed very closely the events on the approaches to the Baltic states. Antonov and I had to go to him with a report at the “Near Dacha” more often than usual. One day we got there just at lunchtime (Stalin dined at 9-10 pm, and sometimes later). The Supreme Commander quickly resolved all the issues and invited us to his dining room. This happened more than once, and my memory recorded some interesting details.
Stalin's dinner, even a very large one, always took place without the services of waiters. They only brought everything they needed to the dining room and silently left. Cutlery, bread, cognac, vodka, dry wines, spices, salt, some herbs, vegetables and mushrooms were placed on the table in advance. As a rule, there were no sausages, hams or other snacks. He did not tolerate preservatives.
The first dinner dishes in large bowls were located somewhat to the side on another table. There were also stacks of clean plates.
Stalin approached the containers, lifted the lids and looked in, saying out loud, but not addressing anyone:
“Yeah, soup... And here’s the soup... Here’s the cabbage soup... Let’s pour in the cabbage soup,” and he poured it himself, and then carried the plate to the dining table.
Without any invitation, each of those present did the same, regardless of their position. They poured themselves whatever they wanted. Then they brought a set of second courses, and everyone also took from them what they liked best. Of course, they drank little, just one or two glasses. For the first time, Antonov and I didn’t drink at all. Stalin noticed this and, smiling slightly, said:
- The General Staff officers can also have a glass.
Instead of a third, there was often tea. They poured it from a large, boiling samovar, which stood on the same separate table. The teapot with tea leaves was heated on the burner.
The conversation during lunch was predominantly of a business nature, touching on the same issues of war, the work of industry and Agriculture. Stalin did most of the talking, and the others only answered his questions. Only on rare occasions did he allow himself to touch on some abstract topics.
Later, when I was Chief of the General Staff, I had to be at Stalin’s dinner table not only in Moscow, but also in the south, where we were called to report during his vacation. The informal table ritual remained exactly the same there.

So: By 8 o’clock in the evening, the leadership of the General Staff was invited to the Kremlin... ...In conclusion, I.V. stood up. Stalin addressed everyone present:
- Comrades, allow me to raise one more, final toast. I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people, and above all to the health of the Russian people.
The audience responded to this with shouts of “hurray” and stormy applause.
“I drink,” Stalin continued, “first of all to the health of the Russian people because they are the most outstanding nation of all the nations that make up the Soviet Union.”
I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people because in this war they have earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country.
I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people, not only because they are a leading people, but also because they have a clear mind, persistent character and patience.
Our government made many mistakes; we had moments of despair in 1941-1942, when our army retreated, left our native villages and cities in Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Leningrad region, the Baltic states, the Karelo-Finnish Republic, left because there was no other way out. Another people could say to the government: you have not lived up to our expectations, go away, we will install another government that will make peace with Germany and provide us with peace. But the Russian people did not agree to this, because they believed in the correctness of their government’s policy and made sacrifices to ensure the defeat of Germany. And this is the trust of the Russian people Soviet government turned out to be the decisive force that ensured the historical victory over the enemy of humanity - over fascism.
Thanks to him, the Russian people, for this trust!
For the health of the Russian people!

P.S. The victory banner, hoisted on the Reichstag, was ordered to be delivered to Moscow with special military honors in June 1945. On the morning of June 19, the head of the political department of the 3rd Shock Army, Colonel F.Ya. Lisitsyn at the Berlin airfield solemnly presented it to junior sergeant Kantaria, sergeant Egorov, captains Samsonov and Neustroev. On the same day they arrived at the capital's Central Airfield. Here the Victory Banner was met by the honor guard of the Moscow garrison with the standard bearer, Hero of the Soviet Union, Senior Sergeant F.A. Shkirev and two assistants, Heroes of the Soviet Union, Guard Sergeant Major I.P. Panyshev and Sergeant P.S. Mashtakov.

I.V. Stalin delivers a report on the 24th anniversary of the Great October Revolution socialist revolution. Moscow, November 6, 1941

Now let me explain what I meant.
Considering the great wealth of information that says that Stalin destroyed many people in the Gulags, I still want to note some points that were deposited in my memory after reading materials about him:
A) A fighter - for a long time he was in the ranks of, so to speak, resistance to the tsarist regime, which leaves a certain imprint;
B) During his life he did not show any excesses - neither in clothing, nor in technology, nor in any special wealth;
C) And indeed - after Stalin’s death it turned out that he had nothing - absolutely nothing;
D) The Supreme Commander-in-Chief in the Second World War - he personally took part in the development of documents, plans and some operations, and it seems to me that he gave very effective military advice to his subordinates;
D) Raised for short term country from a lying position to an attention position;
E) Until our time, all great buildings are the merit of his time. And we can continue...

Now according to the text above:

I. In the text of the telegram at this point:
“Under such circumstances, the enemy managed to get out... Vyazovaya, Panasovka, and finally, using your carelessness, the enemy on August 20 launched a strike from the Akhtyrka area to the southeast against the rear of the 27th Army, 4th and 5th Guards Tank Corps.
As a result of these enemy actions, our troops suffered significant and unjustified losses, and a favorable position for defeating the Kharkov enemy group was lost."
Stalin crossed out the words “taking advantage of your carelessness” and the telegram went on without these words.
What I wanted to say is that it seems to me that Stalin did not get personal here, did not focus on the fact that this was some kind of personal mistake of Vatutin... If Stalin had been a tyrant, on the contrary, he would have focused attention on this.

II. The moment of lunch at the "Near Dacha" - there are no waiters, everyone pours themselves and serves them themselves. You can say like the war and all that - what kind of waiters are there! But Shtemenko goes on to say that this was always the case when he went to dinner with the Supreme Commander.

III. Stalin's toast at the Victory celebration. Here we can say that these are pretentious words in their purest form... but! If we throw away all the conventions, it turns out like this: the speaker was a Georgian by nationality, I don’t know whether it was from a piece of paper (I think it’s unlikely from a piece of paper), but the words were spoken from the heart, as Georgians say toasts - I know.
Then the words about “... that the Russians are the most outstanding nation of all the nations that make up the Soviet Union and that they have a clear mind, persistent character and patience...”, he said exactly knowing this - there was something and with whom to compare, at least in your environment.
Also the part where he says “Another people could have told the government: you have not lived up to our expectations, go away, we will install another government that will make peace with Germany and provide us with peace. But the Russian people did not agree to this...” said with focusing on those moments from military reports that talked about the personal courage of an individual. Stalin knew exactly what was in the Russian soul and apparently studied it thoroughly. Apparently all this was deposited on him.