Immediately, as soon as Stalin was in power, he set about creating a unique image around his political figure. Despite all the contradictory actions of the general secretary regarding the execution and exile of everyone who was not pleasing to the new leader, Stalin was adored and loved by the people.

After, under the leadership of the communist leader, the USSR was able to win the Great Patriotic War, Stalin's personality cult increased significantly. Of course, it was quite difficult for Khrushchev to compete with such an image of his predecessor, so he began to debunk the personality cult that had been created over the years.

That is why Khrushchev began to cancel the reforms of the old government, to return public figures objectionable to Stalin from exile, to work on creating his own positive image among the people. All the actions carried out by Khrushchev to debunk the personality cult of Stalin were accepted ambiguously by the people, and later were condemned by historians. In pursuit of their goals, party leaders embellished history and blatantly lied in media reports and textbooks.

What measures did Khrushchev use to debunk the cult of Stalin, and did they bear fruit?

Pros and cons in the table

The reign of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin falls on a very difficult time for our country. This is the time of the post-war devastation of the First World War and the decline in all sectors, the period of the Great Patriotic War with its grave consequences. And also, not least, this is the time of a great post-revolutionary restructuring within the country, in the minds of its citizens, in people's relations.

Stalin had to put a lot of effort into solving all the problems of that period, which he did until his death. Therefore, no matter how many condemn his tyranny, the huge contribution he made to our Motherland cannot be disputed. And, of course, there will be much more positive moments than negative ones.

pros

• Significantly increased the size of the Russian population. Each year, the increase was approximately 1.5 million people of Russian nationality. During the years of Stalin's rule, the entire population of the country grew from 147 million to 208 million.
• The average life expectancy among the population has increased up to 70 years, the mortality rate has significantly decreased (by 60%), including a 3-fold decrease in child mortality.

• Reduced alcohol consumption by more than 2 times. The country has achieved a complete absence of drug addiction.
• A big economic breakthrough in achieving a level of income of the population above the subsistence level for all citizens of the country. Labor productivity has tripled. Complete extermination of unemployment and parasitism. The complete elimination of the organized form of prostitution, which also began to be considered parasitism.

• The country's own resources, national goods were the property of the people of the USSR. All of this was either free or of negligible cost. Free education, medicine, recreation, travel were made publicly available to people. Even housing was provided free of charge for life, and with the right to inherit. Cultural pastime, such as visiting museums, theaters, sights, cost a penny.
• Under Stalin was produced big educational reform. The number of educational institutions has increased many times over. Primary schools - 2 times, secondary schools - 16 times, higher and secondary professional institutions - more than 11 times. In this regard, the number of specialists in various profiles, the number of scientists has increased. The number of students of higher educational institutions increased by 1.5 times.

• As a result of educational reform, scientific breakthrough. In particular, in the nuclear and missile fields. In addition, the expansion of the development of air defense, automation of technological processes, and a large directed gasification of the country were carried out.
• Unparalleled economic recovery occurred with the participation of Joseph Vissarionovich. Despite all the obstacles coming from the West, in the form of creditor denials of funds that were so necessary for the restoration of our country. In spite of several big wars, which had their huge destructive impact. Stalin managed not only to restore the previous level of well-being of citizens, but also to raise it several times and even overtake, in terms of economic growth, such an economically strong power as the United States. The income of citizens was increased by 2.5 times.

• Over the years there has been multiple production growth. 4 times there was an increase in the volume of industrial products, 2 times - agricultural products. The creation of a powerful national production put our country on a par with the United States, which occupied the first place in terms of gross output. Agriculture developed rapidly, virgin lands continued to be developed, state farms and collective farms were built, the indicators of which in those years significantly exceeded previous ones.
• The country's gold reserves increased more than 6 times compared to 1920, which marked the country's "gold decline".
• Stalin played a huge role in World War II, both directly for our country and for the West. Contrary to existing propaganda theories that Iosif Vissarionovich did nothing to prepare the country for war and, allegedly, enemy encroachments in general came as a surprise to him, the military forces of the USSR, according to historical data, were almost equal to the forces of Germany and its allies. Stalin, on the other hand, managed to bring us out victorious, contrary to the intentions of the enemy to defeat the Great Power in a few months. During the war years, military production was increased many times, breakthroughs were made in air defense.

