Interview with Elena Anatolyevna Prudnikova. we need to talk and write about the big lie in the history of the USSR. Interview with Elena Prudnikova. So when

I recently learned about this musical group and have already become their fan. I am very glad that more and more talented and creative young people with leftist views, and also theoretically savvy, are appearing. It cannot be otherwise, because Communism is the youth of the world!…

June 12th, 2017

Most memoirs of Soviet military leaders tirelessly repeat the idea that the beginning of the Great Patriotic War found most of the Red Army soldiers peacefully sleeping, which is why the troops of the border districts were defeated. Naturally, Stalin is to blame, who did not heed the warnings of the military and until the last resisted putting the army on combat readiness. Likewise, French and German generals swore in their memoirs that they tried their best to dissuade Napoleon and Hitler, respectively, from attacking Russia, but they did not listen. The goal in all three cases is the same - to shift the blame for defeats from oneself to the head of state, and each time studying the documents gives a completely opposite picture.

()

Nevertheless, the Poles were recognized by the Soviets, and then Russian authorities I am not satisfied with the USSR’s guilt in the Katyn execution. The Polish side in Strasbourg challenged the closure of the official investigation into the Katyn massacre, the decision of which was made by the Main Military Prosecutor's Office of Russia in 2004, citing the death of the criminals. The Poles demand continuation of the investigation and legal rehabilitation of the murdered officers.

Oddly enough, many Russian citizens also demand the same. Like the Poles, they are not satisfied with the state of this case and would like to continue the investigation and establish the truth. In short, in addition to the vague confessions of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, it would be desirable to obtain at least some more facts.

It was this desire to get facts that prompted Moscow researcher Ivan Chigirin and me to write a book about Katyn two years ago. This turned out to be surprisingly easy to do - almost all Soviet primary materials are in the “Burdenko Commission” fund at GARF, and there are also German sources there. We analyzed this entire array of information in detail in the book, but here I will report only the main facts and results.

When we met, Elena Anatolyevna turned out to be a very active, lively and charming woman. It is interesting to communicate with her, she knows a lot.

Very hospitable and inviting. We spent several hours together and I'm sorry that they ended faster than we would have liked.
The entire conversation with Elena Anatolyevna is in these three videos. The most important thing is that we agreed that this meeting will not be the last.

There are still so many blank spots in our recent history, so many facts exist on their own. Everyone who is interested in the truth about our history, about the top officials of the USSR state and about those who were unjustly slandered should know about them, and there is no need to hide those who worked for destruction in the country, who falsified history and replaced the truth, who distorted the facts in their petty and alien global interests, no matter what words it is justified by, no matter what the motivation.

Lenin, Stalin, Beria

Beria system

Collectivization

Biography of Elena Prudnikova

Elena Anatolyevna Prudnikova was born in Leningrad.
Graduated from Leningrad Polytechnical Institute, Faculty of Physics and Mechanics, Department of Solid State Physics.

She began her journalistic work in the large-circulation newspaper of the Elektropribor plant, a source of personnel for Leningrad journalism. Then she worked in the large-circulation newspaper of the association “Soyuz”, worked as first deputy editor-in-chief in the newspaper “Good Day” in the Frunzensky district, and as a correspondent for the newspaper “Solidarity”.

She became known for her sensational biographies of Stalin and Beria. To the correspondent’s question “What happened?” the author replied: “It’s just that in my gut, in my liver, I always felt some kind of big lie in everything that was said about Stalin’s time, and I wanted to understand it at least a little, but I still couldn’t get around to it. And then our St. Petersburg historian, Alexander Kolpakidi, suddenly invites me to work with him on a book. Well, how could you miss such an opportunity? After all The best way study something - write about it.”

Collaborated with several central publishing houses. Her books “Stalin. Second murder", "Beria. Stalin's Last Knight", "Double Conspiracy. Secrets Stalin's repressions", "Khrushchev. Creators of Terror”, “Land of the Virgin Mary”, each of which became some kind of sensation. The author's historical specialization can be called “an attempt on myths.”
Since 2007, Elena Anatolyevna has been the editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Our Version on the Neva”.

As an expert, she starred in documentary film series on the NTV channel “Kremlin Children”, “Kremlin Funerals”, “Soviet Biographies” and several more films on the Mir TV channel.

