Zum Inhalt der Seite gehen

Suche

Beiträge, die mit soviet getaggt sind


Bild/Foto

THE MILITIA ARE SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE

107 years ago the Soviet militia was created.
Despite the renaming of the holiday, as well as the militia in the police, the holiday of internal affairs officers continue to be celebrated on the day when the Soviet militia was created, as actually continue to celebrate the holiday primary sources of other power structures of the Russian Federation.
#USSR #soviet #russian #Russia #history #militia #holiday


About the length of the working day


After World War II, Joseph Stalin again raises the issue of the urgent need for the widespread introduction of the 6-hour workday norm

...it would be wrong to think that it is possible to achieve such a serious cultural growth of the members of society without serious changes in the present state of labor. For this purpose it is necessary first of all to reduce the working day to at least 6 and then to 5 hours. This is necessary in order to give the members of society enough free time for a comprehensive education. For this it is necessary, further, to introduce compulsory polytechnic education, necessary for the members of society to be able to freely choose a profession and not be chained for life to one profession....
Joseph Stalin, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” September 28, 1952


After Stalin's death, the USSR leadership removed from the agenda the need to move to a six-hour day for the masses.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шестичасовой_рабочий_день
#USSR #russian #soviet #history #Stalin #communism #socialism #workerrights #humanrights #study for #future



How Khrushchev derailed the locomotive of history



Machine translation from https://histoireetsociete.com/2024/09/29/comment-khrouchtchev-a-fait-derailler-la-locomotive-de-lhistoire/

We are among ourselves... in this blog which has broken ties with social networks and which seeks to build in our small collective a place of collective reflection since this is not permitted in the political-media space which is heading towards war , fascistization, clientelist divisions and the fear of facing both the past and the future. As I tried to explain, we are in a temporal paradox, that of a historical shift. It is clear that what we are facing is new, the solutions are unusual and require experimentation, collective reflection... But at the same time what prohibits this essential cooperation is the way in which we have managed to convince the working class, the youth, all the victims that there was no other alternative than individualist coping... What is happening is abominable and our leaders are leading us towards the apocalypse, but socialism, the collective, is worse. And we will not get through this without confronting this trauma of the past as the Russians and the Chinese do. Once again this translation by Marianne on the “Khrushchevian derailment” represents a contribution and as long as it is ignored there cannot be a revolutionary party and not even a reformist one. Since with the end of the USSR, there is no longer a reformist party, only parties which believe they can more or less control the pace of regression, negotiate it. (note by Danielle Bleitrach translation by Marianne Dunlop historyandsociety)

By Serguei Kostrikov and Elena Kostrikova (1)

This text is actually the conclusion of the book by Serguei Kostrikov and Elena Kostrikova, The locomotives of history: the revolutionary year 1917, a title which alludes to the famous phrase of Karl Marx: “Revolutions are the locomotives of History”. I do not believe I am betraying the authors by attributing a large part of the responsibility for the derailment of the locomotive to Khrushchev, even if he was not the sole cause. (notes and translation by Marianne Dunlop for History and Society).

We are convinced that the materials contained in this book, taken from Russian periodicals of the revolutionary year 1917, convincingly prove that the February bourgeois revolution and the great October socialist revolution were inevitable. Contrary to the predictions of its enemies, not only did Russia not sink into the abyss of oblivion, but it became one of the greatest world powers, it defeated the universal evil of fascism, it led the struggle of the advanced forces of humanity against oppression, for real democracy, for justice, for national and social liberation – this is the historical merit of the working people led by the Bolshevik Party.

Ideological opponents of Marxism will say with philistine sarcasm: "Well, where did your world power go, why did it collapse, where is your Marxism-Bolshevism?" The Soviet system, the socialist economy and the friendship between our peoples withstood the test of strength during the years of relentless war. In the USSR, unlike Tsarist Russia, there were no irreconcilable contradictions, no economic and social problems that could not be resolved within the framework of socialism. Our power has not disintegrated, it has been destroyed. At the end of the 20th century, we all witnessed a monstrous betrayal, the example of which is difficult to find in history. This betrayal was committed by representatives of the ruling "elite", who placed themselves at the service of external forces who had never stopped fighting against the first socialist country in the world.

The roots of the tragedy that occurred lie not in the vices of socialism, but in the fact that at a certain stage the leadership of the Communist Party ceased to rely on Marxist doctrine, did not not realized the need for its development. “Without theory we are dead,” Stalin warned. The world was changing, the international situation posed more and more difficult questions, and at that time the field of ideology in our country gradually stagnated.

After World War II, the authority of the USSR and socialism had reached an exceptionally high level. This is evidenced by the new role of our country in the world, the emergence of new socialist states, the rise to the forefront of communist and workers' parties in many countries, the development of the national liberation movement in the colonial empires. From the point of view of bourgeois ideologists and politicians, it was necessary to disrupt this wave of growth of the authority of socialism and the influence of Marxist ideology. And in the bourgeois camp, it was necessary to find ways to modernize capitalism. This is clearly seen not only in the alternation of conservative and liberal parties in power, the establishment of neoliberalism and neoconservatism in the economy and politics. Reactionary movements, including neo-fascists, have been revived. They also tried to penetrate the sphere of left-wing ideology, not only in their country, but also in socialist countries. Many left-wing organizations appeared. All of them are characterized by petty-bourgeois revolutionism, ultra-leftist phrases, distancing from Marxism-Leninism, its revision, attempts at petty-bourgeois interpretation in relation to new conditions, or a complete rejection of the doctrine and a struggle against her.

These groupings reflected the objective tendencies of Western societies in the conditions of the scientific and technical revolution and the socio-economic processes that it engendered. Engineers, technicians and other intellectuals, previously privileged, inevitably transformed into openly exploited “proletarians of mental work” and became politically radicalized. On the other hand, the many leftists reflected the struggle of the bourgeoisie against the true communist movement, against Marxism as such. It is important that we understand the main thing: in the West there was an active intellectual search aimed at creating ideological constructs that opposed or destroyed Marxism. This was a new major front of ideological struggle. And we had to meet this challenge with all our might.

Why, having created a powerful socialist state, having won the Great Victory, were we not prepared for confrontation in a new form? Why, after making a gigantic breakthrough into the future, were we not able to truly evaluate what we had accomplished and defend it when the time was right? Why did people who were not only dogmatic, who did not develop Marxism, but who were not Marxists at all, find themselves at the head of the party? ?

One of the reasons lies in the changes of people within the state and party leadership that took place in the post-war period, and especially after the death of Stalin. Our victory was dearly paid for. The human losses were heavy and irreplaceable. To a large extent, the war destroyed an entire generation of newly formed Soviets. These were, one could say, people of the future, in good physical and moral health. Children of workers and peasants who, without the war, would have become production managers, scientists, representatives of creative professions, military and political leaders.

They constituted an invaluable genetic heritage for the nation. Today, we miss not only them, but also their children, who would have been raised to become true Soviets, true patriots of their country. Those who were lucky enough to survive performed a true miracle: in a few years they restored what had been destroyed, created a superpower and were the first to make a breakthrough into space.

Unfortunately, while the best representatives of our people were fighting and creating, careerists with Party cards were sneaking into power, skillfully posing as ideological communists. In the mid-1950s, at the top of the party bureaucracy, whose vices had been ruthlessly combatted by Stalin, there was a rush for power. The results are known. First of all, the denunciation and liquidation of Beria, then "the dismantling of the anti-party group Molotov-Malenkov-Kaganovich and others." In the end, Khrushchev, ignorant but skilled in the art of intrigue, prevailed over all others.

Under Stalin, every civil servant, whatever his rank, knew full well that his position did not protect him from the most severe sanctions. With Khrushchev, the apparatchiks received a guarantee of immunity – that is, in effect, irresponsibility – from the party apparatus and bureaucracy. From that moment on, a process of massive and accelerated decay and degeneration of the ruling bureaucracy began. “The cadres decide everything” (2), said Stalin. The “dragon’s teeth” sown under Khrushchev produced poisonous sprouts for a long time. In the 1980s, Khrushchev-era “cadres” rose to the highest level of power. It was Khrushchev who allowed people like Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Yakovlev and their ilk to sneak into the highest ranks of the party. “We had too many 'Khrushchevs',” VM Molotov later recalled with bitterness.