Minuses

• Happened declining birth rate. To a greater extent, this is the influence of the consequences of the war, since the number of the childbearing population has significantly decreased. But the growth of cities in those years, as well as the involvement of women in the industrial sector, became significant here.
• Along with the expansion of the working class, there were strengthening in the bureaucratic sphere, which subsequently gave only negative results for our country, completely ousting the working population.
• An incorrect policy was carried out among the parties of the Comintern, with the subsequent dissolution of this body. This led to irreversible consequences in the communist ideology, and, consequently, weakened the influence of the communist movement, which in general led to a lot of negative consequences. A big blow to the ideology of the country was Stalin's refusal to support its advancement in the West. Thus, communism flourished mainly only in the USSR, and, naturally, was defeated under the onslaught of the capitalist system of neighboring countries. That was observed in the late 80s - early 90s.

Summing up, to all of the above, it must be added that many negative factors in the history of the USSR under the rule of I.V. Stalin were significantly exaggerated. Repressions, executions, exiles, in fact, did not represent such terrible pictures and such a huge scale, which is often presented in history lessons. Under Stalin, there were colossal advances in the development of the country in a positive direction, and the Great Soviet Power was strong for a very long time even after his departure.

The key figure for understanding the Soviet period of history is Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (Dzhugashvili). Perhaps there is no other person in the history of the 20th century around whom such heated debates would boil. Many still believe that Soco Dzhugashvili was born on December 21, 1879. In fact, according to the entry in the parish book, the future head of the USSR was born on December 6 (18), 1878.

Ordzhonikidze, Stalin, Molotov, Kirov are sitting, Voroshilov, Kalganovich, Kuibyshev are standing

Coco's father, a handicraft shoemaker, suffered from drinking bouts, beat his son and wife, who was engaged in housework, died early. The mother was from a peasant family, she tried to raise her son well. Dzhugashvili graduated from a religious school in his native city of Gori (90 km from Tiflis), but did not graduate from the Tiflis Theological Seminary, as he took up professional revolutionary activities. Since 1898 he became a member of the RSDLP, and in 1912 he was elected a member of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b).

Being a professional revolutionary, Stalin repeatedly ended up in prison, exile, from which he escaped several times. Even before 1917, he was considered an expert on the national question. He was a member of the governing bodies of the RSDLP (b). Always supported V. I. Lenin. In October 1917 he was a member of the Military Revolutionary Center. In the first Soviet government, he became People's Commissar for Nationalities. He was a military commissar on the fronts of the Civil War, was considered a tough leader, opposed the involvement of former tsarist officers in the case.

In 1922, Stalin became General Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP(b). Over time, it was the person who held this post who was the highest de facto leader of the country. In the course of his illness and after the death of Lenin, Stalin defeated all the contenders for power. “Everything that he achieved, Stalin owed to himself, his talent and work on himself. But he was lucky that the post-October situation in the country was favorable for the manifestation of his abilities. If a specific situation had not developed in Russia caused by the war and the October Revolution, perhaps the world would never have known anything about Stalin, as well as about many other potentially outstanding people who did not become such in reality, ”wrote the author of one of the few works devoted to the psychological appearance of Stalin.

After the death of V. I. Lenin, holding various positions, Joseph Vissarionovich was the de facto ruler of the country; dealt with numerous political opponents, led the implementation of industrialization, collectivization, mass repression. “In essence, Stalin had only three essential negative traits: suspicion, ruthlessness, vindictiveness. But all three are superlatives: extreme suspicion, emergency rancor, absolute ruthlessness. In addition, tirelessness in the manifestation of these qualities. Over time, they only aggravated, and did not soften, as happens with some (for example, Kaganovich). The combination of these qualities is also unique: suspicion makes space unlimited, and vindictiveness makes time for manifestations of ruthlessness; vindictiveness combined with ruthlessness breeds vindictiveness. The question cannot but arise: do not these three negative traits outweigh all the positive components of Stalin's personality?

The theme of Stalinist repressions was once used by Khrushchev, then by Gorbachev, and is intensively exaggerated before each election to discredit the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which seems to be the most dangerous force for the modern political elite. Sometimes the question is posed more broadly - about the "price" of the experiment in building socialism in the USSR.

