Are mass repressions possible in Putin's Russia? Truth and lies about Stalin's repressions (4 photos).

1. Formation of the penitentiary system. It was the USSR that became a pioneer in this area, having built a system of correctional institutions based on the communist idea of the educational benefits of labor. Yes, before that there were prisons, camps, hard labor. But it was in the pre-war Soviet Union that the humanitarian goal of imprisonment was formulated: not punishment as such, not isolation for the sake of isolation, but the correction of the individual through physical labor.

The introduction of a network of labor camps proceeded in parallel and in conjunction with the emerging educational system. Thus, for example, thousands of homeless children and adolescents were returned to normal life through labor colonies.

In the West, the experience of the Union was initially presented in a caricature and according to the principle “if we don’t have it, then it’s something terrible.” The bias is clearly visible in the fact that it is not the death penalty (a common thing in all forms of government in Europe, not to mention America) that is more often condemned, but forced labor. After World War II, to simplify the horror, the Gulag began to be equated with Nazi camps, the purpose of which was exactly the opposite of what the Soviets proclaimed.

2. Post-revolutionary restoration

It always happens after all revolutions, and not because evil eventually overcomes good, but because good in turbulent times is so unrestrained that, in addition to fighters for all good against all bad, a mass of criminal elements emerge to the surface, who simply take advantage of the turmoil .

The wrestlers themselves are also usually carried away, let us recall at least the courts during the French Revolution. It is unthinkable to imagine that order in such conditions could be restored with a quiet kind word.

3. Militarism in society

Unlike schoolchildren, bloggers, and other creative designers who protest today, in the 1930s, a politically active society consisted mainly of participants in the First World War and the Civil War, that is, it had experience of military operations. The electorate of that time resorted to proven skills and improvised means much more willingly, because on the ruins of a decade of chaos they were not afraid to lose their source of income to pay for the Ford Focus loan, and in general acted more radically.

Of course, the authorities did not respond to all this with a trip in a paddy wagon to a jail for 15 days.

4. Severing social ties

The Stalin era is a time of great migrations: from the village to the cities, from the west to the east and to the north of the country. The personal ties that largely prevent crime in society have been severed. People who were morally unstable took advantage of the incognito situation in a new place and committed light crimes without fear of shame.

The same fact significantly influenced the denunciations. Not bound by moral obligations with their neighbors, people denounced, seeking for themselves and their loved ones privileges and improved living conditions, which in the cities overflowing with new settlers were far worse than those to which the peasant was accustomed in the Russian countryside.

5. Implementation of universal literacy

Surprisingly, but so. Together with literacy, social activity also grew - well, why was it necessary to learn to write in old age, if not to pin down a boring neighbor?

Representatives of the authorities, themselves barely a plow, accepting complaints from illiterate informers, were hardly able to analyze the text well, as a result, a tragedy easily happened. Remember the classic litigious grandmother who scribbles complaints about her neighbor UFO agent, only here it’s not a UFO agent, but an enemy of the revolution.

The fact of mentally ill scammers is vividly illustrated in the film We'll Live Till Monday, where even an educated hero barely manages to figure out the reasons forcing the father of one of his students to send him angry messages with threats. In addition, the scammer was not always aware of what would happen to his victim in the future.

6. The contingent of punitive bodies

It is quite expected that the repressive apparatus will bring together people with experience in violence. It is also expected that he, in attempts to reform, will begin to devour himself. A certain proportion of the repressed were the members of the punitive institutions themselves.

7. Difficult economic situation

The thirties were a long global crisis, from which not only the USSR suffered - the Great Depression in the United States has long been waiting for its objective assessment with numbers.

It is clear that where there is nothing to eat, it is expected that there will be thieves, including among people who do not belong to marginal elements. There will be corruption, embezzlement and other embezzlement.

8. A huge number of factions

Unlike today's realities, where people can hardly be divided into patriots and kreakles, that era was characterized by a large number of all kinds of social formations - from political parties to poetic circles. There were no Blozhiki yet, therefore, in order to be heard, people went astray according to their interests and carried out social activities. Moreover, often what looked like a circle of young poetesses turned out to be quite a revolutionary engaged cell.

An additional effect of intimidation was exerted by the concentration of such groups in the capitals, where the breakdown of the social hierarchy was most clearly manifested, the housing problem was most acute, and so on. That is, the repressions much more often concerned such crowded metropolitan communities, because of which, in the exaggerated view of Muscovites and St. Petersburg residents, there was an opinion that half the country was already sitting.

9. Rejection of the world revolution

Disappointed.

The entire post-revolutionary period before Stalin came to power was colored by the idea of a new world order. Many supporters of the revolution of that time on both sides of the border opposed the state in principle, they categorically did not like the new course towards domestic politics.

The lion's share of the political prisoners of the Stalinist period were Trotskyists, many of whom radicalized into quite terrorist organizations. Now their role is described by the opponents of Stalin exclusively plaintively, but at that time it was they who posed the greatest danger both to the capitalist countries and to the young socialist Union.

10. Politicized society

This phenomenon is generally typical for Russia, as a result of which the list of political prisoners often included people with professions far removed from politics.

At first glance, it seems that the authorities punish harmless passers-by for any seditious thought, but if you look closely, all these “passers-by” and “poets” acted as political activists. This does not mean that they are necessarily guilty, but the fact is that these people took part in the struggle for power.

Well, “don’t touch the artist, he was just trying to beautifully burn the FSB building” - this is also not invented today.

11. Geographic coverage

The USSR became the first real social state where "everyone was counted." For many, very many figures of that period, it was a huge surprise that they could get it at all. Get it anywhere, even in the taiga, even in the mountains of the Caucasus. This applies to both opponents of power and banal criminals.

12. Hostile environment

Not a single real revolution, that is, carrying radical, hitherto unseen, social transformations, has ever been welcomed by neighboring countries. The reason is banal, the elite is afraid of losing power and money. Undermine a foreign state, beat it out of its competitors, rob it on the sly - as much as you like, but never establish a stable order in it, different from your own.

The socialist revolution in a vast country full of resources and weapons was not welcomed triple, and therefore all means against were good. For decades, the young USSR, with great difficulty, made its way to the banal establishment of diplomatic relations, today this looks unthinkable. Of course, foreign agents did not shun any conspiracies and influences.

13. The rise of Nazism

This should be taken out in a separate paragraph because of the ideological fullness. It is foolish to think that, having formulated the idea of living space in the east and the theory of racial inferiority of the Slavs, Nazi Germany did nothing in this direction until June 22, 1941, but only traded with the USSR and generally signed pacts.

It should also be noted that at that time the theory of social Darwinism gained momentum in the world, according to which the lower strata of society had innately low mental abilities and weak moral qualities. Against this background, the USSR with its dictatorship of the proletariat looked absolutely wild, the Reich looked much “handshake”, because it only finalized the idea of elitism that dominates in the West.

In addition, under Stalin the trend towards the "dictatorship of the proletariat" only intensified. In particular, the widespread introduction of classical education began - the cook began to be taught how to manage the state. This is what the West defiantly resisted until the end of the Second World War, and in a hidden form still resists. Because knowledge is power.

14. Pre-war collaborationism

A striking Russian phenomenon, when part of the population begins to cooperate with the future invader even before the war. Even now it blooms luxuriantly, and in the 30s it bloomed even brighter: the Nazis were not only not disgusting to many, they were desired even with weapons and bringing death.

Of course, it was not difficult to find those willing to cooperate with Nazi intelligence. Nuremberg forced many to reconsider their views and hide evidence, but even so it is not difficult to find passionate appeals to the Reich from our Soviet intellectuals of that era.

15. High level of freedom

Historically, Russia, with its vast territories, low population density and large amount of fertile land, has enjoyed considerable freedom. This intensified after the October Revolution due to communist ideology, as well as civil war and anarchy.

When, under such conditions, freedom begins to be cut, the cry of protest and guard is heard much louder than where there was no freedom at all, and even less. And, of course, that cry was echoed by all the opponents of the USSR, who in the same era created concentration camps for death, used lobotomy, evicted peoples to barren reservations with no chance of life, and so on and so forth.

Now let's take into account the historical realities of that era, and they tell us that:

The death penalty in the 30s of the XX century was a common and commonplace phenomenon. In France, the guillotine worked for the amusement of the public, the electric chair was actively introduced in the USA, and free Lithuania, for example, indulged in gas chambers for the instigators of peasant riots. That is, its use cannot be compared with today.

Deprived of life in the rest of the world, not only criminals. Even in the USA, where there was no revolution, no post-revolutionary restoration, no extremely hostile state with an anti-human ideology at hand, political people were executed. For example, the communists.

The total number of prisoners in the Stalinist USSR per capita was less than those in the current United States.

Most prisoners in the Stalinist USSR were criminals.

Therefore, if we want to prove that the USSR significantly exceeded the prisoner quota, we must admit the following:

In the Stalinist USSR, unlike the current United States, there was no comparable crime rate, and political prisoners were imprisoned under criminal articles. There were no thefts or murders, although the United States today is one of the richest countries in the world, and the USSR then was a state in ruins, at the height of the global crisis, at the time of the breakdown and global restructuring of the social structure.