For Khrushchev, the reckless “denunciation of the cult of personality” served above all his own justification and self-affirmation, and not at all the restoration of Leninist norms. He himself easily violated these norms by dismissing from office, dismissing from the capital or retiring all those who did not agree with his adventurist orientation and whom he considered dangerous to himself- even. He did not imprison them or shoot them just because he had cut himself off from this path. But he humiliated them mercilessly. Molotov, Malenkov, Zhukov, Shepilov, Furtseva and many others understood this perfectly. All this has not improved the party. But he undermined his authority, as well as the authority of socialism on the world stage. Like a merchant on the spree, Nikita squandered and squandered the gigantic moral and political capital acquired at the cost of the blood and sweat of our people..

Khrushchev undeservedly reaped the fruits of the victories won under Stalin. The breakthrough into space (3) allowed him for a time to distract attention from the socio-economic problems he had caused. With the arrival of Khrushchev, his line of extensive development of the country and the economy triumphed. The reckless and unbridled expansion of virgin lands at the expense of the restoration and development of the indigenous agricultural areas of central Russia, decimated by the war, is spectacular in appearance, including in terms of propaganda. But it was not justified. At the beginning of the 1960s, we had already drawn on state reserves, then began to regularly buy grain from abroad, financing foreign producers..

The failures of the economy and the rise in prices caused discontent among the population. This is how workers were shot at in Novocherkassk. During the entire Soviet period, no leader of the country had dared to do such a thing !

As a result, Khrushchev's policies translated for the USSR into senseless spending inside and outside the country, adventurous economic and political decisions, demagoguery, ideological swindling and propaganda, the split and weakening of the international communist movement, the loss of world authority, guidelines, ideals and the degeneration of party cadres. His arrogant troublemaking policies almost led to nuclear conflict with America in 1962.

Khrushchev's name is associated with stagnation in the field of ideology. An uneducated man with a petty-bourgeois mentality, he adopted the slogan “catching up with and overtaking the West in all areas” as his basic development strategy. In the very essence of this slogan was the idea not of our identity, not of the already realized benefits of socialism, not of reasonable sufficiency. The idea of ​​our backwardness and even a kind of inferiority was imposed on the Soviet people. Of course, Lenin also spoke of the need for Soviet Russia to “catch up with the advanced countries.” But he spoke about scientific, technical, cultural and industrial progress, about the advanced organization of management and production, on the basis of which a completely different society was to develop. Lenin reasoned from the position of a politician in the 1920s, at the head of a country devastated by wars and interventions and culturally and technically backward. Khrushchev, on the other hand, was the head of a superpower that had achieved enormous successes in economics, science and culture, and had managed to win an unprecedented war thanks to the achievements of socialism. It was necessary to view the pursuit of development dialectically, and not to chase after the bourgeois West. Khrushchev's slogan "catch up and overtake" was deeply philistine and reflected a petty-bourgeois view of development and its goal. We were asked to beat the enemy on their territory and according to their rules. Khrushchev psychologically oriented the population towards a consumer society, without taking into account the traditions of our peoples, economic expediency, state possibilities and probable socio-psychological, ideological and political consequences.

The obvious advantages of socialism, which allowed everyone to develop normally, healthily and creatively, were replaced by petty-bourgeois consumer instincts – “theirs are better, bigger, more beautiful”. The West has transformed itself into a glittering showcase of an infinite quantity of junk, of necessary and less necessary goods – a veritable Ali Baba's cave. Like a savage blinded by glitter from a tin can and abandoning real jewelry for cheap trinkets, Khrushchev's common man was ready to give his soul for chewing gum and Coca-Cola, not doubting not that all the benefits of socialism were guaranteed to him forever. We had lost our ideological “immunity” against capitalism! On a daily basis, the West has surpassed us.

After Stalin, ideology in the USSR stagnated. From Khrushchev onwards, no senior Soviet party leader, unlike his predecessors, wrote anything himself. At the same time, the new party “elite” was terribly removed from the lives of the people. Lenin and Stalin, driven by the desire for a just world order, knew how to ignite the masses with their ideas. In the most difficult hours, they were able to find words that were close and understandable to ordinary people, touching their souls and instilling in them faith in victory. They encouraged work and struggle. But he who does not consume himself will never be able to lead others.

They encouraged others to follow him. The soulless and bureaucratic “agitation” of the era of “stagnation” could only discourage the study of Marxism. Despite the numerous Marxist-Leninist universities, schools and circles where studies were formalized, the mass of the Party became politically and ideologically infantile and easily infected by petty-bourgeois instincts..

Our official ideological propaganda apparatus, headed by MA Suslov, did not find answers appropriate to the times, did not react correctly to the new phenomena brought to the fore by the processes of the scientific and technical revolution and globalization . Foreign ideology began to quietly seep into the vacated space, ideas were borrowed from Western philosophers, sociologists and economists. Certain academic institutions have become sanctuaries of opportunism: the Institute of the United States and Canada, IMEMO, IMRD, etc. A whole layer of intellectuals who did not think in a Marxist way was created. But it was they who found themselves at the time in the roles of advisors, consultants and speechwriters within the Central Committee of the CPSU. “Burlatski-Arbatov-Bovin” and others wrote speeches of leaders, party programs and resolutions on the most important issues.

The famous “thaw”, which made Khrushchev so beloved by our liberals and those of the West, did not occur by his will. He used it as a social backdrop to assert his power by crushing his predecessors and political opponents. Khrushchev and liberalism have little overlap. The character himself embodied petty-bourgeois radicalism. Khrushchev's "thaw" gave birth to the "sixties", these "adult children" of socialism. Why socialism? Because they owe him everything: a life saved from fascism, a better education, and even their creativity. With enchanting siren voices, they led naive novelists to sing about "the fog and the smell of the taiga", while they themselves firmly believed only in money. Like cuckoos, they destroyed and ravaged the nest that sheltered them. Biding their time, they were happy to relax in the houses of creativity and state dachas, gracefully entertaining the nomenklatura when they asked. They did not risk much, because they were firmly convinced that their Western patrons would not let them down. At the first opportunity, they “escaped” abroad. Today they are professors, like Nikita Khrushchev's son, in foreign universities, letting the people get out of the mud into which they have dragged them.

The real heroes of the sixties and seventies were very different. These young people who, following the example of their fathers and older brothers, built new cities and factories, built dams on the Angara and Yenisei, led the Baikal railway through impassable taiga to Love, explored space, made scientific discoveries, and simply worked honestly where the Motherland called them. They were true ideologues, true patriots, whose motto was: “As long as my dear country lives!” » (4). Current authorities try hard not to remember those times. But the monuments of this great era and its heroes are magnificent books and films, truly talented songs and much more..

What about today? Does our country, our people, the whole world have a socialist perspective or has the bourgeois “end of history” arrived? What needs to be done to give workers around the world hope for a better life? ?

First of all, do not deny our great past, draw from it the strength for a new breakthrough towards the future. The revolutionary teachings of Marxism are by no means obsolete. Its founders saw far. It is in their writings that the key to understanding the modern era is found. Let's return to Marxism, let's relearn to think scientifically, dialectically, from the point of view of the class, and not in a philistine way.

A hundred years ago, VI Lenin prophetically declared: “To imagine that world history moves forward smoothly and neatly, without occasional gigantic leaps backward, is undialectical, unscientific, theoretically incorrect. »

Which means: “There will be new victories, new fighters will rise!” » ; “A new October is coming ! » (4)

Notes :

1) The authors of the book “The Locomotives of History: The Revolutionary Year 1917” are two Russian historians specializing in revolutionary movements. Sergei Kostrikov heads the chair of history and political science at the Moscow State University of Management; Elena Kostrikova is a doctor of law, member of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. We published on H&S articles by their son, a journalist at Pravda.

2) This famous phrase from Stalin should not be misinterpreted: it simply means that choosing the right leaders (at all levels) is of the utmost importance.

3) 1957 : 1is Sputnik ; 1962 : 1is man in space. These projects were planned and prepared under Stalin.

4) Quotes from Soviet songs : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3KVAByJids

#history #khrushchev #ussr

For more details (in Russian) on the methods and mechanisms of the collapse of the Soviet Union, see S.G. Kara-Murza, Manipulation of Consciousness -
#USSR #soviet #russian #revolutions #Lenin #Stalin #bolsheviks #ideology #communism #socialism #history #study for #future


Anti-Communism Is A Fundamentalist Religion, Now Followed By Billions| Countercurrents


it is not the socialist revolution that provokes mass violence, but the bourgeois counter-revolution, that begins when capital realises that it is losing its property and power.
...