For 1930-1953 about 4 million people passed through the Stalinist repressive machine, of which about a million were killed, mainly during the Yezhovshchina. To date, over 2 million of those who suffered during the years of Stalinist repressions have been fully rehabilitated.

The People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs was a powerful system that became the main instrument of Stalin's personal power. By 1940, up to 4 million people had lost their freedom in the country, including 2.5 million who were prisoners of camps. "Population"

The Main Directorate of Camps (GULAG) in the second five-year plan mastered 6-10% of all capital investments in the national economy. Up to 500 thousand were in prisons. About a million people accounted for the special settlements of former kulaks and correctional labor bureaus.

In the pre-election speeches of politicians, propaganda materials of the media, there are ever-increasing numbers designed to scare the voter. In this auction, the stakes reached "100 million victims of the Soviet regime." At the same time, no one mentions that detailed, documentary information about the functioning of the Stalinist repressive machine has been published since the second half of the 1980s. in the mass ("Arguments and Facts") and historical periodicals (magazines "Izvestia of the Central Committee of the CPSU", "Istochnik", "Soviet (Russian) Archives", etc.), as well as cited and commented on in the works of a number of authors. It also seems significant that without a correct, clearly modeled comparison of the “era of Stalin” with the “era of Yeltsin” or the “era of Peter the Great”, we are unlikely to get any objective idea of ​​what was happening in the country.

In 1941-1945. Stalin was the chairman of the State Defense Committee, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the head of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, and held other posts. He undoubtedly made a miscalculation in assessing the timing of the start of the war, but he showed himself as an organizer, diplomat, leader of the Soviet people in the defeat of German fascism and Japanese militarism. After 1945, the personal regime of power of I. V. Stalin reached its apogee, repressions resumed (“the second personnel revolution”). He created a "socialist camp" of countries that embarked on the socialist path of development, was an authoritative leader of the international revolutionary, communist movement. Under Stalin, the Cold War began, the task of creating atomic weapons was solved.

He is the author of a number of ideas, theoretical works, was considered the successor of Lenin's work. Under the conditions of Stalin's personality cult, cities, objects, etc., bore his name. Stalin himself created his own personality cult, because he considered it a necessary element of control in a country like Russia. Were there grounds for a cult? Later attempts were made to create a personality cult of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. But they were still talked about - "a sack of personality." Can there be a cult of personality if there is no personality itself?

Let us give the floor to the psychologist: “We have before us a very integral personality, the qualities of which mutually complemented one another and determined the success of the activity. Exceptional observation and a wide range of perception + the ability to see and take into account both the general and the individual + attention even to trifles and the ability to assess the systemic significance of any of them + the system-forming, ordering nature of creativity + anxiety, which made me not lose my head with success + the ability to develop a solid solution coupled with the ability to keep looking for the best ways to implement it<…>

Stalin gradually developed ambitions of such magnitude that in real, everyday life they really did not have an adequate expression. It was the purest embodiment of power: no corruption, protectionism, favoritism, creation of special conditions for the family.

Being at the helm of power, Stalin did not sleep, standing on its top. Didn't do blathering. He did not keep near him, even if very loyal, but useless. He did not attach relatives to warm places. Possessing absolute power, he did not have and did not seek any dividends from this.

After Lenin's death, Stalin became the new charismatic leader and retained his charisma until his death.

Stalin's death gave rise to many rumors. His daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva also drew attention to a female doctor who gave her father some kind of injection. They also talked about the poisoning of Stalin. The decisive stroke could, according to some, begin right at the meeting of the Politburo, during which Stalin received a strong blow to the back of the head, either from the guard, or from Beria himself. There was even a version about Stalin's suicide, the author of which later admitted that he simply invented this version in order to earn some money.

The following sequence of events seems more plausible. At the 19th Congress of the CPSU, Stalin sharply criticized his closest associates: Molotov, Mikoyan, Kaganovich. "Faithful Stalinists" felt the approach of another "personnel revolution". Stalin, like Ivan the Terrible, from time to time "went through the little people." It is not surprising that, in fact, at the same time, the "case of doctors" began, and the suspicious Stalin himself deprived himself of qualified medical care. For some reason, he also got rid of the long-term head of his guard, General Vlasik.

In addition, the regime of stay and rest at the so-called Near Dacha, established by Stalin himself, was such that the attack that began at night did not allow Stalin himself to immediately call for help. When the guards dared to enter the room where Stalin was, it was already too late.