The Stalinist USSR had no enemies. Unlike the current United States, which is forced to keep its political prisoners without trial or investigation, the USSR did not even have a reason to arrest them for political reasons. Although, having made a revolution, he was under siege from a significant part of the world and was adjacent to the Nazi state, which proclaimed its peoples an inferior race. But there are articles for treason in all codes, this is a crime.

Can this be allowed? Of course not. Having established a new social order that threatened world capital, the Union inevitably had to be wary of subversive activities on the part of those in power and white émigrés.

How did such an inflated myth come about?

Firstly, Khrushchev's revelations and the pedaling of the political component played a huge role, as a result of which every legitimate thief and swindler could say that he had suffered for a joke. Well, who refuses to whitewash themselves or a close relative?

Secondly, oddly enough, German Nazism significantly influenced - the USSR was conveniently inscribed in the doctrine of totalitarianism, leveling two opposite ideologies and attributing Nazi crimes to the Union. The most popular myth in this vein is about the Gulag camps as concentration camps. That is, the places where prisoners were kept without trial or investigation are sometimes even referred to as death camps. There were no concentration camps, much less death camps in the USSR, but they were in some democratic, "non-totalitarian" countries.

Thirdly, the myth of the most terrible regime was beneficial to those in power in the capitalist camp, since it made the system so attractive to the proletariat unattractive.

Summing up

What for it is necessary to dig out all this, to refute, recalculate? After all, it seems that grieving is better than not grieving.

Were there tragedies, innocent prisoners who lost their health, loved ones, their homeland, were killed? Of course there were. As well as excessively harsh sentences, poor supply of camps, the severity of being in a criminal environment for those who were not criminals.

But here's what you need to remember. As noted above, the number of prisoners at that time barely exceeded the current layout in the Russian Federation and did not even reach that in the United States. And this means that it will not be difficult to surpass the Stalinist years in terms of repression even today.

By denigrating that historical period to absolute evil, we seem to be distancing ourselves from the people who participated in it. Say, well, we would not, but never! Well, unless we put all the corrupt officials in prison. And those who are now in power. Who brought the country. Let's find the culprits and - moreover.

How easy is it to arrange not just a big, but a gigantic terror today?

Jail everyone who evades taxes. Not just big business. Freelance programmers, tutors, web designers, photographers and other freelancers.

Jail anyone who gives or takes bribes. Not only deputies and governors. Teachers, doctors, hostel concierge.

Jail everyone who doesn't pay the fines.

The less we denigrate, the less we distance ourselves, the more we admit that we ourselves could be not only in the place of the victims, but also the executioners, the better we understand the reasons, the less likely we are to repeat this.

https://cont.ws/@sutiveshey

Evaluation of information

...: the Nazis are not just were many do not mind they were desirable even with weapons ... there are no death camps in the USSR It was, but they were in some democratic, "non-totalitarian ... this means that to outdo Stalinist years to repression won't be too hard...

... "1937. ALL THE TRUTH ABOUT " STALIN REPRESSION"- M.: Yauza; Eksmo, ... a paradoxical opinion that repression were caused by an acute intra-party struggle ... not quite right. He was against the revolution... He viewed them as tools to were...

Himself were every chance of becoming an innocent victim " Stalinist» repression but... that doesn't mean they sincerely are like-minded and ... years. "Congress of the Winners" he the "Congress of the Executed Victors" ... does not mean that they sincerely are like-minded and ...

Now the same thing is happening in Russia as in 1937-39 in the USSR: traitors and ideological enemies have seized almost all government bodies; sabotage, sabotage and terrorist acts were committed everywhere. We had to fight the enemies...
Stalin's "repressions"? Not! Fight against the enemies of Soviet Russia!
Fragment from the book of B.G. Solovyov and V.V. Sukhodeev "Commander Stalin"

Surprisingly, sometimes we don’t even notice that we habitually use vocabulary imposed on us by those who by no means wish the best for Russia and its people. Who benefits from giving a truly sinister coloring to the actions of the ruler of a country that is fighting its internal enemies, those who wish harm to it and its people?

Khrushchev, who really carried out repressions in order to curry favor. To which Stalin wrote to him, "Calm down, fool." Khrushchev in order to shift his guilt to the deceased leader of the USSR. And most of all, anti-Russian writers like Solzhenitsyn did their best to spread the word "repression". Plus to them - all, without exception, Western sociologists and historians.
So, for some reason, we still use the established meme “Stalinist repressions”. Then why don't they talk about American repression in the era of the "witch hunt"? And when the same Americans interned all persons of Japanese origin indiscriminately? Without trial and investigation, focusing only on belonging to Japanese blood? After all, this is exactly what repression is!
You can remember the British gallows, and the French guillotines, and German concentration camps even before the start of the war, Israeli terror ... Not to mention the millions of innocent victims during the repression of the British in the colonial territories under their jurisdiction ...
But no, Western and Russian liberals for some reason do not mention such facts, and if they say anything about this, then you will not wait for the word “repression” from them.
There were no "Stalinist repressions". There was a fierce struggle with the enemies of Russia: Zionists, Trotskyists and liberals of all stripes. And only thanks to the security measures taken, we were able to win the most brutal war imposed on us by the same Zionists, Trotskyists and liberals.
There is one remarkable criterion that clearly illustrates the whole lie of the "repression" myth. This is the mass sincere grief of people at the announcement of the death of I.V. Stalin.

Residents of Khabarovsk listening to a message about Stalin's death, 1953.

in Vilnius and Prague.

The entire experience of history shows that the class struggle, especially at the turning points of development, is cruel and merciless. Not only enemies, but also innocent people fall into her millstones.
The unprecedented, rapid enrichment of a handful of people in our country in recent years is based on the genocide of the people, on its extinction on a monstrous scale, reaching one and a half million a year, on the plundering of the fruits of the labor of many generations of Soviet people.
This is the manifestation of the class struggle at the present stage. Not to see this is to be blind. "Democratic" propaganda is doing everything to obscure these facts, to hide them from the people. With devilish persistence, she tries to hide the class essence, the historical conditioning of the "repressions" of the 1930s.
In order to delve deeper into the issue of "repression", it is necessary to consider at least three major aspects of this problem.
Firstly, it is necessary to clearly determine whether the “repressions” were justified, directed against persons who committed grave state crimes, whether these persons suffered a well-deserved punishment. Or "repressions" were brought down on innocent people, and supporters of the socialist state of workers and peasants became victims.
This is a fundamental question and the answer to it is of decisive importance for judging the legitimacy or criminality of the “repressions” themselves.

Khrushchev, his followers, modern "democrats" he is perverted and confused to the last degree. No effort should be spared in order to ascertain the truth in this matter. Too much is connected with him in the past history of the country, and even now his decision, without exaggeration, is of crucial importance for the very foundations of ideological and moral life and the prospects for the development of our society.
The second most important aspect of the problem of "repressions" is their scale. A complete bacchanalia of figures and monstrous fictions reigns here. Figures are cited that are exaggerated to incredible proportions, far beyond the scope of elementary common sense. And along with this, a line is being drawn towards complete ignoring, deliberate, one might say, total suppression of official, fairly reliable data available on this matter.
The "democrats" widely disseminated arguments that, by their very essence, there could not have been such a wide apostasy from the cause of socialism in the 30s and there could not have been such a betrayal in the highest echelons of party and state power on the part of the old Bolsheviks. This is presented as a truth that does not require proof. However, the experience of subsequent years completely rejects the validity of these arguments.
We cannot discount our recent tragic experience of perestroika and reforms, when the leading core of the party - General Secretary Gorbachev, Politburo members Yakovlev, Shevardnadze, candidate member of the Politburo Yeltsin and others - acted as traitors to the cause of socialism, destroyers of a great country. It must not be forgotten that many of the leading cadres of the Party and the state have followed their criminal path.
These events and their grave consequences for the destinies of the country and the people unfolded before our eyes. Why should we now exclude a priori the reality of such a betrayal on the part of individual figures of the time at an early stage in the history of the Soviet state? And following the “democrats” to deny the necessity and inevitability of the “repressions” carried out in those 30s, which were legitimately aimed at curbing their anti-state, anti-Soviet activities. These lessons of history must be taken into account when considering the problem of "repression".
Now let's dwell, at least in general terms, on the third side of the problem of repression - did the severity of the punishment correspond to the achievement of the main goal, the salvation of the country in the face of the rapidly impending threat of a war of extermination? Were the harsh measures of the repressions justified and necessary? First of all, it is necessary to establish against what crimes they were applied. The gravity of guilt must correspond to, follow from the gravity of the crime.
Neither Khrushchev nor his followers could refute the indisputable facts testifying that both in the 1930s and in subsequent years mines exploded in our country, grain storages were burned, trains with people and cargo were derailed, policemen went into the service of the German invaders and punishers, and they betrayed and killed the Soviet people. After all, all this was done by specific people. It is ridiculous to say that these were only isolated cases. Tens of thousands of facts confirm that this is a manifestation of the class struggle.
How was the government obliged to respond to this, protecting the interests and integrity of the state, the interests of the people and socialism in the conditions of the impending, and then ongoing war?
Indeed, before that, Stalin had been discussing with his opponents for many years on the most important issues of the fate of the country and the party. It was not possible to convince them to give up the struggle, sabotage, and terror. Could the authorities respond to their gravest crimes with some half-measures? Could they bring the desired result?
This is highly doubtful. We must also take into account the fact that only cruel forms of retribution could frighten rabid enemies and force them to abandon subversive activities. Terror against enemies was a measure of protection. It seems that these considerations must be taken into account when considering the problem of "repression".
Ultimately, both the Trotskyists and the Bukharinites degenerated into the worst enemies of the Soviet Union, who labored in the service of foreign intelligence services.