Beyond that, the picture was of a “triumphal procession of Soviet power” (this heading in Soviet textbooks was no accident). In the winter of 1917-1918 the relationship of forces saw half a million members of the workers’ militia, the Red Guard, pitted against a few tens of thousand White Guard members in the south of Russia. Everything was quiet until the counter-revolution received vast sums of money from the Triple Alliance (primarily from Germany) as well as from the Entente, and all these imperialist countries launched aggression against the young Soviet power.
...

And this applies to countless examples, all over the world, where the West first provoked and brutally antagonized socialist or communist countries, then accused them of cruelty, and finally “liberated” them in the name of freedom and democracy, literally raping the will of their people. All this just so European and North American imperialism would survive and thrive.
...

Ask the common men and women of the streets of London, Paris or New York, what they know about Stalin’s era, or the famines in the early years of the USSR, or in Communist China?

99.99% know nothing. Where these famines took place, or why? But they are absolutely certain that they took place. No doubts, whatsoever. No doubts that they happened “because of Communism”. Westerners are intellectually obedient, like sheep. Most of them do not question the propaganda unleashed by their regime. Are they really “free”?

The famine in the Soviet Union actually took place because the young revolutionary country was totally devastated by the Western and Japanese invasions, which tried to break and plunder the country. British, French, U.S., Czech, Polish, German, Japanese invasions, to name just a few.

But ask, for instance, the Czechs, how much they know about their Legions that controlled the Trans-Siberian railroad, on their way from Europe to Vladivostok. Plundering, rape, and mass killing. I tried. I asked, in Prague and Pilsen. They thought I was a lunatic. The Legions are portrayed as heroic, in their history books.
...

In both cases, Western propaganda made people believe that the real cause for the loss of lives in Russia and China was Communism! The brainwashing has been so successful, that even in Russia and China, millions of people have been fully indoctrinated by these countlessly repeated lies coming out of the West.

But ask in London, whether people know anything about the fact that under the British occupation of India, tens of millions of people died from starvation; victims of the famines triggered by London, for many reasons, one of them being an attempt to lower the population. Over 50 million Indian people, cumulatively, died in these famines, between 1769 to 1943, in British administered India.

Should we, as a result, ban the British political system? I am convinced that we should! But that is usually not what the people of the world, including the victims of the British colonialist barbarity, are demanding.
...

The goal of Western propaganda has always been to equate Communism and Fascism, the two most antagonistic systems in history, in the world. It was the Soviet Communist system, which smashed Nazism to pieces, saving the world, at an enormous cost of approximately 25 million human lives.

Only Western imperialism can be compared to German Nazism. The two are made of the same stuff.
#capitalism #imperialism #europe #Western #intervention #mccarthyism #anticommunism #anti-Russia #USSR #Stalin #bolsheviks #socialism #communism #soviet #russian #history #China

Anti-Communism Is A Fundamentalist Religion, Now Followed By Billions| Countercurrents — https://countercurrents.org/2020/06/anti-communism-is-a-fundamentalist-religion-now-followed-by-billions/


May 2, 1945, the Berlin operation ended


On May 2, 1945, the Berlin operation ended. The garrison of the capital of the Third Reich stopped resisting. In the morning, the city garrison headquarters crossed the front line and surrendered, agreeing to the terms of unconditional surrender.

图像/照片


#WWII #WW2 #Berlin #soviet #russian #USSR #red-army #history #photo #СССР #история


May 1 Day of Solidarity of Workers of All Countries


Image/Photo

#history #workerrights #USSR #russian #soviet #poster


How the French invaders were expelled from the Black Sea


105 years ago, in the second half of April 1919, a revolt of French sailors broke out in Sevastopol. According to a number of historians, it played a key role in the fact that France stopped intervention against Soviet Russia and finally left Crimea. How and why did it happen?
...
The main goal of the interventionists, although not proclaimed, was already quite prosaic at this point: colonization of the territories of the former Russian Empire - France's recent Entente ally. Therefore, the French first of all put local resources and transportation networks under their control.



#europe #european #france #french #intervention #soviet #russian #history #Russia #Sevastopol


12 April 1961 Happy Cosmonautics Day!

Image/Photo

Be proud, Soviet man, you have opened the way to the stars from Earth!

#USSR #Russia #soviet #russian #cosmos #space #history


"Reminder: If we don’t have Ukrainians killing Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine with American weapons, Russia will first invade Europe, then America, then the world." https://twitter.com/yashalevine/status/1208486243530444800

Ukraine can’t defeat Russia no matter how many American military advisers train Ukrainian troops or how many millions the good and totally not corrupt people at Raytheon Inc make selling their Javelins. The point isn’t for Ukraine to win the war. The point is to make Russia bleed — economically and militarily. And it doesn’t matter how many people die or suffer or how much of Ukraine and its economy is laid to waste in the process.

As I’ve written in bits and pieces before on here before, America’s foreign policy establishment — its diplomats, spies, and politicians — have seen Ukraine as a key field of battle against the Soviet Union going back to late 1940s. For decades, Ukraine and its diaspora were considered prime weapons for destabilizing the Soviet Union. It’s why America, Canada, the UK, and other western countries opened their doors to Ukrainian fascists and Nazi collaborators after World War II. Their hardcore ideology and their willingness to die for their lost nationalist cause were seen as important qualities in the fight against communism. Some of the earliest covert armed CIA operations against the Soviet Union involved parachuting Ukrainian Nazi collabo guerrillas behind Soviet lines to sabotage and whip up rebellion among Ukrainian peasants.

#CIA #western #us #canada #uk #ukrainian #puppets #fascism #nazism on #civilwar against #russian #Donbass #Russia after #Maidan #soviet #USSR #history


My soul, you look good in any outfit!
1960s, its a reference to classic Russian literature quote (epigraph for Pushkin's story "Lady-peasant"), literally means - my darling (my soul), you look lovely in every outfit/every outfit becomes you.

Bild/Foto

#USSR #soviet #russian #poster #propaganda #Russia #womensday #history


About GULAG

Bild/Foto

Prison Conditions

A 1957 CIA document entitled “Correctional Labor Camps in the USSR: Transferring Prisoners Out of Camps,” on pages two through six, reveals the following information about the Soviet Gulag:

‒ Until 1952 prisoners were given a guaranteed amount of food, plus extra food for exceeding the norms.

‒ From 1952, the Gulag system operated on the basis of “economic calculation,” so that the more prisoners worked, the more they were paid.

‒ For over-fulfillment of standards by 105%, one day of imprisonment counted as two, which reduced the time spent in the Gulag by one day.

‒ Also, when the Soviet government had more funds as a result of post-war socialist reconstruction, it increased the food standards for prisoners.

‒ Before 1954, prisoners worked 10 hours a day, while free laborers worked 8 hours a day. Since 1954, both prisoners and free laborers worked 8 hours a day.

‒ A CIA study of a standard camp sample found that 95% of the prisoners were habitual criminals.

‒ In 1953, 70% of the “common criminals” of the sample camp studied by the CIA were granted amnesty. Within the next 3 months most of them were re-arrested for new crimes.



Thus, according to the CIA, approximately two million people were sent to the Gulag in the 1930s, while according to declassified Soviet archives it was 2,369,220 up to 1954. When compared to the population of the Soviet Union at the time, as well as statistics In a country like the United States, the percentage of the Gulag population in the USSR throughout its history has been lower than in the United States today or since the 1990s. In fact, according to a study by Souza (1998), the United States had a higher percentage of prisoners (relative to the total population) than the USSR ever had:

"In a small news report that appeared in newspapers for August 1997, the FLT-AP news agency reported that the United States had never before had as many people incarcerated as it did in 1996-5.5 million people. This represents an increase of 200,000 since 1995 and means that the number of criminals in the U.S. is 2.8 percent of the adult population. This data is available to anyone who works for the North American Department of Justice… The number of people convicted in the U.S. today is 3 million more than the maximum number ever held in the Soviet Union! In the Soviet Union, no more than 2.4% of the adult population was incarcerated for their crimes, but in the U.S. the figure is 2.8% and rising! According to a press release issued by the U.S. Department of Justice on January 18, 1998, the number of people convicted in the U.S. in 1997 increased by 96,100.