After his death on March 5, 1953, by decision of the country's top leadership, Stalin's embalmed body was in the Mausoleum along with the body of V.I. . Another wave of renaming swept across the country. Almost all the monuments to the "leader of all times and peoples" were demolished. A monument to Stalin has been preserved in Gori (Georgia), where he was born.

Stalin, like Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Lenin, is one of the most controversial figures in our history. He was well versed in people, knew how to manipulate them. He understood the peculiarities of the mentality of the Russian people, tried to secure the support of the majority, and maneuvered if necessary. He wrote his works himself, skillfully selected assistants, referents. "Stalin's entourage" consisted of people who were personally devoted to him almost until the death of the leader, who depended on him, were ready to fulfill any assignment and at the same time were distinguished by their hard work, organizational talent, energy and cruelty. In fact, Stalin became the last Russian tsar, an absolute autocrat. No one could shake his power until his death.

Much has been written about Stalin. The outstanding Soviet writer K. M. Simonov in the book “Through the Eyes of a Man of My Generation” said about Stalin this way: great and terrible. Some focus on the first adjective, others only on the second. To understand the historical process, a panoramic, dialectical approach is needed, which is developed by society with great difficulty.

An objective review of Stalin's rule Pros and Cons

Pros:

The advantages of Stalin's rule include:

1) First, Stalin's fight against illiteracy among the common people (mainly among the working class). The first thing the new government of the Soviet Union did was to eliminate illiteracy, which was inherited from the Russian Empire (the construction of new schools began, a new education system and a special system for raising a new generation of children were created).

2) The country's nuclear missile shield has been created. The USSR becomes one of the two most powerful powers of that time in terms of nuclear arsenal (after the Great Patriotic War). Thus, the United States "nuclear monopoly" was eliminated. only the Soviet Union. Only the USSR could contradict the military rhetoric of the "West" and aggression against the backward countries of a non-capitalist idea.

3) The beginning of space exploration. And later (after the death of Stalin) and space exploration (the first manned flight into space).

4) Much attention was paid to the development and upbringing of children of the new generation (children's camps, ideological clubs, circles, sections, houses of pioneers, etc.). Construction of new ideals of communism and anti-bourgeoisie, education and exaltation of the idea of ​​"people's power".

5) Before the start of the Great Patriotic War, under the leadership of Stalin, an "industrial revolution" took place (as a result of which, the country took second place in the world in terms of industrial production).

6) Before the start of World War II, Stalin prevented a major unification of Western countries against the USSR, then still a weak and young communist country.

7) Laid the foundations for the future power of the USSR in various sectors of the economy (industry in the first place).

8) Under Stalin, the country had some of the lowest prices for consumer goods and utilities.

9) The beginning of the country's breakthrough in terms of technological progress.

ten) . The Soviet Union under Stalin managed to defend the aggression from Nazi Germany and defeat the military forces of the Wehrmacht, thereby eliminating the strongest army and the most developed military-technical country in Europe at that time.

11) Soviet-Japanese war of 1945. The defeat of the armed forces of Japan and the annexation by the victorious country of the territories lost by Russia as a result of the Russo-Japanese War.

12) Surprisingly fast recovery of their territories, which were destroyed during the war.

13) Under Stalin, the Soviet Union managed to re-equip the army by more than half, taking into account the experience of the war that ended.

14) Rendering practically gratuitous assistance to countries that have embarked on the socialist path of development.

Minuses:

1) And although general illiteracy among the common people was sharply reduced, the prerequisite for the construction of a new education system was the dominance of the ideology of communism. All "dissenters" were despised by the majority. According to Stalin's plans, there should have been no other point of view in the country, except for the official one.

2) The Soviet Union was a counterweight to the nuclear power of the United States, but if the West did not have an atomic bomb, then the military arsenal of the USSR could have been directed to aggression on the side of non-communist countries. It can be said that both superpowers, if one of them did not have a nuclear arsenal, would sooner or later achieve the expansion of their ideology through military rhetoric among non-nuclear countries, or through diplomacy, which would certainly be supported by nuclear weapons. Specifically, there are no pluses and minuses at this point, because mutual nuclear deterrence is inevitable in any scenario of the development of history.