They were closely connected with German fascism, which was preparing a war against the USSR. Both Trotskyists and Bukharinites were actively engaged in sabotage, sabotage, espionage, and organization of terrorist acts against the leaders of our country. Their defeat was the most important condition for the victorious construction of socialism in the Soviet Union and later for victory in the Great Patriotic War.
There is a need to dwell on one more aspect of this fundamentally important issue, namely the so-called case of Marshal Tukhachevsky. A huge role in the case of Tukhachevsky and his supporters was played by secret documents sent to Stalin by the President of Czechoslovakia Benes about the existence of a conspiracy in the Soviet Union. The latter (as well as experts from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the security services and foreign intelligence of this country) were absolutely sure of their authenticity. At that time, Czechoslovakia was threatened by the aggression of Nazi Germany, and Beneš was interested in strengthening the power of his ally, the USSR, in preventing a military coup that was being prepared in the country.
There is abundant evidence that not only Beneš and Stalin, but also many leading and well-informed statesmen of the West in 1937, and in subsequent years, considered the accusatory evidence put forward at the trials of 1937 as well-founded and true.
Churchill, in his memoirs World War II, writes about this: “In the autumn of 1936, President Benes received a notification from a high-ranking German military official that if he wants to take advantage of the Fuhrer’s offer, he should hurry, as events will soon occur in Russia which will render any possible aid Beneš to Germany worthless.
While Beneš pondered this disturbing hint, he learned that through the Soviet embassy in Prague there was communication between high-ranking officials in Russia and the German government. This was one of the elements of the so-called conspiracy of the military and the old guard of the communists, who sought to overthrow Stalin and establish a new regime based on a pro-German orientation. Wasting no time, President Benes told Stalin everything he could find out.
This was followed by a ruthless, but perhaps not unprofitable purge of the military and political apparatus in Soviet Russia and a series of trials in January 1937, in which Vyshinsky acted so brilliantly as a public prosecutor ... The Russian army was purged of pro-German elements, although this caused a heavy damage to its combat effectiveness ... Stalin was aware of what he personally owed to Benes, and the Soviet government was inspired by a strong desire to help him and his endangered country resist the Nazi danger ... ”(W. Churchill“ World War II ”, vol. 1. M., 1955, pp. 266, 267).
It is characteristic that the first information received about the Tukhachevsky conspiracy was perceived by the Soviet side with distrust. The German historian I. Pfaff, who studied the circumstances of the “Tukhachevsky case”, writes: “From the categorical and brief formulations in the notes contained in the presidential office, it even seems to be clear that the first two conversations with Aleksandrovsky, on April 22 and 24, were accompanied by heated discussions between the Soviet envoy, who sought to refute the accusations against Tukhachevsky as absurd, and Benes, who failed to shake this confidence of the envoy, and that only on April 26 and May 7 did Aleksandrovsky capitulate to the "damaging material" provided to him by Benes.
Further, Pfaff writes that the information received from Benes was discussed at a meeting of the Politburo on May 24, 1937, and from the decision taken there, it is possible, at least in general terms, to outline the accusations against Tukhachevsky and other generals. The "conspirators" allegedly planned "in cooperation with the German General Staff and the Gestapo ... as a result of a military coup, to overthrow Stalin and the Soviet government, as well as all the organs of the party and Soviet power, to establish ... a military dictatorship."
This was to be done with the help of an anti-communist "national government" linked to Germany and intended to carry out the assassination of Stalin and his leading associates, "to grant Germany special privileges within the Soviet Union for her help" and to make "territorial concessions to Germany ... in the Ukraine" not to mention the termination of alliances with Paris and Prague. All this should have happened under the slogan of creating a “national Russia”, which would have been under strong military power.”
I. Pfaff refers to documents that show that Beneš informed not only Stalin about the Tukhachevsky conspiracy. Already on May 8, he informed the French Prime Minister about the conspiracy of the Soviet high command. And two days later he asked for the implementation of French "relations with the Soviet General Staff to exercise maximum caution, since members of the leadership of the Soviet General Staff maintain suspicious contacts with Germany."
At the end of June 1937, the French ambassador in London reported to Paris that the British government had received information from a reliable source about secret negotiations between the German General Staff and Soviet military leaders. In September 1937, Beneš informed the American envoy in Prague about Tukhachevsky's plot. (“Military Historical Journal”, 1988, No. 11, pp. 49, 50, 51, 54; No. 12, p. 65).

It is quite obvious that in the case of Tukhachevsky and his accomplices, the documents sent by President Benes to Stalin played a crucial role. However, Khrushchev kept silent about these documents at the 20th Party Congress. When rumors about their presence leaked out and began to excite the public, he mentioned them only six years later at the XXII Party Congress as a petty trifle. Once again, the congress delegates were deprived of the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the contents of these documents. An objective examination of these documents has not yet been carried out, while political speculation continues.
When examining documents on the activities of Tukhachevsky, it seems advisable to take into account the following testimony of V. Schellenberg: “At one time it was argued that the material collected by Heydrich to discredit Tukhachevsky consisted mostly of deliberately fabricated documents. In reality, no more was forged than needed to fill in some of the gaps. This is confirmed by the fact that a very voluminous dossier was prepared and presented to Hitler in a short period of time - in four days ... "(Quoted by: Y. Mukhin" Journey from democracy to ************ and the way back ". M., 1993, S. 199).
Analyzing materials about Tukhachevsky and his group, one of the leaders of Soviet intelligence, General P.A. Sudoplatov writes: “Even those historians who are eager to expose Stalin’s crimes cannot help but admit that the materials of the Tukhachevsky case contain all sorts of documentary evidence regarding plans to reshuffle the country’s military leadership ... The criminal case against Tukhachevsky was entirely based on his own confessions, and there are absolutely no references to specific incriminating facts received from abroad ... ”(P.A. Sudoplatov“ Intelligence and the Kremlin ”. M., 1997, pp. 103, 104).
Solving the question of the loyalty of the army was then an urgent task, and it could be solved only by carrying out radical, large-scale measures, by purging the army of Trotsky's supporters. From the point of view of both internal political and strengthening the country's defense capability in the conditions of the impending war, the task of purging the army cadres was put forward as an urgent, urgent need. Although it was, no doubt, an extremely painful and, to a certain extent, dangerous task.
And yet, the purge carried out in the army was a necessary act. It strengthened the country's defense capability, radically undermined the Trotskyist influence in the Armed Forces, cleansed them of traitorous and espionage elements. Thus, the British Ambassador W. Seeds reported to London on June 6, 1939: “a) the Red Army is now loyal to the regime and will, if ordered, wage war both offensively and defensively; b) she suffered heavy losses as a result of the "purges", but will be a serious obstacle in the event of an attack ... "(" Winter War 1939-1940. Book 1. Political History ". M., 1998, p. 103). The military attaches of France, as well as the United States, pointed to the remaining combat capability of the Red Army in reports from Moscow.

A few days after the German attack on the USSR, the US Ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1936-1938, Joseph Davis, answering the question "what can you say about the members of the" fifth column "in Russia?" shot." And he continued: “Suddenly, a picture arose in front of me, which I should have clearly seen even when I was in Russia. A significant part of the whole world then believed that the famous processes of traitors and purges of 1935-1939 were outrageous examples of barbarism, ingratitude and manifestation of hysteria. However, it has now become obvious that they testified to the amazing foresight of Stalin and his close associates ... "
Referring to the same questions already in 1943, according to the American newspaper Kansas City Times of May 26, J. Davis stated that the processes in Moscow had resulted in the fact that “the Germans did not have a“ fifth column ”to render assistance to them in carrying out the invasion of Russia…” (“Dialogue”, 1996, no. 10, p. 72).
Now they name a huge number of repressed and especially shot in 1937-1938 commanders and political workers of the army and navy. So, A. Solzhenitsyn claims: “Only from the terror of the communist regime against our own people, we lost up to 60 million ...” (Quoted from: “Soviet Russia”, 1998. December 24).
A certain literary critic A. Albats believes that 66 million people were killed. Some authors, including historians, bring this number even up to 80 or more million people. At the same time, official data and documents are ignored. For example, according to the census, the population of the USSR on January 17, 1939 was 170,467,186 people. The question is, where could these tens of millions come from?
Having studied the reports on the work of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR and the military tribunals, which were sent by the representative of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the NPO of the USSR, Deputy Chairman of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Major General of Justice A.T. Injections and Lieutenant Colonel V.I. Ivkin reports the following information. For counter-revolutionary crimes, persons of higher, middle and junior command and command structures, as well as ordinary personnel by years were tried: 1936 - 925 people, 1937 - 4079, 1938 - 3132, 1939 - 1099 and 1940 - 1603 people.
According to the Archives of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR, 52 servicemen were sentenced to capital punishment in 1938, 112 in 1939 and 528 in 1940. “The analysis of judicial statistics,” they conclude, “allows us to conclude that the number of victims of political repression in the Red Army in the second half of the 1930s is about 10 times less than that given by modern publicists and researchers. A more precise scale of repression against the command and political staff of the army and navy can be established after studying the archival documents of extrajudicial bodies, which should be stored in the archives of the Ministry of Security of the Russian Federation (the former KGB of the USSR) ... ”(“ Military History Journal. 1993, No. 1, p. 57, 59).
The indiscriminate rehabilitation of the “victims” of these repressions, carried out in the 1950s and 1980s, not only did not eliminate the “blank spots” of the past, but, on the contrary, confused all these issues even more, subordinating their consideration to the purely propaganda and political goals of the first “perestroika”, and then the "de-reformers".