#USSR #history #soviet #gulag #Stalin #USA #CIA #lang_ru #lang_en


Who Solzhenitsyn was



Who Solzhenitsyn was
Semyon Badash's open letter to Solzhenitsyn, with whom he was in the same camp.
In 2003, Solzhenitsyn's fellow campmate Semyon Badash wrote him an "Open Letter" in which he accused Solzhenitsyn of deceit, snitching, and anti-Semitism.
"Semyon Badash's "Open Letter" published in the American émigré journal Vestnik, No. 15, 2003.
...
Unfortunately, this is not the only case of your, to put it mildly, inadequate attitude towards your former friends, including people to whom you owe a lot. Ilya Zilberberg's book "A Necessary Conversation with Solzhenitsyn" (Ilya Zilberberg. 14 Colchster Vale. Forest Row. Sussex. Great Britain. 1976). Its author was friends with the Teusza family, who secretly kept your archive. After the Teusha's apartment became unreliable, they, going on vacation, gave it to Ilya Iosifovich Zilberberg. But by that time the Gebists had already tapped the Teushey's cell phone and knew everything in advance. On September 11, 1965, they raided Zilberberg's house, took the folder with your materials, after which both Teusch and Zilberberg were dragged for many weeks for interrogation.
Not only did you not take part in their fate, but you did not show up at Teusz's house for several months, and Zilberberg was even accused of cooperating with the GB. You, of course, were believed in dissident circles, after which this crystal-clear man lived for many years with a stigma that remained on him even after his emigration from the USSR. All his attempts to explain himself to you or to your trusted people came to nothing. In "The Calf" you disparagingly and insultingly called V. Teusch "an anthroposophist who handed over the archive to his proselyte-anthroposophist, the young I. Zilberberg".
...

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3025669.html

Also, Solzhenitsyn's last name has the root of the word lzhe (i.e. lie), It's hard to believe such a liar.
#lie about #USSR
#lies about #Russia #soviet #russian #jewish #history by #Solzhenitsyn #gulag


January 27, 1944


80 years ago, on January 27, 1944, #Leningrad was completely liberated from the Nazi blockade. The almost 900-day siege of the city on the Neva River was a time of the heaviest trials, unparalleled courage and fortitude.
Today we honor the heroes who defended the city and fought for the freedom of the Fatherland. We congratulate veterans, residents of the Siege of Leningrad, distinguished colleagues and all Petersburgers on our memorable day.
Happy holiday and Victory to all!
#soviet #russian #history #WWII #WW2 #USSR

С праздником!


Из чата команды мемориальной радиостанции R900BL (Радио 900 Блокадный Ленинград).
R1BBT:
80 лет назад, 27 января 1944 года, Ленинград был полностью освобождён от фашисткой блокады. Почти 900-дневная осада города на Неве стала временем тяжелейших испытаний, беспримерного мужества и силы духа.
Сегодня мы чествуем героев, которые защищали город и сражались за свободу Отечества. Поздравляем ветеранов, жителей блокадного Ленинграда, уважаемых коллег и всех петербуржцев с нашим памятным днём.
Всех с праздником и Победой, 73!


Фото с РИ "Блок Ада" -- игры-мемориала по мотивам "Блокадной Книги". Голос ленинградского радио.


How We Won the Cold War


VICTORYThe Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union.By Peter Schweizer.284 pp. New York:The Atlantic Monthly Press.

SOMETIMES American foreign policy debates seem governed by a Newtonian law stipulating that for every stupid, overstated, politically inspired argument there is an equally stupid, overstated, politically inspired counterargument. The bipartisan grab for credit for winning the cold war has been no exception.

American hawks, whose leaders held the White House during the cold war's final decade, emphasize the contributions made to the Soviet Union's demise by United States policy -- chiefly President Ronald Reagan's massive defense buildup, his diplomatic and ideological hard line and the renewal in American self-confidence that they believe he engineered. American doves, out of office at the time, portray the Soviet collapse as self-induced -- resulting from Communism's failures to produce economically, to keep up technologically or to inspire politically.

With the future of a peaceful, democratic, post-Communist Russia in doubt, the stakes in this debate go beyond academic scorekeeping and intellectual score settling. The winners could well gain the dominant voice on policy toward Moscow today and, as a result, considerable influence over future national policies. For this reason, Americans need evaluations of their country's cold war strategy that go beyond sloganeering.

Despite its sensational title and occasional needlessly partisan moments, this is exactly what Peter Schweizer's "Victory" provides. Mr. Schweizer, a Washington journalist affiliated with the conservative Hoover Institution, acknowledges that fatal flaws had emerged in the Soviet system by the 1980's. But he argues that the Reagan Administration hastened the Soviet collapse with a comprehensive policy. It squeezed Moscow economically and switched from a defensive strategy of containment to one of challenging Soviet power in Afghanistan, throughout Eastern Europe and even on Soviet territory itself.

Basing his book on interviews with top Reagan policy makers (especially in the intelligence community) and Soviet officials, as well as on classified American documents, Mr. Schweizer describes how the President and his national security team got the surprise of their lives when they entered office in 1981. After spending most of the previous decade warning against the rise of Soviet power and aggressiveness, the Reagan Administration discovered that Moscow was wheezing economically. At the urging of the new Director of Central Intelligence, William J. Casey -- the mastermind of the victory strategy, according to Mr. Schweizer, and the focus of the narrative -- the United States launched an all-out overt and covert economic war on the Soviets.

MR. SCHWEIZER says the Reagan military buildup sought not only to strengthen American forces, but also to strain Moscow's limited economic base. The centerpiece of this military effort was a policy of greatly expanded research and development on high technology weapons. By pushing programs like the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was ostensibly intended to neutralize a Soviet nuclear attack, the Reagan White House attempted to wage the arms race in areas where American know-how, not Soviet numbers, would be decisive.

The United States also sought to shut off a major Soviet source of hard currency by blocking Moscow's oil and gas exports to Western Europe (with only limited success, as Mr. Schweizer recognizes) and by persuading Saudi Arabia to help drive down world oil prices (with much more success). The vise was tightened further, Mr. Schweizer contends, by restricting the eastward flow of Western credit and technology, thus denying the Soviets valuable financial resources and damaging the Soviet economy's military and civilian sectors.

In addition, to insure that the Kremlin would have to spend billions putting out fires in Poland and Afghanistan, the Administration began to funnel aid to Solidarity in Poland and to upgrade the weaponry and intelligence supplied to the mujahedeen, the Muslim guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan. Finally, Mr. Schweizer provides convincing reasons for concluding that Jimmy Carter, even a Jimmy Carter sobered by the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, would never have instituted a similar policy.

Whether or not the Reagan policies worked and did contribute decisively to winning the cold war, Mr. Schweizer's account adds significantly to our knowledge of the struggle's climactic stages. Although many of the tactics he describes were common knowledge, their strategic coordination has been largely unknown, and a number of the individual elements of the strategy have remained secret as well.

THE author's unfailing admiration notwithstanding, these policies add up to a puzzling and sometimes unsettling portrait -- of subtlety, guile and tactical brilliance existing side by side with what can only be called utter recklessness; of commendable audacity and ingenuity coexisting with serious disrespect for American political processes. Thus the same officials who orchestrated the delicate plan to depress world oil prices (clinched by telling Saudi Arabia's King Fahd of the dollar's coming devaluation) also urged the buzzing of Soviet air defenses not only with American fighter planes but with bombers as well. Those who secured tacit Vatican and active Swedish help for Solidarity also supported mujahedeen guerrilla operations inside the Soviet Union.

The revelations made by the author unintentionally are at least as stunning. American voters, for example, may be surprised to learn that in 1980 they elected a President who was not only tough on the Soviets, but who also soon became determined to back them into a corner, with all the risks that strategy entailed in those hair-trigger times. Indeed, Mr. Schweizer presents new evidence that Mr. Reagan's bellicose rhetoric and his Strategic Defense Initiative did in fact create fears in the Kremlin of an American nuclear attack.

Similarly, "Victory" sheds new light on Reaganomics. It turns out that critics who faulted the President for running up unpre cedented peacetime budget deficits were missing the point. In the minds of Mr. Reagan and associates like Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, the cold war period was not peacetime. And yet the Administration refused to seek public sacrifices to fight this "war."