Bibliography (books by Elena Prudnikova)
Kolpakidi A.I., Prudnikova E.A. Double conspiracy. Stalin and Hitler: Failed coups. - M.: “Olma-Press”, 2000
Prudnikova E.A. Stalin. Second murder. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House “Neva”, “Olma-Press”, 2003
Prudnikova E.A. Beria. Crimes that never happened. St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Neva", "Olma-Press", 2005
Prudnikova E.A. Richard Sorge - intelligence officer No. 1? - St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Neva", 2004
Prudnikova E.A., Gorchakov O.A., Popov A.Yu., Tsvetkov A.I., Paporov Yu.N. Legends of the GRU - St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Neva", 2005
Prudnikova E.A. Beria. Stalin's last knight. - M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2005
Prudnikova E.A. Joseph Dzhugashvili. The most humane person. - M.: “Yauza”, “Eksmo”, 2005
Prudnikova E.A. I deny you, Satan. - M.: “Yauza”, “Eksmo”, 2005
Prudnikova E.A. Land of the Virgin. - M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2006
Prudnikova E.A. Kolpakidi A.I. Double conspiracy. Secrets of Stalin's repressions. - M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2006
Prudnikova E.A. Khrushchev. Creators of terror. - M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2007
Prudnikova E.A. 1953. Fatal year Soviet history. - M.: “Yauza”, “Eksmo”, 2008
Prudnikova E.A. Last Stand Lavrentiy Beria. - M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2009
Prudnikova E.A. Bridge over the fiery river. - M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2009
Prudnikova E.A. Son of a Witch - M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2009
Prudnikova E.A. Lenin-Stalin. Technology of the impossible. - M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2009
Prudnikova E.A. Stalin. Battle for bread. - M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2010
Prudnikova E.A. The second murder of Stalin (reissue). - M.: “Olma-Media Group”, 2010

Extremely interesting material.
There is so much “low-quality art” heaped up around Lavrentiy Beria that you stop believing.
A calm look (like that of Stalin) is very helpful.

Original taken from vladimir_krm in Elena Prudnikova: interview for the book “The Last Battle of Lavrentiy Beria”

The interview is an afterword to the new book “The Last Battle of Lavrentiy Beria.”

Presented with abbreviations.

You know, Elena, it’s mine desire After reading your book, I immediately ask: what is true in it, and where is the fiction here?

Complex issue. Approaching the matter as a researcher, with all the necessary tediousness, I will say that, basically, everything is made up - well, how can I really know what Stalin and Beria talked about and how? And as an author fiction- that the book is overloaded with facts and there is too much of a history textbook in it. This, you know, is a question of criteria. If we talk about naked facts- here there is what actually happened, what did not happen, and also tells about what, most likely, actually happened, but there is no evidence about this and about what did not happen, but there is ample evidence about this and detailed memories.

- Do you want to speak in riddles? Then let's classify. So first...

About what really happened

(Two rulers Soviet Union)

- ...Firstly, there was definitely a coup d’etat on June 26, 1953. This is not a struggle for power between Stalin’s heirs, but the most ordinary, normal putsch.

-Can you justify it?

Certainly. The version of the “sharing of power” is based on the completely ridiculous assumption that Stalin could afford to die without identifying and preparing a successor so that he could take the helm from his hands at any moment. The story about Stalin's pathological lust for power, that he was afraid of competitors - like many others of the same nature - was launched by Khrushchev. Neither one nor the other is absolutely impossible for the real Stalin.

- Why do you think that Beria was the successor?

So this is written in poster letters throughout the post-war structure of the USSR. The fact is that Stalin’s successor is constantly being sought where, in principle, he could not be at that time - in the Central Committee. But this is an aberration of vision introduced by the later, Brezhnev era, when the party received absolute and unlimited power in the country. The same thing happened before 1939. However, from 1940 to 1953 this was absolutely not the case. Let us remember: back at the July plenum of 1953, Malenkov was named Stalin’s successor, and he was in the honorable first place in the country’s leadership starting in March, immediately after the leader’s death. But Malenkov was Chairman of the Council of Ministers and just an ordinary member of the Politburo after he refused the post of Secretary of the Central Committee in the spring of 1953. Shifting the center of gravity government controlled from the Politburo to the Council of People's Commissars began back in 1939, and Stalin's successor must be sought precisely in the Council of Ministers. And there it is surprisingly easy.