3) The upbringing of a new ideological generation provoked open hostility towards dissidents, and also developed new techniques and methods of state censorship. Unfortunately, censorship was always and everywhere (to some extent in all countries), but it was in the Soviet Union under Stalin that state censorship began to play a big role in people's consciousness.

A vivid example of Stalin's Censorship: the General Commissar of State Security (NKVD) of the USSR N.I. Yezhov (far right), after being shot, was erased using photo editing tools of that time.

After censorship:

4) Unfortunately, in the USSR, the "Industrial Revolution" passed through violence and forced collectivization, which was inevitably accompanied by the victims of this revolution.

5) Stalin's achievement of order through the policy of great terror:

Destruction of the intelligentsia;

Destruction of the leadership of the army;

Destruction of scientific thought (if ideas were put forward that differed from the official policy and guidelines of the party);

Destruction of people of believers;

Destruction in the countryside of strong business executives;

5) And although Stalin prevented before the start of World War II a major unification of Western countries against the USSR, then still a weak and young communist country, later these countries nevertheless united in a single bloc against the "Soviet Union".

6) A gross violation of international human rights (and ignoring the natural laws of humanity) - in particular, a working day of 12-14 hours, wages not in money, but in poor quality food.

7) Growing gap in the standard of living between workers and peasants, and creative, and the ruling "elite".

8) Forced collectivization (according to various estimates, from 3 million to 7 million people died only because of hunger).

9) Prosperity of latent anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews).

10) The development of the economy was uneven - preference was given only to resource-intensive industries.

11) Changing the psychology in the minds of the population (slavery and servility flourished in the Soviet Union under Stalin). Those who argued with the authorities endured a flurry of criticism from the latter. Corruption is, unfortunately, the main problem of all countries of the world without exception. Even in China, which now has the death penalty for corruption on an especially large scale, corruption still thrives. The question is, where is corruption less and where is more? Depends on the psychology and mentality of the population.

12) Victory in the Great Patriotic War. Despite the fact that this topic is sacred, there are many reasons for criticizing the Stalinist method of warfare. And although the Soviet Union, frankly speaking, saved the whole world from Nazi Germany and its satellite countries, the victory was achieved at the cost of the lives of a huge number of people from the USSR. The victory in this war was not without the help of Western allied countries. The Nazi regime was overthrown by the efforts of all countries of the anti-Hitler bloc. It is impossible to forget the fact that before the start of the war, the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact on non-aggression against each other between the USSR and Germany, concluded on August 23, 1939.

In full accordance with the secret protocol, whose original was found in the archives of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU only in the mid-1990s: in 1939, after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the attack on Poland, German troops did not enter the eastern regions of Poland populated mainly by Belarusians and Ukrainians , as well as to the territory of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. All these territories were subsequently invaded by Soviet troops. On September 17, 1939, Soviet troops entered the territory of the eastern regions of Poland. In 1939-1940, relying on the left political forces in these countries, the Stalinist leadership established control over Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and as a result of a military conflict with Finland, which was also classified by a secret protocol in the sphere of interests of the USSR, seized part of Karelia from this country and territories adjacent to Leningrad (now the city of St. Petersburg). These joint military actions of the USSR and Germany led to a misunderstanding between the Western world and the Soviet Union.

13) During Stalin, the Soviet Union provided gratuitous assistance to countries that embarked on the socialist path of development, but subsequently, the economy of some countries, of all those who joined the idea of ​​​​the world proletariat, was at a low level, and later the military invasions of the West began in these countries, which were accompanied by huge casualties among the population.

14) Stalin's personality cult.

To summarize: and so, Stalin founded an empire that was a counterweight to the empire of capitalism. Two powerful superpowers, which now and then opposed each other, were to some extent a struggle between "good and evil", each of which had its own concept of "good and evil". Who is Good and Evil? This is most likely a rhetorical question, time will tell the answer ... History is written by the winners.

Now the Soviet Union is no more, but the remnants of this great country remain, which still rebuff the West, despite the fact that the idea of ​​​​true communism has long faded. At the moment, the world's generally recognized ideology is de facto Capitalism, which has been established in individual countries in its unique forms of manifestation and with its own characteristics. Unfortunately, real communism is more of a utopia than a reality that cannot be realized in human society. Personally, I don’t think anything about it unequivocally, I try to think objectively on this topic.

Board results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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