Since, as the author acknowledges, "Victory" is more journalism than history, it is no surprise that he raises more questions than he answers. A first group of questions concerns methodology. Even for a book in the "now it can be told" genre, Mr. Schweizer's work needs greater documentation. In particular, too much vital information is attributed simply to anonymous Soviet or American sources. Skeptical readers will also have problems with many of the Soviet sources who are named, for in the post-cold-war world many financially strapped former Soviet operatives have learned how profitable stroking Western egos can be. Further, although the author clearly has interviewed many of Casey's chief aides, we hear nothing from the late director's bureaucratic opponents. Surely the story Mr. Schweizer tells of C.I.A. infighting has more than one side.

A second group of questions concerns the costs of victory. Some were legal and political. Like Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and other cold war Presidents, Ronald Reagan purposely shut the American people and Congress out of decision making. Did the ends of victory always justify such means -- especially since the United States was always strong enough to avert foreign policy catastrophe? How long could huge covert paramilitary operations and arms-for-hostage deals have been continued without irreversibly damaging American political institutions and boosting public cynicism to levels no healthy democracy could tolerate?

Other costs were economic. Fighting a "war" without public knowledge or sacrifice may have helped Mr. Reagan win re-election. But in the process, many would argue, America's public finances were damaged, harming our economy and crippling our political capacity for dealing with a raft of growing domestic ills. And the Administration's obsession with victory in the cold war blinded it to growing threats on the industrial and technological fronts, with serious consequences for American living standards, for the country's long-term capacity to create wealth and even for its ability to support assertive foreign policies. As former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger sagely observed in a 1989 speech, the United States, too, crossed the cold war finish line gasping for breath. Some readers will undoubtedly complete "Victory" dismissing such complaints as nitpicking. Others will wonder if American democracy and prosperity can survive another such triumph in our still dangerous world. 'SOMETIMES IT PAYS TO BE 'RECKLESS'

Examining the collapse of the Soviet Union outside the context of American policy is a little like investigating a sudden, unexpected and mysterious death without exploring the possibility of murder or, at the very least, examining the environment surrounding the fatality. . . . The fact that the collapse and funeral of the Soviet Union occurred immediately after the most anti-Communist President in American history had served eight years does not prove cause and effect. But it does demand investigation. . . . Thus far, the investigation of Reagan policy in relation to the collapse of the Soviet Union has been scant. The focus has been almost exclusively on the policies of Gorbachev. This is somewhat akin to studying the collapse of the South after the Civil War by concentrating on the policies of Gen. Robert E. Lee without at least looking at the strategies employed by Gen. Ulysses S. Grant.

Some believe that little or no connection can be drawn between American policies in the 1980's and the collapse of the Soviet edifice. . . . Former Soviet officials do not share this view. The fact is that Reagan administration policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union was in many ways a radical break from the past. There is also irony in this view, in that those who now believe American policy had little effect on internal events in the Soviet Union counseled in the 1970's and 1980's for an accommodating stance toward the Kremlin because it might moderate Soviet behavior. Reagan was called a "reckless cowboy" who might steer us all to the nuclear brink.

The fact the greatest geopolitical event since the end of the Second World War happened after eight years in the Presidency of Ronald Reagan has also been described as "dumb luck." It might be wise to recall, however, that when the exploits of a French commander particularly unpopular with his colleagues were dismissed as "luck," Napoleon retorted, "Then get me more 'lucky' generals."From "Victory."1

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/10/books/how-we-won-the-cold-war.html
#USA #USSR #coldwar #Reagan #CIA #Casey #anticommunism #american #frauds #disruptive actions #Afghanistan #saudiarabia #europe #soviet #russian #history


1981 Soviet Space Airplane Aeroflot New Year's Greeting Postcard

Bild/Foto

source:
#soviet #postcard #history #aviation #greeting #aeroflot #russian


#russian #soviet #history #germany #poland #czechoslovakia #hungary #romania #bulgaria #USSR #WWII #WW2


December 21 is the anniversary of the birthday of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin

Bild/Foto

#USSR #soviet #russian #history #Stalin #СССР #история


Image/Photo

A cold war poster: Give money, the Russians are coming at you, and we will protect you from them.
Times change, but Western methodologies don't.
#soviet #poster #history #nato #russian threat #western #mindmanipulation



On issues of periodization of the history of the USSR

In October 1917 in Russia, when not a single industrial enterprise, not a single locomotive had yet been destroyed (the Bolsheviks had not planned this at all), Russian society, the first in the world, got rid of the parasites who used their enterprises for the purposes of waging invasive, destructive wars. The liberation of Russian society from the selfishness and uneducated entrepreneurs, from the power of banking monopolies, already at the end of the 20's, provided not only a complete restoration of industry, not only the highest in the history of mankind rates of development of productive forces, but also the pace of scientific, technical and cultural progress. Already in the 20-ies Zhukovsky, Timiryazev, Pavlov, Michurin, Tsiolkovsky, Kapitsa, Kurchatov, Tupolev, Polikarpov, Degtyaryov, Paton, Lebedev, Meyerhold, Eisenstein, Pyatnitsky, for the first time in history, received all the necessary conditions and means for their scientific, design work and artistic creativity.

In August 1991 in the USSR, too, not a single enterprise had been destroyed yet, but the CPSU, Soviets and Gosplan of the USSR had maliciously abstained from managing all the productive forces of society, voluntarily giving banks and enterprises into private hands, including foreign ones. I.e. huge production capacities of the superpower stopped for 10 years not because the communists violated the laws of "copromatism" or thermodynamics, but because the majority of the "party billet-bearers" of the CPSU, professed not diamatic, but some kind of "economic thinking", which made the party members and technical intelligentsia unemployed, homeless, criminals, egoists, liberals, nationalists, clerics and, in the near future, millions of ruined "shuttle traders", deceived tourists, shareholders, shareholders and depositors.

Some comrades still explain the collapse of the CPSU and the USSR only by the betrayal of the top, but do not try to explain neither to themselves nor to others, why in August 1941 in the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (b), in the army and in industry there were only a few traitors, and half a century later, in August 1991, the Central Committee of the CPSU, the directorial and ministerial corps, the Soviet generals, almost in their entirety, refused to do anything in defense of socialism, and painted themselves as democrats, liberals, nationalists and clerics?

In Stalin's time, the entire ministerial and directorial corps knew that it was very seriously responsible, first of all, for the quality and quantity of products manufactured in accordance with the proportions of the strategic plan of the whole country, and cost, indicators played only a modest accounting role. Only with the revival of capitalism on the territory of the USSR was the stupid phrase revived: "all the necessary material means are available, but it cannot build, there is no... financing", as if factories and bridges were being built out of bills.

Since Andropov's time, in the USSR, the so-called economic, i.e. egoistic criteria have prevailed over scientifically grounded real proportions of social production. The ministries and administrations of enterprises, having switched to full self-sufficiency, objectively and practically turned into capitalists working for personal monetary profit. The practice of harnessing the financial "cart" ahead of the "horse" of a concrete plan for the development of productive forces reigns in the Russian Federation to this day. Having no concrete plans, but only the general national wishes of the president to improve some things, to mend gaping failures, the government in 2020 is forced to state that billions of rubles have been plundered, and 148 billion rubles have not been spent.

But this situation did not arise under Yeltsin. The practice of Andropov's time had already shown that both the General Secretary himself and the members of the CPSU Central Committee had no concrete scientific idea of what should be done to continue building communism. They began to treat the imperfections of socialism... with capitalism.

Therefore, concerning the question of periodization of the history of the CPSU and the USSR, we should speak about two stages. The first stage, under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, under whom the political and theoretical superstructure was organized, and filled with such content (due to the genius and education of the leaders, the growing education of specialists and consciousness of the masses, the uncompromising struggle against anti-communist views), which ensured the dynamic ascent of the Soviet base and the whole society, moving further and further away from the system that collapsed as a result of the First World War, to the country that, in fact, defeated both the USA and Bree in the Second World War. Before 1953, the basis of the first phase of communism had successfully taken root in many countries liberated from fascism.

But now few people dispute that after 1953 there came a second stage, when the basis in the USSR, especially in large industry and state farms, outwardly, until 1983, still remained within the limits of the USSR Constitution, but at the head of the CPSU and in the superstructural institutions, i.e., in the USSR Academy of Sciences, in the Lenin VPA, in the "Znaniye" society, in the "Communist" magazine, there were fewer and fewer people with knowledge of dialectical-materialist methodology. In the USSR Academy of Sciences, in the Lenin Military Academy, in the "Znanie" society, in the "Communist" magazine, there were fewer and fewer people who possessed dialectical-materialist methodology, and therefore everything communist in the country went to zero after Andropov introduced the self-financing reform.