- How exactly?

- In 1942, the Operational Bureau of the State Defense Committee was formed, after the war it was transformed into the Operational Bureau of the Council of Ministers, and then simply called the Bureau of the Council of Ministers. It was a kind of “general headquarters” of the Soviet Union. They remained outside his jurisdiction - if they remained! - just a few ministries, of the significant ones: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of State Security, the Ministry of State Control and the command of the army. The man who headed the Bureau of the Council of Ministers was, by his position, the second person in the USSR. So: starting from 1944, this man was Beria. In addition, he also supervised three law enforcement agencies: the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of State Security and the Moscow State Committee (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the army were personally supervised by Stalin, who also dealt with general, strategic issues of the country’s development). In fact, power in the state was divided between Stalin and Beria, with Stalin’s overall supervision of the “Beria” half - Isn't it obvious who the leader was going to hand over the helm to? In addition, it follows that Beria was either a complete and absolute like-minded person of Stalin, or his views suited the leader - otherwise Lavrenty Pavlovich would never have seen such a volume of powers in his life. In fact, after the war, the country was ruled not by one leader, but by two: old and young, and the first gradually transferred the levers of control to the second. By the way, about this, God willing, I am going to write the next book, which will be called “The Double Star System.”

- Do you want to say that already in 1944 Stalin identified his successor?

I think this was done much earlier, in 1944 his solution just came to the surface. And how can I say... Until now, I have taken 1944 as a reference point, when Beria became Stalin’s deputy for the State Defense Committee. Then, while studying the topic of June 22, I found out that even then Beria was part of the leading “troika” of the USSR - the narrowest of the narrow leadership that ever existed in the country. He was also entrusted with carrying out the most important operation of the Great Patriotic War - the evacuation of industry from threatened areas. And the new conditional point was August 8, 1941, when Stalin became the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Even though he was a genius, in order to calmly lead the course of the war, focusing on managing the army, he had to rely on the “commander-in-chief” of the entire rear, that is, a single military camp called the USSR. Of the four remaining members of the State Defense Committee, and of the entire Politburo, only Beria was suitable for this post.

-You forget about Molotov...

Molotov never worked independently; Stalin closely looked after him at all posts. And at the moment we are talking about, the leader simply did not have the time or energy for this. He needed a person who could act independently, without nannies. While still the First in Georgia, Beria showed that he could do it, and how he showed it! But August 8 is, again, a moment of action, and the decision, I think, was made much earlier.

- So when?

There is one indirect indication. The fact is that a successor will not grow up on his own, he must be trained, and this process is not quick. At the 19th Congress, Stalin said: in order to educate a statesman, it takes ten years, then he corrected himself - fifteen. If we subtract fifteen years from 1952, we get 1937. But if it is true that since 1949 Stalin began to transfer power, then we will find ourselves already in 1934. This is a very interesting date. In thirty-four, Kirov was killed, and Stalin had to think about a new successor. And he is not the kind of person who thinks for a long time.

- So, the first person Stalin prepared to be his successor was Kirov?!!

And there’s simply no one else! For Stalin, the economy was always a priority. This means that he could only be replaced as head of state by someone who had experience in successful integrated management of a country or region. There were few of these at that time. In the Politburo - Ordzhonikidze and Kirov. The first one didn't fit in the row personal qualities and because of nationality. And the fact that they say that Kirov was also not very suitable for a number of properties - but Stalin did not have the opportunity to look ideal leader, he had to choose from those who were nearby.

- Ordzhonikidze’s nationality was a hindrance to Stalin. But what about Beria’s nationality?

It's not just about nationality. Ordzhonikidze was incredibly hot-tempered and, at the slightest, used his hands. Well, what kind of head of state is this who can get angry and punch him in the face? As for Beria, he was a man of such caliber when little things like inappropriate nationality no longer matter. I think that if he had managed to live in his post until he was seventy years old, like Stalin, we would now be arguing which of them did more for the USSR.

- Even so?

“In his “hundred days” alone, he showed himself to be a statesman of historical proportions. It would seem, what can be done in a hundred days? But such interesting political transformations were started... and we still don’t know what was planned in the economy!

- So who thought of it? economic reform- Stalin or Beria?