There is every reason to assert that the repressions carried out in the USSR in the 1930s were not the product of arbitrariness. They were a factor in social relations and a tool for strengthening the power and defense capability of the young Soviet state.
In the 1930s, it was a matter of fundamental transformations of the country, which occupied one sixth of the earth's land, of transformations of epochal proportions, of the establishment and development of a new socio-political system in the USSR. And this was of decisive importance both domestically and globally. They, these transformations, were supposed to lead, in the end, to cardinal shifts in the balance of forces between emerging socialism and existing capitalism on a world scale. And this had to be done within a decade.
Khrushchev deliberately kept silent about all this, about the enormity of the tasks that were being solved in the prewar years. Unfortunately, Khrushchev's lie from the rostrum of the XX Party Congress was dutifully swallowed up by the congress delegates.
Perhaps we have allowed an exaggeration of the scale of the achievements planned and carried out in the country in the prewar years? And Khrushchev is right?
No. What was created in these years was embodied in thousands of plants and factories built, in the transformation of agriculture, in millions of people who mastered new professions, in tens of thousands of tanks and aircraft produced, embodied in the created personnel, modern army, armed with a new combat technique. All this cannot be erased from the real life of the country.
The thought expressed by the Chairman of the UPC-CPSU and the International Committee "For the Union and Brotherhood of Peoples" O.S. Shenin:
“To be indignant at the fact that Stalin fulfilled the main task in the way that was only possible in that particular situation, can only be an intellectual slobber who replaces the analysis of a specific situation with empty abstract reasoning. Stalin's repressions seem to him only inhumanity and barbarity. He does not understand that in the specific conditions of that period, the logic of the struggle forced Stalin to make such sacrifices that seem cruel to an “intellectual” brought up on abstractions, and that any of the “smart intellectuals” who had shown themselves by that time would have performed the task of preserving the gains of October worse, than Stalin, and most likely would not have fulfilled it at all ... ”(“ Glasnost ”, 1999, January 30).
Any objective researcher cannot but recognize this. And the truth, albeit with great difficulty, breaks through the lie. But the truth cannot be found in the "democratic" press. Sometimes it breaks through abroad. Thus, in the book “The Influence of the Second World War on the Soviet Union”, published in New York in 1995, it is stated: “The Second World War showed the vitality of the economic and state system created by the Bolsheviks in the 30s, and of the party itself. They (the Bolsheviks) proved this by going through the most difficult trials imaginable… it is unlikely that this country could survive under any other system…” (S. 71, 286. See Glasnost, 1997, no. eight).
Khrushchev’s statement that the mobilization of “industry was not carried out in a timely manner” is completely untrue. The facts testify that all five-year plans were drawn up with the expectation of the maximum possible use of all the resources of the country, and the struggle for their implementation was carried out with the utmost effort. The party was not embarrassed by the huge amount of work ahead, the extremely short time available for its implementation. Nor did they stop the cries of the opposition about the impossibility of doing this work in a backward country, that the Soviet Union was doomed to defeat and destruction.

Work began without delay and immediately at the highest possible pace in all the planned areas. The 16th, 17th, and 18th Party Congresses stated that the threat of war was ever growing and demanded in all decisiveness that the efforts of the Party and the people be concentrated on strengthening the country's defense capability. On the basis of the first and second five-year plans for the development of the national economy, five-year plans for the construction of the Red Army were developed and implemented. These plans provided for the rearmament on a mass scale of the armed forces with the latest models of military equipment, the creation of new technical arms.
The implementation of the first five-year plan for military construction made it possible to develop in 1933 the second five-year plan for the construction of the Red Army. Its main task was to provide the Soviet Armed Forces with superiority over the capitalist armies in all decisive means of struggle: aviation, tanks and artillery.
The creator of the famous 76-mm gun V.G. Grabin writes in the book “Weapons of Victory”: “Khrushchev said that we were not preparing for war. And I made all my guns before the war. But if they had listened to Tukhachevsky, they would not have existed. I asked Tukhachevsky to put our cannon on display. He flatly refused. Then I said that I would report to the Politburo. At the review, Stalin got acquainted with the data on our “yellow one”, then turned to me and began to ask questions. He was interested in the firing range, the effect of all types of shells on the target, armor penetration, mobility, the weight of the gun, the number of gun crews, whether the crew could handle the gun in the firing position, and much more. I answered briefly. This gun turned out to be the best in the war. Stalin said on January 1, 1942: “Your cannon saved Russia ...” This is how the weapon of victory was forged in the era of I.V. Stalin…”
Based on the economic and social transformations that took place in the country, in 1935-1936 a transition was made from a mixed territorial-personnel system to a single personnel construction of the army. The size of the Red Army grew rapidly. If in 1933 it had 885 thousand people, then by January 1, 1938, its total number was 1,513,400 people. (“50 years of the Armed Forces of the USSR”. M., 1968, p. 196-198).
Don't these facts testify to the fact that the party, the government, Stalin made incredible efforts to increase the country's defense power? The Soviet Armed Forces have come a long way in their development. The struggle was for every ton of metal, ore, coal, oil, for every tank and aircraft. The aviation industry worked according to a daily schedule with a daily report to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on the production of aircraft and engines for each plant.

From January 1939 to June 22, 1941, the Red Army received about 18 thousand combat aircraft from industry, of which 2.7 thousand new types, more than 7 thousand tanks, but only 1864 KV and T-34. From May 1940 of the year before the start of the war, the gun fleet had grown by more than one and a half times. In 1941, the production of ammunition more than tripled compared to the previous year. (“The Second World War. A Brief History”. M., 1984, pp. 103-104).
This made it possible to radically rearm the Red Army. Behind all these processes was the selfless labor of millions of Soviet people, the gigantic figure of Stalin, his enormous energy, the correctness of the course chosen by the party.
In the testimony given at the Nuremberg Trials, J. Ribbentrop admitted that "Hitler considered the creation of the Red Army to be Stalin's greatest achievement" (J. von Ribbentrop, "Memoirs of a Nazi Diplomat." Smolensk, 1998, p. 359).
At the same time, we must not forget that the military industry of the USSR was still in a state of technical re-equipment. Factories with great difficulty mastered the serial production of military equipment. In 1940, only 64 Yak-1 fighters, 20 MiG-3 fighters, 2 Pe-2 dive bombers, 115 T-34 tanks were produced. Il-2 attack aircraft and LaGG-3 fighters were not produced at all until 1941. (“Military Historical Journal”, 1998, No. 3, p. 3).
Life itself has shown with the utmost persuasiveness what great significance for the fate of the country, the formation of its military-industrial complex, the production of the latest types of weapons, and the development of their troops had those almost two years of peaceful respite, which we received under an agreement with Germany in 1939.
“How can you forget about all this? How can one discount all the enormous work that the party and government did on the eve of the war to prepare the country and the army to repulse the enemy? - asked Army General S.M. Shtemenko and answered: - Another question is that due to lack of time we were not able to fully solve the tasks that confronted us, such as the formation of mechanized corps and new aviation regiments, the equipment of fortified areas in new border areas and others ...
By June 1941, the country could not fully equip the troops with new weapons and equipment, which is why not all Soviet divisions were completed and many of them lacked these weapons, combat vehicles, vehicles, communications, and the capabilities of old weapons and military equipment lagged behind. the demands that the war made ... "(S. M. Shtemenko" General Staff during the war years ... "Kn. 1. M .. 1981, p. 27-28).
Particularly striking is the grandiosity of the achievements made in the pre-war decade, in comparison with the rotting and terrible decline that our country is experiencing in the decade of the rule of the "perestroika" and "demo-reformers". The greatness of the pre-war years is especially contrasting in comparison with the total destruction of the Russian army, which is taking place before our eyes. This is not a "reform", but the death of the Russian army and the country itself.
Without a strong army in modern conditions, a huge state with the richest natural resources cannot exist. In its powerlessness, it will be torn to pieces not only by large predators (such as the USA, Germany, Japan), but also by small ones, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan. The process has already begun in Chechnya. The figures who are now at the head of the Russian state either do not understand this, or deliberately follow this path.
Let's go back to the 30s. The limit of time allotted to the country, like shagreen leather, was catastrophically narrowed. War raged in Europe. None of the significant European states, which had to experience the force of the blow of the German military machine, could not resist the piratical actions of the Wehrmacht.
Poland was defeated in 28 days; in 45 days - France: in a few weeks Norway was conquered. It took the Nazis the same amount of time to enslave and plunder the Balkans. Not a single politician, not even the Nazis themselves, expected such a rapid development of events.
The war, like the sword of Damocles, hung over the USSR. And far from everything has been done to prepare the Soviet Union to repulse the fascist aggressor. Stalin fought desperately for an extension of the peaceful respite, taking enormous risks. His calculations in this regard were not destined to be justified.
Germany took a fatal step for itself. The rapid growth of the power of the socialist state called into question the possibility of conquering territory not only in the East, but also in the West. But the ruling circles of Germany, intoxicated by the ease of victories in Europe, did not think of abandoning their conquest plans and took the risk of a war on two fronts. It was an adventure. Ultimately, it led to the defeat of the Third Reich.
Yes, in the prewar years, not everything necessary could be done. And in the time available to do everything was impossible. This does not mean that there were no mistakes, miscalculations and failures in the gigantic work launched in the country. They were inevitable in such a huge undertaking. After all, over the past twenty years, in essence, a new country has appeared in the world in many respects.
But the overall result is indisputable, which was of decisive importance for the fate of not only our state, but also for the whole world - the feat of the Soviet people in the pre-war 30s ensured the creation of a powerful foundation for the defense capability of the socialist power, paved the way for our victory over the Nazi aggressors. Without the feat of the 1930s, there would have been no victorious 1945.