I.e., if the USSR and the CPSU retained the communist names of the elements of the superstructure and, nominally, party superstructure institutions, but there were practically no connoisseurs of Marxist methodology in the country and in the party, which brings scientific content and communist tendencies to the development of production relations, then the construction of communism is out of the question. If the complete collections of the works of the classics of Marxism, if they are quietly covered with dust on the shelves in party committees and regional committees, but are not properly studied by the members of the Communist Party, if this knowledge is not clarified in connection with new objective circumstances, then all this literary heritage of the victorious classics remains a "thing in itself" that has no positive influence in real time on society, which is once again sliding into the era of mass bourgeois, and therefore liberal, Nazi and clerical ideology.

In view of the defeats suffered by the CPSU at the second stage of its history, it is necessary, as diamatics prescribes, to once again logically "dance from the stove" of simply contemplating the facts of the decay of social formations observed in world history, to the theoretical generalization of conclusions from these facts, to the search for regularities of all such collapses, and from them to the formulation of a conclusion about the presence or absence of a single cause and antidote to such phenomena in the history of mankind.
of mankind.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/6796858.html
#russian #soviet #history
#USSR #Russia #СССР #история


There will be no more Chernobyls


Bild/Foto

How it was possible to blow up the reactor

Anatoly Vasserman, thermal physicist engineer, power engineer (in reserve) of a nuclear submarine

All of the following is taken (and compared) from many different sources. Among them are numerous publications related to the 1986.04.26 disaster, scientific and popular scientific works on nuclear physics and nuclear power engineering, educational materials, my own attempts of analysis, conversations with people much more competent than myself. I could hardly list all these sources, for which I apologize to their authors. Almost inevitable violations of someone's copyright are completely unintentional.

I am also obliged to assure you that none of what follows is secret, not only in fact but also formally.

...

Go slow.

Exactly at the beginning. Shutting down thermal power equipment is a very slow process. Rapid cooling is difficult to make uniform. And in case of uneven temperature redistribution, thermal deformations can shatter even the most massive structure. That is why, for example, to temporarily reduce the power of a ship turbine unit, steam is sent through a bypass pipeline, past the turbine: it is much faster and safer than switching off the boiler heating.

By the way, heat and power plants are started even slower than they are stopped. And there are special reasons for the slow start-up of nuclear reactors, which are worth talking about later.

So, in the evening, when the load on the power system is reduced, the fourth reactor started to be shut down. They lowered the neutron-absorbing rods a little deeper, and the chain reaction went down.

They waited for the reaction level to stabilize, lowered the rods again - the reaction weakened again... Many dozens of such steps to shutdown should be passed before the reactor is not shattered.

To the rescue

When the power of the reactor had already decreased by almost a third, the Chernobyl NPP received a command from the KievEnergo dispatcher.

The shutdown of units in the power system is as routine as possible. By the time of reactor shutdown at one of KievEnergo's thermal power plants, the boiler and turbine generator were to be started after repair. The starting unit would have taken on the load leaving the broad Chernobyl shoulders.

But repair, unlike manufacturing, is a piece thing. It is not always possible to predict its course. The repairmen were delayed for several hours.

And the dispatcher of Kievenergo asked to bring the reactor back to normal power, so that in these few hours to avoid failure, fraught with increased withdrawal of energy from the all-union system. And in an unfavorable scenario, something would have to be shut down.

Power engineers are disciplined. Working in a unified system, you realize that any mistake you make will affect many thousands of colleagues. So the dispatcher's request was accepted for immediate fulfillment.

The absorbing rods went up. And the acceleration began as smoothly as the previous braking.

The same stairs, but with a clunker.

A few hours later, the thermal power plant started working. KievEnergo reported that the reactor could definitely be shut down.

But the time planned for the experiment was gone. And in the morning, repairs began. The station management decided to accelerate cooling of the reactor to the planned level. After all, the normal rate was set by a considerable margin. The allowable cooling rate had been exceeded more than once before, and everyone knew very well how far it was possible to go without damaging the reactor. Power began to be reduced not in the normal mode, but a little faster - at the very speed, the safety of which had already been verified.

The operators turned off the emergency automation immediately. What if cooling would go even faster and steam supply to the turbine would have to be stopped ahead of schedule?

And so it turned out to be. The power level at which it was planned to stabilize in order to establish a uniform mode in the reactor was rushed through. We wanted to work according to the original plan. Otherwise, we'll still have to recalculate the results - again with an error.

Well, we can warm up again. The control rods went up again. But the reactor power remained reduced.

The station was staffed by experienced power engineers. But the peculiarities of the behavior of nuclear reactors were apparently unfamiliar to many of them. Judging by the fact that the reactor's reluctance to restart surprised many of them. So much so that they simply forgot to turn on the automatic control systems.

Or maybe they deliberately didn't want to. Automatics would not allow them to do something forbidden - extracting the reactor from the iodine pit.

Thermal engineering processes - boiling water, turbine rotation, steam condensation - are not very simple, but they have been studied for centuries. So their smallest details are familiar, if not to every passerby, then at least to every engineer at the power plant. But the chain of events heating fuel elements in a nuclear reactor is much less familiar. Therefore, I will start from the basics - those who know the process as well as I do can safely skip the next few sections (at least up to the section "Someone Loses").

...


#USSR #soviet #russian #history #ukraine #chernobyl #СССР #история


The EU Is Rewriting WWII History to Demonize Russia


Bild/Foto

Last month (october 2019), on the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II, the European Parliament voted on a resolution entitled “On the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe.” The adopted document:

“…Stresses that the Second World War, the most devastating war in Europe’s history, was started as an immediate result of the notorious Nazi-Soviet Treaty on Non-Aggression of 23 August 1939, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, whereby two totalitarian regimes that shared the goal of world conquest divided Europe into two zones of influence; Recalls that the Nazi and communist regimes carried out mass murders, genocide and deportations and caused a loss of life and freedom in the 20th century on a scale unseen in human history, and recalls the horrific crime of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime; condemns in the strongest terms the acts of aggression, crimes against humanity and mass human rights violations perpetrated by the Nazi, communist and other totalitarian regimes.”

For 75 years, we have been told that the war started on September 1st, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, even though the Pacific Theater between Japan and China began two years earlier. Now we are to understand that it actually began eight days prior when the German foreign minister visited Moscow. Take no notice of the inherent doublespeak in the premise that a war could be the consequence of a peace agreement, which without any evidence provided is said to have contained “secret protocols”, not provisions. You see, unlike the other pacts signed between European countries and Nazi Germany — such as the Munich Betrayal of 1938 with France and Great Britain to which the Soviets were uninvited while Austria and Czechoslovakia were gifted to Hitler for the courtesy of attacking Moscow — Molotov-Ribbentrop was really a confidential agreement between Hitler and Stalin to conquer Europe and divide it between them.

This is pure mythology. The fact of the matter is that neither the Soviets or even Germany drew the dividing line in Poland in 1939, because it was a reinstatement of the border acknowledged by the League of Nations and Poland itself as put forward by the British following WWI. Even Winston Churchill during his first wartime radio broadcast http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/1939-10-01a.html later that year admitted:

“Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest. We could have wished that the Russian Armies should be standing on their present line as the friends and allies of Poland, instead of as invaders. But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.”

Yet according to the EU, even though Moscow was the last country to agree to a peace deal with Hitler, it was all part of a hidden plot between them. In that case, why then did Germany choose to invade the USSR in 1941? The EU leaves this question unanswered. Forget about its racial policies of enslaving slavs or that Hitler openly declared in Mein Kampf that Germany needed to conquer the East to secure the Lebensraum . Nevermind that in the Spring of 1941, less than two months before Operation Barbarossa, Stalin gave a speech to the Kremlin at a state banquet for recent graduates of the Frunze Military Academy to give warning of an imminent attack:

“War with Germany is inevitable. If comrade Molotov can manage to postpone the war for two or three months through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that will be our good fortune, but you yourselves must go off and take measures to raise the combat readiness of our forces.”