It was probably Stalin who came up with the idea, but Beria’s role, I believe, was very important here.

- So, in your opinion, Stalin was against the economics of socialism?

But they simply didn’t have time to create it. Starting from the first five-year plans, the USSR economy was always an emergency and for this reason a command economy. They began to think about economic mechanisms after the war, when there was no longer a need for such a frantic race and it was necessary to move on to a normal peacetime economy. Some kind of transformation was clearly being prepared. Let us remember Stalin’s “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” - they appeared precisely during that period. And I think the impetus was given by the “Gosplan case” when it came out - What What can happen to the economy is an unscrupulous planner or simply a traitor. Voznesensky was shot, but the problem remained.

- And do you think the economy was supposed to be a market economy?

Planned market, of course. Back in the 30s, when the whole country worked not for money, but according to orders, economic mechanisms were successfully used in “Beria’s” Georgia. There in an interesting way enterprises of union subordination, working according to a national plan, and local ones were combined, as well as command and economic methods. In general, it would be necessary to carefully study the Georgian experience of the 30s - precisely as a testing ground for the new socialist economy. By the way, I had to deal with the statements of major Western economists - truly major ones, and not those with whom our “boys in pink pants” consulted - and these specialists said that one of the main goals of “perestroika” was to destroy the Soviet planned economy, since this is the economy of the day after tomorrow, and nothing more effective has yet been invented. Recently I heard a very interesting comparison, with which I generally agree. The market economy is a magnificent, sophisticated last word technology and design of a racing car. The Soviet planned economy is a clumsy, ugly and unfinished spaceship. And even unreformed and cumbersome, this economy was still a dangerous competitor. And returning to the late 40s - early 50s..., only one thing should be said: whoever developed this reform, only Beria could carry it out.

- Why not Stalin?

He no longer had the same strength for the day-to-day work of carrying out the reform. The head is the same, but the ability to work, alas... I’m just starting to work on that period, but today the more I learn, the more I understand, which Khrushchev cut off our future.

Returning once again to the question of a successor - why did Malenkov become the head of state after Stalin’s death?

Perhaps this was a compromise condition in the negotiations between the party and the government, but, rather, it was Beria’s decision. It was he who was the first, not counting the purely formal chairmanship of Khrushchev, to take the floor on March 5 at the meeting when the question of power was being decided, and proposed Malenkov for this post. Thus, by the way, in the distribution of roles, he played in the new government the role that Stalin played in the 30s. Let us remember that the leader did not always occupy the main positions himself. Let us also remember that it was Beria who gave instructions to doctors to Stalin's dacha, he ordered to stop resuscitation measures- that is, he behaved like a real head of state. And until June 26, the government obeyed him unquestioningly, so then they all had to try very hard at the plenum, explaining the reason why they did this. Why didn’t Beria become the chairman of the Council of Ministers... There may be several versions here. In “Stalin’s Last Knight” I stated one thing - that it was a matter of nationality. This book contains another...

- And quite unexpected...

Yes, but what is impossible about it? Beria was for statesman young - 54 years old, but looked much older. There is evidence that he worked lying down - according to at least, he received the father of one of my friends in this way, and that man, a rather large designer, was extremely amazed. Finally, just a month ago I learned about the neuropsychic manifestations of radiation sickness - these are euphoria and depression turning into each other. If we take into account Beria’s temperament, this exactly coincides with what they said about him at the plenum and what they remembered about what he was like in the spring of 1953. He was clearly very sick with something, and what is the most natural, one might say professional, illness for the chairman of the atomic committee? By the way, two of his deputies, Malyshev and Zavenyagin, died from it in the mid-50s. We must not forget that radiation sickness was practically unstudied at that time, so doctors could hardly give any definite prognosis. And it would be simply irresponsible to take over government when you don’t know how much time you have left. And then what - a new redistribution of power?

- What else in your book is a historical fact?

Major political events, removals and appointments of government officials, plenums and congresses, etc. The general historical outline is quite accurately verified by dates and events. Biographies of Beria and other people are based only on real facts- except for dialogues, of course. Although in this case, some of them relate to those that could take place - if not with the same words, then with the same meaning...

About what didn't happen

(Fiction as confirmation of truth)

- ...Firstly and most importantly, there was no arrest of Beria. Before working on this book, I was ninety percent sure of this, now I’m ninety-nine percent sure.