Before the October Revolution of 1917, there was a criminal punishment for crimes against morality. Schools teach that the first decree of the Bolsheviks was the Decree on Peace and Earth. In fact, their first Decree was about the abolition of criminal punishment for a crime against morality, i.e. decriminalization of homosexuality. Why? Because 99% of the fiery revolutionaries were homosexuals. Stalin again introduced criminal penalties for homosexuality. And he put all the fiery blue ones against the wall.

Good article colleague! But indeed, against the background of the general history of the USSR, there were no repressions as such. In some "democratic" countries, the situation was much worse. But after all, this is the USSR, the eternal enemy of capitalists of all stripes, and it had to be denigrated. “Our” home-grown liberals did a very good job and I will say right at the beginning they managed to do it. But alas, the truth is always the truth, no matter how bitter it is. And I believe that justice will still prevail!

In the 20s and ended in 1953. During this period, mass arrests took place, and special camps for political prisoners were created. No historian can name the exact number of victims of Stalinist repressions. More than a million people were convicted under Article 58.

Origin of the term

The Stalinist terror affected almost all sectors of society. For more than twenty years, Soviet citizens lived in constant fear - one wrong word or even gesture could cost their lives. It is impossible to unequivocally answer the question of what the Stalinist terror rested on. But of course, the main component of this phenomenon is fear.

The word terror in translation from Latin is "horror". The method of governing the country, based on instilling fear, has been used by rulers since ancient times. Ivan the Terrible served as a historical example for the Soviet leader. The Stalinist terror is in some way a more modern version of the Oprichnina.

Ideology

The midwife of history is what Karl Marx called violence. The German philosopher saw only evil in the safety and inviolability of members of society. Marx's idea was used by Stalin.

The ideological basis of the repressions that began in the 1920s was formulated in July 1928 in the Short Course on the History of the CPSU. At first, the Stalinist terror was a class struggle, which was supposedly needed to resist the overthrown forces. But the repressions continued even after all the so-called counter-revolutionaries ended up in camps or were shot. The peculiarity of Stalin's policy was the complete non-observance of the Soviet Constitution.

If at the beginning of the Stalinist repressions the state security agencies fought against the opponents of the revolution, then by the mid-thirties, the arrests of old communists began - people selflessly devoted to the party. Ordinary Soviet citizens were already afraid not only of the NKVD officers, but also of each other. Denunciation has become the main tool in the fight against "enemies of the people."

Stalin's repressions were preceded by the "Red Terror", which began during the Civil War. These two political phenomena have many similarities. However, after the end of the Civil War, almost all cases of political crimes were based on the falsification of charges. During the "Red Terror", those who did not agree with the new regime were imprisoned and shot, first of all, there were many of them at the stages of creating a new state.

Case of lyceum students

Officially, the period of Stalinist repressions begins in 1922. But one of the first high-profile cases dates back to 1925. It was in this year that a special department of the NKVD fabricated a case on charges of counter-revolutionary activities of graduates of the Alexander Lyceum.

On February 15, over 150 people were arrested. Not all of them were related to the above-named educational institution. Among the convicts were former students of the School of Law and officers of the Life Guards of the Semenovsky Regiment. Those arrested were accused of assisting the international bourgeoisie.

Many were shot already in June. 25 people were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. 29 arrested were sent into exile. Vladimir Schilder - a former teacher - at that time was 70 years old. He died during the investigation. Nikolai Golitsyn, the last chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire, was sentenced to death.

Shakhty case

The accusations under Article 58 were ridiculous. A person who does not speak foreign languages and has never communicated with a citizen of a Western state in his life could easily be accused of colluding with American agents. During the investigation, torture was often used. Only the strongest could withstand them. Often, those under investigation signed a confession only in order to complete the execution, which sometimes lasted for weeks.

In July 1928, specialists in the coal industry became victims of the Stalinist terror. This case was called "Shakhtinskoe". The heads of Donbas enterprises were accused of sabotage, sabotage, the creation of an underground counter-revolutionary organization, and assistance to foreign spies.

There were several high-profile cases in the 1920s. Until the beginning of the thirties, dispossession continued. It is impossible to calculate the number of victims of Stalinist repressions, because no one in those days carefully kept statistics. In the nineties, the KGB archives became available, but even after that, researchers did not receive exhaustive information. However, separate execution lists were made public, which became a terrible symbol of Stalin's repressions.

The Great Terror is a term applied to a small period of Soviet history. It lasted only two years - from 1937 to 1938. About the victims during this period, the researchers provide more accurate data. 1,548,366 people were arrested. Shot - 681 692. It was a struggle "against the remnants of the capitalist classes."

Causes of the "Great Terror"

In Stalin's time, a doctrine was developed to intensify the class struggle. It was only a formal reason for the destruction of hundreds of people. Among the victims of the Stalinist terror of the 1930s were writers, scientists, military men, and engineers. Why was it necessary to get rid of representatives of the intelligentsia, specialists who could benefit the Soviet state? Historians offer different answers to these questions.

Among modern researchers there are those who are convinced that Stalin had only an indirect relation to the repressions of 1937-1938. However, his signature appears on almost every execution list, in addition, there is a lot of documentary evidence of his involvement in mass arrests.

Stalin strove for sole power. Any indulgence could lead to a real, not fictional conspiracy. One of the foreign historians compared the Stalinist terror of the 1930s with the Jacobin terror. But if the latest phenomenon, which took place in France at the end of the 18th century, involved the destruction of representatives of a certain social class, then in the USSR often unrelated people were subjected to arrest and execution.

So, the reason for the repression was the desire for sole, unconditional power. But what was needed was a wording, an official justification for the need for mass arrests.

Occasion

On December 1, 1934, Kirov was killed. This event became the formal reason for the murderer to be arrested. According to the results of the investigation, again fabricated, Leonid Nikolaev did not act independently, but as a member of an opposition organization. Stalin subsequently used the assassination of Kirov in the fight against political opponents. Zinoviev, Kamenev and all their supporters were arrested.

Trial of officers of the Red Army

After the assassination of Kirov, trials of the military began. One of the first victims of the Great Terror was G. D. Gai. The commander was arrested for the phrase "Stalin must be removed," which he uttered while intoxicated. It is worth saying that in the mid-thirties, denunciation reached its zenith. People who worked in the same organization for many years stopped trusting each other. Denunciations were written not only against enemies, but also against friends. Not only for selfish reasons, but also out of fear.

In 1937, a trial took place over a group of officers of the Red Army. They were accused of anti-Soviet activities and assistance to Trotsky, who by that time was already abroad. The hit list included:

Tukhachevsky M. N.
Yakir I. E.
Uborevich I. P.
Eideman R.P.
Putna V.K.
Primakov V. M.
Gamarnik Ya. B.
Feldman B. M.

The witch hunt continued. In the hands of the NKVD officers was a record of negotiations between Kamenev and Bukharin - it was about creating a "right-left" opposition. In early March 1937, with a report that spoke of the need to eliminate the Trotskyists.

According to the report of General Commissar of State Security Yezhov, Bukharin and Rykov were planning terror against the leader. A new term appeared in Stalinist terminology - "Trotsky-Bukharin", which means "directed against the interests of the party."

In addition to the aforementioned politicians, about 70 people were arrested. 52 shot. Among them were those who were directly involved in the repressions of the 1920s. Thus, state security officers and political figures Yakov Agronomist, Alexander Gurevich, Levon Mirzoyan, Vladimir Polonsky, Nikolai Popov and others were shot.

In the "Tukhachevsky case" Lavrenty Beria was involved, but he managed to survive the "purge". In 1941, he took the post of General Commissar of State Security. Beria was already shot after the death of Stalin - in December 1953.

Repressed scientists

In 1937, revolutionaries and politicians became victims of the Stalinist terror. And very soon, arrests of representatives of completely different social strata began. People who had nothing to do with politics were sent to the camps. It is easy to guess what the consequences of Stalin's repressions were by reading the lists below. The "Great Terror" became a brake on the development of science, culture, and art.

Scientists who became victims of Stalinist repressions:

Matthew Bronstein.
Alexander Witt.
Hans Gelman.
Semyon Shubin.
Evgeny Pereplyokin.
Innokenty Balanovsky.
Dmitry Eropkin.
Boris Numerov.
Nikolay Vavilov.
Sergei Korolev.