The EU has redacted that the entire reason for the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact in August 1939 had been to buy time for the Red Army’s attrition warfare strategy to adequately prepare its armaments against a future invasion by the Wehrmacht. The Soviet leadership well understood that Germany would eventually renege on the agreement, considering that in 1936 it had signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan and Italy directed at the Communist International. For six years, the USSR was thwarted in its attempts to forge an equivalent anti-fascist coalition and to collectively defend Czechoslovakia by the British and the French, whose ruling classes were too busy courting and doing business with Germany. It had been the Soviets alone who defended the Spanish Republic from Franco in the final rehearsal before the worldwide conflict and only when all other recourses had run out did they finally agree to a deal with the Hitlerites.

Just a week prior to the signing of the neutrality treaty, Stalin gave a secret speech to the Politburo where he explained:

“The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance treaty with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off of Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western Powers. War would thus be prevented but future events could take a serious turn for the USSR. If we accept Germany’s proposal to conclude with it a non-aggression pact, Germany will then attack Poland and Europe will be thrown into serious acts of unrest and disorder. Under these circumstances we will have many chances of remaining out of the conflict while being able to hope for our own timely entrance into war.”

This latest resolution is part of a long pattern of misrepresentation of WWII by the Anglo-Saxon empire, but is perhaps its most egregious falsification that truly desecrates the graves of the 27 million Soviet citizens who were 80% of the total Allied death toll. Earlier this year, for the commemoration on the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings, Russia and its head of state were excluded from the events in Portsmouth, England. As if the ongoing absence of Western European leaders from the May 9th Victory Day ceremonies held annually in Russia weren’t insulting enough, while it’s true that the Eastern Front was not involved in Operation Overlord, Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously been in attendance at the 70th anniversary D-Day events in 2014. No doubt the increase in geopolitical tensions between the West and Moscow in the years since has given the EU license to write out Russia’s role in the Allied victory entirely with little public disapproval, though many of the families of those who volunteered in the International Brigades were rightly insulted by this tampering of history and voiced their objection.

The EU motion‘s real purpose is to fabricate the war’s history by giving credit to the United States for the liberation of Europe while absolving the Western democracies that opened the door for the rise of fascism and tried to use Germany to annihilate the USSR. History itself should always be open to debate and subject to study and revision, but the Atlanticists have made this formal change without any evidence to support it and entirely for political purposes. Like the founding of the EU project itself, the declared aim of the proposal is supposedly to prevent future atrocities from taking place, even though the superstate was designed by former Nazis like Walter Hallstein, the first President of the European Commission, who was a German lawyer in several Nazi Party law organizations and fought for the Wehrmacht in France until his capture as a POW after the invasion of Normandy.

Rather than preventing future crimes, the EU has committed one itself by deceptively modifying the historical record of communism to be parallel with that of the Third Reich. Even further, that they were two sides of the same coin of ‘totalitarianism’ and that for all the barbarity committed during the war, the Soviets were equally culpable — or judging by the amount of times the text cites the USSR versus Germany, even more so. It remains unclear whether we are now to completely disregard the previous conclusions reached by the military tribunals held by the Allies under international law at Nuremberg of which all 12 war criminals sentenced to death in 1946 were German, not Soviet. The document doesn’t even attempt to hide its politicized direction at the current government in Moscow, stating that:

“Russia remains the greatest victim of communist totalitarianism and that its development into a democratic state will be impeded as long as the government, the political elite and political propaganda continue to whitewash communist crimes and glorify the Soviet totalitarian regime.”

This accusation does not stand up to critical observation, as Russia has since erected official memorials to those executed and politically persecuted during the so-called ‘Great Terror.’ However, the stark difference between the EU resolution and the Wall of Grief in Moscow is that the latter is based on evidence from the Soviet archives. It has become a widespread and ridiculous belief in the West that Stalin somehow killed as much as five times as many people as Hitler, an absurdity not reflected in the now disclosed and once highly secretive Soviet archives, which after two decades of examination show that over a period of three decades from the early 1920s to his death in 1953, the total recorded number of Soviet citizens executed by the state was slightly less than 800,000. While that is certainly a horrid number, how does it even begin to compare to an industrial scale extermination based on the race theory?

How can anyone believe Stalin killed tens of millions of people when even the most simple analysis of a population demographics chart shows that the Soviet population rate consistently increased each decade with the only reduction taking place during WWII as a result of their casualties? Socialists, who perhaps more than any other political tendency seem to suffer from autophobia, should defend their own history from such falsification. It is only when flaws occur under communist states that the entire political and economic system is to be denounced outright, but never capitalism which for five centuries has colonized half the world while enslaving and killing entire nations.

Most of the wildly exaggerated death figures stem from falsities written in The Black Book of Communism by a group of right-wing French academics in 1997 ,who did not conceal their apologism hfor the Nazi collaborationist self-proclaimed Russian Liberation Army (ROA) commanded by Gen. Andrey Vlasov who defected to Germany during the war:

“A singular fate was reserved for the Vlasovtsy, the Soviet soldiers who had fought under the Soviet general Andrei Vlasov. Vlasov was the commander of the Second Army who had been taken prisoner by the Germans in July 1942. On the basis of his anti-Stalinist convictions, General Vlasov agreed to collaborate with the Nazis to free his country from the tyranny of the Bolsheviks.”

The other highly cited work by the West for its overestimated portrayal of Soviet repression is the equally unreliable The Gulag Archipelago volumes by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who as historian Ludo Martens noted also attempted to provide justification for Vlasov’s treason in his best-selling 1973 work:

“And so it was that Vlasov’s Second Shock Army perished, literally recapitulating the fate of Samsonov’s Russian Second Army in World War I, having been just as insanely thrown into encirclement. Now this, of course, was treason to the Motherland! This, of course, was vicious, self-obsessed betrayal! But it was Stalin’s. Treason does not necessarily involve selling out for money. It can include ignorance and carelessness in the preparations for war, confusion and cowardice at its very start, the meaningless sacrifice of armies and corps solely for the sake of saving one’s own marshal’s uniform. Indeed, what more bitter treason is there on the part of a Supreme Commander in Chief?”

The truth is located in the Soviet archives which indicate that Stalin’s successor, the Ukrainian-born Nikita Khrushchev, was as intent on absolving the entirety of the Soviet leadership as himself from any culpability in the purges of the 1930s so that blame for its excesses were placed squarely on his predecessor. In succession, Western historians like the British Foreign Office propagandist Robert Conquest followed his example and this account quickly became official doctrine. In hindsight, Khrushchev’s infamous 1956 secret speech, “On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences”, was what planted the seeds of self-doubt in the Soviet system that would eventually lead to its undoing decades later. To the contrary, what the historical records show is most of those who were purged in that period were not necessarily perceived as political threats to Stalin himself, but were targeted because of an overall systemic paranoia held by the entire Soviet government regarding internal sabotage and counter-revolutionary activity by a real fifth column getting inspiration from a certain traitorous former Bolshevik in exile and a potential invasion originating from outside the country.

Many forget that during the Russian Civil War, exactly such a scenario had occurred when the Allies of World War I, including the United States, collectively intervened on the side of the Whites only to be driven out by the Red Army, making such fearful instincts not entirely unreasonable. Not to mention, the rapid industrialization of the entire nation in a single decade while in preparation for the growing threat of war with Germany. When Hitler began his Masterplan for the East, their worst fears came to fruition when tens of thousands of Banderite turncoats enlisted in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) in Ukraine to collaborate with the German occupiers in the slaughter of their fellow countrymen and after the war ended, continued their treasonous struggle during the 1950s with assistance from the CIA. So the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you…

As for the accusation of “whitewashing”, it is true that recent polls indicate that 70% of Russians today hold a favorable view of Stalin — but just as many are nostalgic for communism itself and regret the breakup of the USSR on the basis that the socialist system ‘took care of ordinary people.’ Putin did once remark that despite Stalin’s legacy of repression, he doubted that the native Georgian statesman would have been willing to drop two atomic bombs on Japan like the United States, an atrocity that killed 225,000 innocent civilians (most of them instantly) which is more than a quarter of those capitally punished during the entire Stalin era. Was he wrong to say so? A significant amount of deaths also occurred in the Soviet-wide famines of the 1930s, but there is significantly more evidence to suggest that the British deliberately starved 3 million Bengalis to death then there is to support the Holodomor fraud concocted by the Ukrainian nationalist diaspora. If the West wants to talk about deliberate starvation, it should take a look at what the U.S. did with its economic sanctions in the 1990s killing half a million Iraqi children which former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously described as “worth it.”