Prudnikova Elena Anatolyevna - Russian writer and journalist, has been working in media for more than twenty years mass media, in Moscow and St. Petersburg newspapers. For the last ten years he has been combining journalism with writing. The total circulation of her books exceeded 100 thousand copies.

When we met, Elena Anatolyevna turned out to be a very active, lively and charming woman. It is interesting to communicate with her, she knows a lot.

Very hospitable and inviting. We spent several hours together and I'm sorry that they ended faster than we would have liked.

The entire conversation with Elena Anatolyevna is in these three videos. The most important thing is that we agreed that this meeting will not be the last.

Biography of Elena Prudnikova
Elena Anatolyevna Prudnikova was born in Leningrad.
Graduated from the Leningrad Polytechnic Institute, Faculty of Physics and Mechanics, Department of Solid State Physics.

Collaborated with several central publishing houses. Her books “Stalin. Second murder", "Beria. Stalin's Last Knight", "Double Conspiracy. Secrets of Stalin's repressions", "Khrushchev. Creators of Terror”, “Land of the Virgin Mary”, each of which became some kind of sensation. The author's historical specialization can be called “an attempt on myths.”
Since 2007, Elena Anatolyevna has been the editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Our Version on the Neva”.

As an expert, she starred in documentary film series on the NTV channel “Kremlin Children”, “Kremlin Funerals”, “Soviet Biographies” and several more films on the Mir TV channel.

Bibliography (books by Elena Prudnikova)
Kolpakidi A.I., Prudnikova E.A. Double conspiracy. Stalin and Hitler: Failed coups. — M.: “Olma-Press”, 2000
Prudnikova E.A. Stalin. Second murder. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House “Neva”, “Olma-Press”, 2003
Prudnikova E.A. Beria. Crimes that never happened. St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Neva", "Olma-Press", 2005
Prudnikova E.A. Richard Sorge - intelligence officer No. 1? - St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Neva", 2004
Prudnikova E.A., Gorchakov O.A., Popov A.Yu., Tsvetkov A.I., Paporov Yu.N. Legends of the GRU - St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Neva", 2005
Prudnikova E.A. Beria. Stalin's last knight. — M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2005
Prudnikova E.A. Joseph Dzhugashvili. The most humane person. - M.: “Yauza”, “Eksmo”, 2005
Prudnikova E.A. I deny you, Satan. - M.: “Yauza”, “Eksmo”, 2005
Prudnikova E.A. Land of the Virgin. — M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2006
Prudnikova E.A. Kolpakidi A.I. Double conspiracy. Secrets of Stalin's repressions. — M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2006
Prudnikova E.A. Khrushchev. Creators of terror. — M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2007
Prudnikova E.A. 1953. The fateful year of Soviet history. - M.: “Yauza”, “Eksmo”, 2008
Prudnikova E.A. Lavrentiy Beria's last fight. — M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2009
Prudnikova E.A. Bridge over the fiery river. — M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2009
Prudnikova E.A. Son of a Witch - M.: Olma Media Group, 2009
Prudnikova E.A. Lenin-Stalin. Technology of the impossible. — M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2009
Prudnikova E.A. Stalin. Battle for bread. — M.: “Olma Media Group”, 2010
Prudnikova E.A. The second murder of Stalin (reissue). — M.: “Olma-Media Group”, 2010

September 25 at the Perm City Library named after. A.S. Pushkin, within the framework of the “Russian Meetings” project, an open lecture by Elena Prudnikova “Stalin, Beria, repressions: myths and reality” took place. Elena Prudnikova is a writer and publicist, author of popular books covering issues of Soviet history. On the eve of the lecture “SV – Perm” I met with Elena Prudnikova.

- Elena Anatolyevna, what do you see as the main, essential component of the repressions of the Stalinist period, what is the meaning of this phenomenon?

Repression is, I would say, a national catastrophe. This is the price that was paid by our people for the fight against the mafia of national leaders. There is nothing new in this. We have that the current government is fighting with the regionalists, that it fought a hundred years ago, that Peter the Great fought. This was one of the battles of this war.

- Today, many believe that Stalin is a kind of opposite of Lenin: that he is a patriot and almost a secret monarchist who cleansed out the “cosmolytic” Leninist guard...