Writers and poets

In 1933, Osip Mandelstam wrote an epigram with obvious anti-Stalinist overtones, which he read to several dozen people. Boris Pasternak called the poet's act a suicide. He turned out to be right. Mandelstam was arrested and sent into exile in Cherdyn. There he made an unsuccessful suicide attempt, and a little later, with the assistance of Bukharin, he was transferred to Voronezh.

Boris Pilnyak wrote The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon in 1926. The characters in this work are fictitious, at least as the author claims in the preface. But to anyone who read the story in the 1920s, it became clear that it was based on the version about the murder of Mikhail Frunze.

Somehow Pilnyak's work got into print. But soon it was banned. Pilnyak was arrested only in 1937, and before that he remained one of the most published prose writers. The writer's case, like all similar ones, was completely fabricated - he was accused of spying for Japan. Shot in Moscow in 1937.

Other writers and poets subjected to Stalinist repressions:

Viktor Bagrov.
Julius Berzin.
Pavel Vasiliev.
Sergey Klychkov.
Vladimir Narbut.
Petr Parfenov.
Sergei Tretyakov.

It is worth telling about the famous theatrical figure, accused under Article 58 and sentenced to capital punishment.

Vsevolod Meyerhold

The director was arrested at the end of June 1939. His apartment was later searched. A few days later, Meyerhold's wife was killed. The circumstances of her death have not yet been clarified. There is a version that the NKVD officers killed her.

Meyerhold was interrogated for three weeks, tortured. He signed everything the investigators demanded. February 1, 1940 Vsevolod Meyerhold was sentenced to death. The sentence was carried out the next day.

During the war years

In 1941, the illusion of the abolition of repression appeared. In Stalin's pre-war times, there were many officers in the camps, who were now needed at large. Together with them, about six hundred thousand people were released from places of deprivation of liberty. But it was a temporary relief. At the end of the forties, a new wave of repressions began. Now the ranks of the "enemies of the people" have been replenished by soldiers and officers who have been in captivity.

Amnesty 1953

On March 5, Stalin died. Three weeks later, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree according to which a third of the prisoners were to be released. About a million people were released. But the first to leave the camps were not political prisoners, but criminals, which instantly worsened the criminal situation in the country.

As modern Russian historians note, one of the features of the Stalinist repressions was that a significant part of them violated the existing legislation and the country's fundamental law - the Soviet Constitution.

1. Formation of the penitentiary system.

It was the USSR that became a pioneer in this area, having built a system of correctional institutions based on the communist idea of the educational benefits of labor. Yes, before that there were prisons, camps, hard labor. But it was in the pre-war Soviet Union that the humanitarian goal of imprisonment was formulated: not punishment as such, not isolation for the sake of isolation, but the correction of the individual through physical labor.

2. Post-revolutionary restoration

3. Militarism in society

Of course, the authorities did not respond to all this with a trip in a paddy wagon to a jail for 15 days.

4. Severing social ties

5. Implementation of universal literacy

Surprisingly, but so. Together with literacy, social activity also grew - well, why was it necessary to learn to write in old age, if not to pin down a boring neighbor?

6. The contingent of punitive bodies

7. Difficult economic situation

The thirties were a long global crisis, from which not only the USSR suffered - the Great Depression in the United States has long been waiting for its objective assessment with numbers.

8. A huge number of factions

9. Rejection of the world revolution

Disappointed.

10. Politicized society

This phenomenon is generally typical for Russia, as a result of which the list of political prisoners often included people with professions far removed from politics.

Well, “don’t touch the artist, he was just trying to beautifully burn the FSB building” - this is also not invented today.

11. Geographic coverage

12. Hostile environment

13. The rise of Nazism

14. Pre-war collaborationism

15. High level of freedom

Now let's take into account the historical realities of that era, and they tell us that:

The total number of prisoners in the Stalinist USSR per capita was less than those in the current United States.

Most prisoners in the Stalinist USSR were criminals.

Therefore, if we want to prove that the USSR significantly exceeded the prisoner quota, we must admit the following:

How did such an inflated myth come about?

Thirdly, the myth of the most terrible regime was beneficial to those in power in the capitalist camp, since it made the system so attractive to the proletariat unattractive.

Summing up

What for it is necessary to dig out all this, to refute, recalculate? After all, it seems that grieving is better than not grieving.

How easy is it to arrange not just a big, but a gigantic terror today?

Jail everyone who evades taxes. Not just big business. Freelance programmers, tutors, web designers, photographers and other freelancers.

Jail anyone who gives or takes bribes. Not only deputies and governors. Teachers, doctors, hostel concierge.

Jail everyone who doesn't pay the fines.

IN THE USSR. I have tried to answer the nine most common questions about political repression.

1. What is political repression?

In the history of different countries, there have been periods when the state authorities, for some reason - pragmatic or ideological - began to perceive part of their population either as direct enemies, or as superfluous, "unnecessary" people. The principle of selection could be different - according to ethnic origin, according to religious views, according to material condition, according to political views, according to the level of education - but the result was the same: these "unnecessary" people were either physically destroyed without trial or investigation, or were subjected to criminal prosecution, or became victims of administrative restrictions (expelled from the country, sent to exile within the country, deprived of civil rights, and so on). That is, people suffered not for some personal fault, but simply because they were unlucky, simply because they ended up in a certain place at some time.

Political repressions were not only in Russia, but in Russia - not only under Soviet rule. However, remembering the victims of political repressions, we first of all think about those who suffered in 1917-1953, because they make up the majority among the total number of Russian repressed.

2. Why, speaking of political repressions, are they limited to the period of 1917-1953? There were no repressions after 1953?

The demonstration of August 25, 1968, also called the "demonstration of the seven", was held by a group of seven Soviet dissidents on Red Square and protested against the introduction of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia. Two of the participants were declared insane and subjected to compulsory treatment.

This period, 1917-1953, is singled out because it accounted for the vast majority of repressions. After 1953, repressions also took place, but on a much smaller scale, and most importantly, they mainly concerned people who, to one degree or another, opposed the Soviet political system. We are talking about dissidents who received prison terms or suffered from punitive psychiatry. They knew what they were getting into, they were not random victims - which, of course, does not justify what the authorities did to them.

3. Victims of Soviet political repression - who are they?

They were very different people, different in social origin, beliefs, worldview.

Sergei Korolev, scientist

Some of them are the so-called former”, that is, nobles, army or police officers, university professors, judges, merchants and industrialists, clergy. That is, those whom the communists who came to power in 1917 considered interested in the restoration of the former order and therefore suspected them of subversive activities.

Also, a huge proportion among the victims of political repression were " dispossessed“peasants, for the most part, strong owners who did not want to go to the collective farms (some, however, were not saved by joining the collective farm).

Many victims of repression were classified as " pests". This was the name of specialists in production - engineers, technicians, workers, who were credited with the intent to inflict logistical or economic damage on the country. Sometimes this happened after some real production failures, accidents (in which it was necessary to find the perpetrators), and sometimes it was only about hypothetical troubles that, according to prosecutors, could happen if the enemies had not been exposed in time.

The other part is communists and members of other revolutionary parties who joined the Communists after October 1917: Social Democrats, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Anarchists, Bundists, and so on. These people, who actively fit into the new reality and participate in the construction of Soviet power, at a certain stage turned out to be superfluous due to the intra-party struggle, which in the CPSU (b), and later in the CPSU, never stopped - at first openly, later - hidden. They are also communists who were hit because of their personal qualities: excessive ideology, insufficient servility ...

Sergeev Ivan Ivanovich Before his arrest, he worked as a watchman at the Chernivtsi collective farm "Iskra"

In the late 1930s, many were repressed military, starting with the highest command staff and ending with junior officers. They were suspected of potential participants in conspiracies against Stalin.

It is worth mentioning separately employees of the GPU-NKVD-NKGB, some of which were also repressed in the 30s during the "fight against excesses." "Excesses on the ground" - a concept that Stalin introduced into circulation, implying the excessive enthusiasm of the employees of the punitive bodies. It is clear that these "excesses" naturally followed from the general state policy, and therefore, in the mouth of Stalin, the words about excesses sound very cynical. By the way, almost the entire top of the NKVD, which carried out repressions in 1937-1938, was soon repressed and shot.

Naturally, there were many repressed for their faith(and not only Orthodox). This is the clergy, and monasticism, and active laity in the parishes, and just people who do not hide their faith. Although formally the Soviet government did not prohibit religion and the Soviet constitution of 1936 guaranteed freedom of conscience to citizens, in fact the open confession of faith could end sadly for a person.

Rozhkova Vera. Before her arrest, she worked at the Institute. Bauman. Was a secret nun

Not only certain people and certain classes were subjected to repressions, but also individual peoples- Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens and Ingush, Germans. It happened during the Great Patriotic War. There were two reasons. Firstly, they were seen as potential traitors who could go over to the side of the Germans during the retreat of our troops. Secondly, when the German troops occupied the Crimea, the Caucasus and a number of other territories, some of the peoples living there really cooperated with them. Naturally, not all representatives of these peoples collaborated with the Germans, not to mention those of them who fought in the ranks of the Red Army - however, subsequently all of them, including women, children and the elderly, were declared traitors and sent into exile (where, by virtue of inhuman conditions, many died either on the way or on the spot).