This isn’t the first time the Anglosphere has historically omitted the Soviet role in the Allied victory or conflated the USSR with the Third Reich. On previous occasions the European Parliament has issued resolutions declaring August 23rd “a European day of remembrance of the victims of the Nazi-Soviet alliance.” This is all an attempt by the Atlanticists to depict communism as somehow worse than fascism while disconnecting the Nazis from the lineage of European settler colonialism whose racism was its source of inspiration. Why is that which befell the Jews not considered an extension of what was already done to the Herero-Nama tribes for which Namibia is now suing Germany a century later?

The neoliberal political establishment in Europe and its anti-EU populist opponents are fond of appearing dead-set against one another, but it seems they share the same fairytale beliefs about WWII that the Nazis and Soviets were equivalent evils as inscribed in this latest decree. It has always been ironic that the liberal billionaire “philanthropist” and currency manipulator George Soros is so derided by right-wing populists when it was his Open Society Institute NGOs which engineered the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Soros may be averse to the anti-immigrant brand of right-wing nationalism currently on the rise in Western Europe, but as a fanatical Russophobe he is willing to make strange bedfellows with ultra-nationalists in Kiev to undermine Moscow’s sphere of influence and that includes revising WWII history to a version favored by the Banderites which took power during the pro-EU 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine.

The Nazi junta regime in Kiev has since instituted Russophobic ‘de-communization’ laws erasing the remaining traces of Ukraine’s Soviet past while replacing them with memorials to their wartime foes. A recent example was the city of Vinnitsa renaming a street that paid tribute to the Soviet spy and war hero Richard Sorge to that after Omelyan Hrabetsk, a commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army which cooperated with Germany during the war and killed thousands of Poles and Jews. Sorge posed as a German journalist in Tokyo and famously provided timely intelligence to Moscow that Japan did not plan to attack the USSR, allowing Stalin to transfer essential reinforcements to the Battle of Moscow which proved to be a major turning point in the war. He was executed by the Japanese in 1944 and posthumously awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union.

Now the EU is ‘decommunizing’ history in its own legislation. Meanwhile, Soros’s influence over the EU cannot be overstated as his lobbying power has enabled him to provide direct council to its executive branch more than any official head of state in the political and economic union. The hedge fund tycoon made a fortune as an investor during Russia’s mass privatization in the 1990s after enlisting Jeffrey Sachs and the IMF to apply ‘shock therapy’ to its economy as it did in Poland and his native Hungary. Under Putin, however, Soros’s NGOs have since been barred from Russia. Perhaps the reason he can so cynically provide support to fascist elements in Ukraine to undercut Moscow is that he did so personally in his upbringing in Hungary.

Born Gyorgy Schwartz, during WWII he was a teenager from an affluent Jewish family which survived the Axis occupation by using their wealth to bribe a government official from the collaborationist Arrow Cross government who provided the Soros’s forged documents identifying them as Christians, while the adolescent by his own admission delivered deportation notices to other Jews. A short time later, the young Soros impersonated the adopted gentile son of an official who inventoried the stolen valuables and property from Jewish estates and even accompanied him during his work. One would assume as a Jew he would have been haunted by these experiences, but Soros has repeatedly stated he has no regrets and even disturbingly compared it to his future work as an investor.


[video]SHOCKING: George Soros, a chief financial supporter of Antifa, was himself a Nazi collaborator and to this day has no regrets

Like Soros, the EU has no ideology except an unquenchable thirst for greed and is fond of Nazis when they are the kind that hate Russia. For its own political interests, it is willing to dangerously foster a version of history invented by a rebranded far right where the quislings who collaborated with the Axis powers elude guilt and the Soviets who courageously defeated them are maliciously slandered. Fascism was never fully eradicated only because the West continued to nurture it during the Cold War and even now that capitalism has been reinstated in Eurasia, it continues to do so to undermine a resurgent Moscow on the world stage.

As the world appears increasingly on the brink of WWIII, one is reminded of the expression by Karl Marx who famously stated that “history repeats itself…first as tragedy, then as farce” in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, when comparing Napoleon Bonaparte’s seizure of power in the French Revolution with the coup by his nephew half a century later which brought an end to the French Revolution. Equally fitting is the humorous line by the legendary writer and noted anti-imperialist Mark Twain who reputedly said, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Both are applicable to the unquestionable tragedy of WWII and the farcical mockery of its history by the EU whose policies continue to make another global conflict that much more likely.

Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared in Counterpunch, Global Research, Dissident Voice, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, American Herald Tribune and more. Max may be reached atmaxrparry@live.com


#nato #fascism #western #media #lie about #history #WWII #WW2 #russian #soviet #USSR #poland #germany #europe #eu #ukraine #blameRussia #Russia #Stalin


The secret of the success of the Stalinist economy


"If we take profitability not from the point of view of individual enterprises or branches of production and not in terms of one year, but from the point of view of the entire national economy and in terms of, say, 10-15 years, which would be the only correct approach to the question, then the temporary and fragile profitability of individual enterprises or branches of production can in no way be compared with that higher form of lasting and permanent profitability which is given us by the actions of the law of the systematic development of the national economy and the planning of the national economy, sparing us from periodic economic crises, which destroy the national economy and cause enormous material damage to society, and ensuring the continuous growth of the national economy with its high rates.""
Economic problems of socialism in the USSR
I.V. Stalin

Bild/Foto

Well, and then came the Trotskyists, led by Khrushchev, the theory of Convergence, the Kosygin-Lieberman reforms, with dismal attempts to cross the hedgehog with the hedgehog, and the planned economy with self-calculation, when the plan in pieces and units of production began to be replaced by indicators in rubles - and the world's best socialist economy, the rate of growth and development of which no one has ever been able to overcome - sadly and surely came to an end.

And by the way -

mega-corporations, including transnational ones, work exactly the same way - according to socialist, planned methods of economic management. And individual divisions of TNCs do not pay each other in rubles, dollars or other currencies, but only in units of production. And some production units will turn out to be loss-making if they are transferred to self-sufficiency and self-financing. But the sly-ass bourgeois, who tricked the Khrushchev-Trotskyites into Convergence, did not tell them about it.

Well, and the current uneducated dilettantes, advocates of so-called liberal economics, who ruined the USSR in the "holy" 90s, were tricked like suckers - with manetarist theories, the invisible hand of the market, competition and the international division of labor. They forgot to tell the neophyte-school that all this shit hasn't worked for a long time - since the end of the 18th century, approximately. And the methods suitable for Liechtenstein or Burkina Faso are fundamentally unsuitable for ruling a superpower.

Do you know why today's faggots in power so zealously and everywhere install memorials to the so-called "victims of Stalin's repressions"? I didn't get it the first time either. Do you think they really suffer for the sheer number of great human sacrifices? They don't give a fuck a hundred fucking times over - just remember the cannibal quote about 30 extinct millions of those who didn't fit into the market.

Fuck no! All these monuments to the victims of socialist abortion, all these "walls of shit", they put up for themselves - under the sole slogan of inadmissibility of repetition. And they see perfectly well that on the memorial slabs their names are clearly visible through the surnames of these "victims", who are actually enemies of the people. And they are the first in line for the firing cellar.

The damned Communists left you a superpower and the world's second largest economy. Where is it, by the way? And what have you achieved in 30 years? Have you surpassed the Soviets in anything? Except for the presence of dollar billionaires, the number of officials and cops per capita?

You have a government that is an inefficient owner? And it should withdraw from economic management as much as possible. The invisible hand of the market will come and ruin everything by itself, and a kind uncle from the IMF will give money for it - that's your whole fucking paradigm. And the main thing is that you unpleasant bitches, schoolboys and dilettantes, do not know how, cannot and do not want to manage the state entrusted to you by the trusting people.

Everyone knows what happens when some cannot and others do not want to.
...

https://norg-norg.livejournal.com/457762.html
#USSR #soviet #russian #history #economy #Stalin #socialism #СССР #история


Stalingrad


The 80th anniversary of the Victory in the Battle of Stalingrad. February 2, 1943.

Bild/Foto


#history #WWII #WW2 #Stalingrad #Russia #USSR #soviet #russian #victory #red-army