Lenin inherited a dying, collapsed country, in which a little more - and millions of people would simply begin to die of hunger. Everyone got scared! Emperor Michael was afraid, the Provisional Government was afraid - everyone was afraid, no one wanted to take power in this country. Just because the Bolsheviks were not afraid, they deserve respect. But, among other things, Lenin brought this country together, under Lenin’s leadership they fought off the external enemy, who - various powers, firms, concerns - with great pleasure entered into agreements with the “government” of Russia. But Lenin abandoned them all! He kicked them all out, gathered them together and pacified the country. And he managed to pacify the country quite bloodlessly. If Anton Ivanovich Denikin had come here, blood would have flowed to the lower branches of the birches.

Stalin is the successor of Lenin's work. We don’t know what Lenin’s project was - he gathered the country and died. Then Stalin came to power, and what drove him further was simply economic necessity, because the state had to be pulled out of the swamp in which it was located. This swamp is centuries old. The country was pulled out of it in 10 years, which none of the economists still believes. This project was Stalinist. That's why Stalin is second great person.

Well, Beria is the third great man. Beria managed to create such a defense industry, which, in fact, pulled us into perestroika. If it weren’t for the defense industry, I think there would already be a bunch of foreign colonies here. So, I think that they were successors to each other, these three titans, whom the Lord God in His great mercy sent to Russia, because, apparently, he still needed Russia. I hope that it is still needed now.

- Then this is the question. Even those who idolize Stalin make one complaint to him: where is Stalin’s successor, where is the continuation of his course?

Beria. Beria is Stalin's successor, if we look at real post-war documents. The fact is that Khrushchev came to power as a result of a coup d'etat. It was a full-fledged coup d'etat, the government changed. Because by the 50s Stalin had already built a normal governed country, which was governed by the Council of Ministers, where the head of the executive branch was the Head of the Council of Ministers, and not at all Secretary General Central Committee. Khrushchev, having arrived, returned everything back, again the Secretary General became the head of state - and in our country, traditionally, by inertia, they are looking for Stalin’s successor in the Central Committee. But he’s not in the Central Committee! By that time the party had already been practically removed from power. How Beria became Stalin's first deputy in the GKO ( State Committee Defense) in 1944, so he remained in the Council of Ministers all the way.

- What was Beria’s political project then? Where would the country turn and what would happen to it?

It’s hard to say... At the end of his life, Stalin was preparing some reforms. Which ones, we don’t know - everything has been completely cleared. Beria, apparently, was supposed to implement them. But, judging by the remarks at that very plenum, the parties should have given up personnel and propaganda at the initial stage, removing them from all government administration. There is a version that changing the name to “CPSU” was necessary so that there would be a place for other parties next to the CPSU. So, it is quite possible that they wanted to introduce a multi-party system, but this is all just guesswork.

- Elena Anatolyevna, tell us about the reasons for your close interest in the figure of Lavrenty Beria. If the majority of Russians have a positive attitude towards Stalin, then Beria, with some indifference from society, is unprecedentedly demonized by journalists and a number of historians.

My attitude towards Beria changed as soon as I started writing a book about him. I started out by wondering if there was at least something human in this bloody monster. When I finished the book, there was no bloody monster. As for repressions, I really like to ask the question: “Where are they, Beria’s repressions?” No one saw them, because the repressions were carried out by Nikolai Ivanovich Yezhov. Beria then sat quietly in Transcaucasia and raised tangerines. When Beria came to the NKVD, the repressions stopped. The fact that he was considered the father of repression is also an echo of the smear campaign launched by Khrushchev after he carried out the coup d'etat in which Beria was killed. This is just reprisal against the previous one political leader. The slander, of course, was based on the principle: “Lie, lie, something will remain.” There is a lot left, but it’s time to know the honor, right? We can’t still sing from Khrushchev’s voice.

- Do you think Stalin was ideologically a communist, or did he have some other internal component? They say that he was not alien to the Orthodox worldview.

Patriarch Sergius of Starogorodsky, unappreciated and slandered, wrote in a letter to the Local Council back in 1923 that what the Bolsheviks are doing is very good, and this almost completely coincides with what our Lord Jesus Christ said, and “we would have been with them at all if not for their atheism.” If the Bolsheviks had abandoned atheism, they would have come to an excellent agreement. And in the end, they agreed with Sergius, even despite their atheism. Therefore, in general, why shouldn’t Stalin be a communist? Communism is quite consistent with the Sermon on the Mount.