Olga Berggolts, poetess, future “muse of besieged Leningrad”

And among the repressed there were many townsfolk, who seemed to have a completely safe social origin, but were arrested either because of a denunciation, or simply because of the distribution order (there were also plans to identify "enemies of the people" from above). If some major party functionary was arrested, then quite often his subordinates were also taken, right down to the lowest positions, such as a personal driver or a housekeeper.

4. Who cannot be considered a victim of political repression?

General Vlasov inspects ROA soldiers

Not all those who suffered in 1917-1953 (and later, until the end of Soviet power) can be called victims of political repression.

In addition to the “political”, people were also imprisoned in prisons and camps under ordinary criminal articles (theft, fraud, robbery, murder, and so on).

Also, one cannot consider as victims of political repression those who committed obvious treason - for example, "Vlasovites" and "policemen", that is, those who went to the service of the German invaders during the Great Patriotic War. Regardless of the moral side of the matter, it was their conscious choice, they entered into a struggle with the state, and the state, accordingly, fought with them.

The same applies to various kinds of rebel movements - Basmachi, Bandera, "forest brothers", Caucasian abreks, and so on. One can discuss their rightness and wrongness, but the victims of political repressions are only those who did not take the path of war with the USSR, who simply lived an ordinary life and suffered regardless of their actions.

5. How were the repressions legally formalized?

Information about the execution of the death sentence of the NKVD troika against the Russian scientist and theologian Pavel Florensky. Reproduction ITAR-TASS

There were several options. Firstly, some of the repressed were shot or imprisoned after the institution of a criminal case, investigation and trial. Basically, they were charged under article 58 of the Criminal Code of the USSR (this article included many points, from treason to the motherland to anti-Soviet agitation). At the same time, in the 1920s and even in the early 1930s, all legal formalities were often observed - an investigation was carried out, then there was a trial with debates by the defense and the prosecution - just the verdict was a foregone conclusion. In the 1930s, especially since 1937, the judicial procedure turned into a fiction, since torture and other illegal methods of pressure were used during the investigation. That is why at the trial the accused massively admitted their guilt.

Secondly, starting from 1937, along with the usual court proceedings, a simplified procedure began to operate, when there were no judicial debates at all, the presence of the accused was not required, and sentences were passed by the so-called Special Conference, in other words, the “troika”, literally for 10-15 minutes.

Thirdly, some of the victims were repressed administratively, without investigation or trial at all - the same “dispossessed”, the same exiled peoples. The same often applied to family members of those convicted under Article 58. The official abbreviation CHSIR (a member of the family of a traitor to the motherland) was in use. At the same time, no personal charges were brought against specific people, and their exile was motivated by political expediency.

But besides, sometimes the repressions did not have any legal formalization at all, in fact they were lynchings - starting from the shooting in 1917 of a demonstration in defense of the Constituent Assembly and ending with the events of 1962 in Novocherkassk, where a workers’ demonstration protesting against the increase in prices for food.

6. How many people were repressed?

Photo by Vladimir Eshtokin

This is a difficult question to which historians still do not have an exact answer. The numbers are very different - from 1 to 60 million. There are two problems here - firstly, the inaccessibility of many archives, and secondly, the discrepancy in the methods of calculation. After all, even based on open archival data, one can draw different conclusions. Archival data is not only folders with criminal cases against specific people, but also, for example, departmental reporting on food supplies for camps and prisons, statistics of births and deaths, records in cemetery offices about burials, and so on and so forth. Historians try to take into account as many different sources as possible, but the data sometimes diverge from each other. The reasons are different - and accounting errors, and deliberate juggling, and the loss of many important documents.

It is also a very controversial issue - how many people were not just repressed, but exactly what was physically destroyed, did not return home? How to count? Only sentenced to death? Or plus those who died in custody? If we count the dead, then we need to deal with the causes of death: they could be caused by unbearable conditions (hunger, cold, beatings, overwork), or they could be natural (death from old age, death from chronic diseases that began long before the arrest). In certificates of death (which were not even always kept in a criminal case), “acute heart failure” most often appeared, but in fact it could be anything.

In addition, although any historian should be impartial, as a scientist should be, in reality, each researcher has his own worldview and political preferences, and therefore the historian may consider some data more reliable, and some less. Complete objectivity is an ideal to be strived for, but which has not yet been achieved by any historian. Therefore, when faced with any specific estimates, one should be careful. What if the author voluntarily or involuntarily overestimates or underestimates the figures?

But in order to understand the scale of repression, it is enough to give an example of the discrepancy in numbers. According to church historians, in 1937-38 more than 130 thousand clergy. According to historians committed to the communist ideology, in 1937-38 the number of arrested clergymen is much less - only about 47 thousand. Let's not argue about who is more right. Let's do a thought experiment: imagine that now, in our time, 47,000 railway workers are arrested in Russia during the year. What will happen to our transport system? And if 47,000 doctors are arrested in a year, will domestic medicine survive at all? What if 47,000 priests are arrested? However, we don't even have that many now. In general, even if we focus on the minimum estimates, it is easy to see that the repressions have become a social catastrophe.

And for their moral assessment, the specific numbers of victims are completely unimportant. Whether it's a million or a hundred million or a hundred thousand, it's still a tragedy, it's still a crime.

7. What is rehabilitation?

The vast majority of victims of political repression were subsequently rehabilitated.

Rehabilitation is an official recognition by the state that this person was convicted unjustly, that he is innocent of the charges against him and therefore is not considered convicted and gets rid of the restrictions that people who have been released from prison may be subject to (for example, the right to be elected a deputy, the right to work in law enforcement organs, etc.).

Many believe that the rehabilitation of the victims of political repression began only in 1956, after the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, N.S. Khrushchev, at the 20th Party Congress, exposed Stalin's personality cult. In fact, this is not so - the first wave of rehabilitation took place in 1939, after the country's leadership condemned the rampant repressions of 1937-38 (which were called "excesses on the ground"). This, by the way, is an important point, because in this way the existence of political repressions in the country was recognized in general. Recognized even by those who launched these repressions. Therefore, the assertion of modern Stalinists that repression is a myth looks simply ridiculous. What about the myth, even if your idol Stalin recognized them?

However, few people were rehabilitated in 1939-41. And mass rehabilitation began in 1953 after the death of Stalin, its peak was in 1955-1962. Then, until the second half of the 1980s, there were few rehabilitations, but after the perestroika announced in 1985, their number increased dramatically. Separate acts of rehabilitation took place already in the post-Soviet era, in the 1990s (since the Russian Federation is legally the successor of the USSR, it has the right to rehabilitate those who were unjustly convicted before 1991).

But, shot in Yekaterinburg in 1918, she was officially rehabilitated only in 2008. Prior to that, the Prosecutor General's Office resisted rehabilitation on the grounds that the murder of the royal family had no legal formalization and became the arbitrariness of local authorities. But the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in 2008 considered that although there was no court decision, the royal family was shot by decision of the local authorities, which have administrative powers and therefore are part of the state machine - and repression is a coercive measure on the part of the state.

By the way, there are people who undoubtedly became victims of political repressions, who did not commit what they were formally accused of - but there is no decision on the rehabilitation of which and, apparently, never will be. We are talking about those who, before falling under the rink of repression, were themselves the drivers of this rink. For example, the "iron Commissar" Nikolai Yezhov. Well, what kind of innocent victim is he? Or the same Lavrenty Beria. Of course, his execution was unjust, of course, he was not any English and French spy, as he was hastily attributed - but his rehabilitation would be a demonstrative justification for political terror.

The rehabilitation of victims of political repression did not always happen “automatically”, sometimes these people or their relatives had to be persistent, write letters to state bodies for years.

8. What is being said about political repressions now?

Photo by Vladimir Eshtokin

In modern Russia there is no consensus on this topic. Moreover, in relation to it, the polarization of society is manifested. The memory of the repressions is used by various political and ideological forces for their own political interests, but ordinary people, not politicians, can perceive it in very different ways.

Some people are convinced that political repression is a shameful page in our national history, that it is a monstrous crime against humanity, and therefore one must always remember the repressed. Sometimes this position is primitivized, all victims of repression are declared equally sinless righteous, and the blame for them is laid not only on the Soviet government, but also on the modern Russian one as the legal successor of the Soviet one. Any attempts to figure out how many were actually repressed are a priori declared to justify Stalinism and are condemned from a moral standpoint.

Others question the very fact of the repressions, claim that all these “so-called victims” are really guilty of the crimes attributed to them, they really harmed, blew up, plotted terrorist attacks, and so on. This extremely naive position is refuted, if only by the fact that the fact of the existence of repressions was recognized even under Stalin - then it was called "excesses" and at the end of the 30s, almost the entire leadership of the NKVD was condemned for these "excesses". The moral inferiority of such views is just as obvious: people are so eager to wishful thinking that they are ready, without any evidence in their hands, to slander millions of victims.