- Which groups did Stalin really rely on? After all, he could not build such a country alone, conduct such a tough policy.

Intellectuals dreamed of building a perfect society. And people from among the people dreamed of building a society where there would be no hungry people and where people would be treated at least a little fairly. This idea of elementary justice, the idea of building a country where there are simply no hungry people, is Stalin’s idea, because the only people starving worse than in the Caucasus were in Russian villages. The intellectual utopia and the Stalinist idea are two different streams, and there is no need to confuse them. And Stalin relied on all the people in action. All the specialists who were promoted under the tsar or not, they understood one thing: power had arrived with which they could do things, and many happily “rushed” to them. It was on them, first of all, that Stalin relied.

When I started writing the book “The Battle for Bread,” I began to figure out how the people lived, and my hair started to stand up. How many peasant households do you think there were before the Revolution that were considered poor (poor means those who cannot feed themselves, or with great difficulty feed themselves)?

- Considering that there were systematic manifestations of hunger, maybe 70-80 percent...

75%, you guessed it. 75% of people who contributed nothing to the country's economy and were constantly on the verge of starvation. This situation has been developing for a very long time. Do you know how many doctors there were in Russian Empire how many patients per doctor in rural areas, like the Perm region?

Why is no one talking about health policy, education policy? Everyone latched on to these repressions: “Oh, we have 10 thousand people innocently shot!” And the fact that tens and hundreds of thousands of children’s lives were taken away from death is of no interest to anyone. Here it is, social racism in all its glory! An intellectual imprisoned for three years is interesting, but a peasant child saved from death, scarlet fever or measles is of no interest to anyone. “Cattle”, “boors”, who needs them?

- What does this have to do with the “tear of a child” that our intelligentsia constantly laments?

This is your child's tear! Yours, do you understand? Clean, white, from an intelligent family. This is social racism, which, in fact, has not gone away. Just as he was in the Russian Empire, he has resurrected beautifully in the Russian Federation.

- What is the reason for such a big economic efficiency countries under Stalin? After all, such growth rates, such inventions in a backward country, at such a level, are probably not found in any other country in the history.

Well, first of all, a planned economy. One of my economist friends said that the Western market economy is a luxurious, fancy racing car, and the Soviet planned economy is a rusty, large, imperfect spaceship. That is, they simply cannot be compared. And, of course, we were lucky, because the beginning of industrialization coincided with the beginning of the Great Depression, and therefore we were able to literally buy technology in the West for pennies, buy machine tools, in general, everything we needed. Firms, in order to survive, sold for absolutely ridiculous prices. They also bought people and brought them here to work. Here are two factors: a planned economy plus a lot of luck.

- But under Khrushchev and Brezhnev the economy is slowing down...

Naturally, it does, because Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev took such economic initiatives that marked the beginning of the collapse of the socialist system. It was Khrushchev who launched the mechanisms for the collapse of the USSR. He not only killed his predecessor, he also changed the course of the country.

- Still, do you think there was a murder?

Of course, murder! No one saw Beria after June 26 so that this evidence could be considered reliable. There are no fingerprints when registering for prison. There is no required photo when registering. Letters from the bunker - yes, they are easy to forge! That is, there is no evidence that he was alive. None at all.

- And the last question. Well-known anti-Soviet organizations are active in our region: “the museum of political repressions “Perm-36””, the “Memorial” society... Have you ever encountered their activities?

I have no complaints about Memorial. They earn their grants honestly. In the end, people who earn their money honestly deserve respect for this alone, because there are a lot of freeloaders who take money but don’t do the job. As for their activity, I welcome it in every possible way, because it is very difficult to fight the air, the shadow. You hit her, and the blow falls into the void. And here he is, in front of you - a real opponent who returns blow for blow. This is every boxer's dream. It is much easier to work with an opponent than when you shout into the void and don’t know whether they hear you or not. Therefore, in general, I strongly welcome the activities of Memorial as a good, worthy opponent with whom, in general, there is no shame in crossing arms.

Conducted the conversation
Pavel Guryanov