Still others admit that there were repressions, they agree that the victims of them were innocent, but they perceive all this quite calmly: they say, it was impossible otherwise. Repression, it seems to them, was necessary for the industrialization of the country, for the creation of a combat-ready army. Without repression, it would not have been possible to win the Great Patriotic War. Such a pragmatic position, regardless of how it corresponds to historical facts, is also morally flawed: the state is declared the highest value, in comparison with which the life of each individual person is worth nothing, and anyone can and should be destroyed for the sake of higher state interests. Here, by the way, one can draw a parallel with the ancient pagans, who brought human sacrifices to their gods, being one hundred percent sure that this would serve the good of the tribe, people, city. Now this seems fanatical to us, but the motivation was exactly the same as that of modern pragmatists.

One can, of course, understand where such motivation comes from. The USSR positioned itself as a society of social justice - and indeed, in many respects, especially in the late Soviet period, there was social justice. Our society is socially much less fair - plus now any injustice instantly becomes known to everyone. Therefore, in search of justice, people turn their eyes to the past - naturally, idealizing that era. This means that they are psychologically trying to justify the dark things that happened then, including repressions. Recognition and condemnation of repressions (especially those declared from above) goes with such people in conjunction with the approval of the current injustices. One can show the naivete of such a position in every possible way, but until social justice is restored, this position will be reproduced again and again.

9. How should Christians perceive political repression?

Icon of the New Martyrs of Russia

Among Orthodox Christians, unfortunately, there is also no unity on this issue. There are believers (including those who are churched, sometimes even in holy orders) who either consider all the repressed guilty and unworthy of pity, or justify their suffering with the benefit of the state. Moreover, sometimes - thank God, not very often! - You can also hear such an opinion that the repressions were a boon for the repressed themselves. After all, what happened to them happened according to God's Providence, and God will not do bad things to a person. This means, such Christians say, that these people had to suffer in order to be cleansed of heavy sins, to be spiritually reborn. Indeed, there are many examples of such a spiritual revival. As the poet Alexander Solodovnikov, who passed the camp, wrote, “The grate is rusty, thank you! // Thank you, bayonet blade! // Such a will could be given // Only for long centuries to me.

In fact, this is a dangerous spiritual substitution. Yes, suffering can sometimes save a human soul, but it does not at all follow from this that suffering in itself is good. And even more so, it does not follow that the executioners are righteous. As we know from the Gospel, King Herod, wishing to find and destroy the baby Jesus, ordered to preventively kill all the babies in Bethlehem and the surrounding area. These babies are canonized by the Church as saints, but their murderer Herod is not at all. Sin remains sin, evil remains evil, the criminal remains a criminal even if the long-term consequences of his crime are beautiful. In addition, it is one thing to talk about the benefits of suffering from personal experience, and quite another to talk about other people. Only God knows whether this or that trial will turn out for good or for worse for a particular person, and we have no right to judge this. But here is what we can and what we must do - if we consider ourselves Christians! is to keep God's commandments. Where there is not a word about the fact that for the sake of the public good it is possible to kill innocent people.

What are the conclusions?

First and the obvious - we must understand that repression is evil, evil, and social, and personal evil of those who arranged them. There is no justification for this evil - neither pragmatic nor theological.

Second- this is the right attitude towards the victims of repression. They should not be considered ideal in a crowd. They were very different people, both socially, culturally and morally. But their tragedy must be perceived without regard to their individual characteristics and circumstances. All of them were not guilty before the authorities that subjected them to suffering. We do not know which of them is a righteous man, who is a sinner, who is now in heaven, who is in hell. But we must pity them and pray for them. But what exactly should not be done is that it is not necessary to speculate on their memory, defending our own political views in polemics. The repressed should not become for us means.

Third- It is necessary to clearly understand why these repressions became possible in our country. The reason for them is not only the personal sins of those who were at the helm in those years. The main reason is the worldview of the Bolsheviks, based on godlessness and on the denial of all previous traditions - spiritual, cultural, family, and so on. The Bolsheviks wanted to build a paradise on earth, while allowing themselves any means. Only that which serves the cause of the proletariat is moral, they argued. It is not surprising that they were internally ready to kill by the millions. Yes, there were repressions in different countries (including ours) even before the Bolsheviks - but still there were some brakes that limited their scale. Now there are no more brakes - and what happened happened.

Looking at the various horrors of the past, we often say the phrase "this must not happen again." But this maybe repeat, if we discard moral and spiritual barriers, if we proceed solely from pragmatics and ideology. And it does not matter what color this ideology will be - red, green, black, brown ... It will still end in a lot of blood.

Public interest in Stalin's repressions continues to exist, and this is no coincidence.
Many feel that today's political problems are somewhat similar.
And some people think that Stalin's recipes might work.

This is, of course, a mistake.
But it is still difficult to justify why this is a mistake by scientific rather than journalistic means.

Historians have dealt with the repressions themselves, with how they were organized and what was their scale.

Historian Oleg Khlevnyuk, for example, writes that "... now professional historiography has reached a high level of agreement based on deep research of archives."
https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2017/06/29/701835-phenomen-terrora

However, it follows from another article of his that the causes of the "great terror" are still not entirely clear.
https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2017/07/06/712528-bolshogo-terrora

I have an answer, strict and scientific.

But first, about what the "consent of professional historiography" looks like, according to Oleg Khlevnyuk.
We immediately discard the myths.

1) Stalin had nothing to do with it, he, of course, knew everything.
Stalin not only knew, he led the "great terror" in real time, down to the smallest detail.

2) The "Great Terror" was not an initiative of the regional authorities, local party secretaries.
Stalin himself never tried to shift the blame for the repressions of 1937-1938 onto the regional party leadership.
Instead, he proposed a myth about "enemies who made their way into the ranks of the NKVD" and "slanderers" from ordinary citizens who wrote statements against honest people.

3) The "Great Terror" of 1937-1938 was not at all the result of denunciations.
Denunciations of citizens against each other did not have a significant impact on the course and scale of repressions.

Now about what is known about the "great terror of 1937-1938" and its mechanism.

Terror, repression under Stalin were a constant phenomenon.
But the wave of terror in 1937-1938 was exceptionally large.
In 1937-1938. At least 1.6 million people were arrested, of which more than 680,000 were shot.

Khlevnyuk gives a simple quantitative calculation:
"Given that the most intensive repressions were used for a little over a year (August 1937 - November 1938), it turns out that about 100,000 people were arrested every month, of which more than 40,000 were shot."
The scale of violence was monstrous!

The opinion that the terror of 1937-1938 consisted in the destruction of the elite: party workers, engineers, military men, writers, etc. not quite correct.
For example, Khlevniuk writes that there were several tens of thousands of executives at various levels. Of the 1.6 million affected.

Here attention!
1) The victims of terror were ordinary Soviet people who did not hold positions and were not members of the party.

2) Decisions to conduct mass operations were made by the leadership, more precisely by Stalin.
The "Great Terror" was a well-organized, planned procession and followed orders from the center.

3) The goal was "to physically eliminate or isolate in the camps those groups of the population that the Stalinist regime considered potentially dangerous - former "kulaks", former officers of the tsarist and white armies, clergymen, former members of parties hostile to the Bolsheviks - Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and other "suspicious" , as well as "national counter-revolutionary contingents" - Poles, Germans, Romanians, Latvians, Estonians, Finns, Greeks, Afghans, Iranians, Chinese, Koreans.

4) All "hostile categories" were taken into account in the bodies, according to the available lists, and the first repressions took place.
In the future, a chain was launched: arrest-interrogations - testimony - new hostile elements.
That is why the limits on arrests have been increased.

5) Stalin led the repression personally.
Here are his orders quoted by the historian:
"Krasnoyarsk. Regional committee. The arson of the mill must be organized by enemies. Take all measures to expose the arsonists. The perpetrators should be judged quickly. The verdict is execution"; "To beat Unshlikht because he did not extradite Poland's agents in the regions"; "To T. Yezhov. Dmitriev seems to be acting sluggishly. We must immediately arrest all (both small and large) members of the "rebel groups" in the Urals"; "To T. Yezhov. Very important. You need to walk around the Udmurt, Mari, Chuvash, Mordovian republics, walk with a broom"; "To T. Yezhov. Very good! Dig and clean up this Polish spy dirt in the future"; "To T. Yezhov. The line of Socialist-Revolutionaries (left and right together) has not been unwound<...>It must be borne in mind that we still have quite a few Socialist-Revolutionaries in our army and outside the army. Does the NKVD have a record of the Socialist-Revolutionaries (“former”) in the army? I would like to receive it as soon as possible<...>What has been done to identify and arrest all Iranians in Baku and Azerbaijan?"

I think there can be no doubt after reading such orders.

Now back to the question - why?
Khlevniuk points to several possible explanations and writes that the controversy continues.
1) At the end of 1937, the first elections to the Soviets were held on the basis of a secret ballot, and Stalin insured against surprises in a way that he understood.
This is the weakest explanation.

2) Repression was a means of social engineering
Society was subject to unification.
A fair question arises - why exactly in 1937-1938 did the unification need to be sharply accelerated?

3) The "Great Terror" pointed to the cause of the difficulties and hard life of the people, while at the same time letting off steam.

4) It was necessary to provide labor for the growing economy of the Gulag.
This is a weak version - too many executions of able-bodied people, while the Gulag was unable to master the new human income.

5) Finally, the version that is widely popular today: there was a threat of war, and Stalin cleared the rear, destroyed the "fifth column".
However, after Stalin's death, the vast majority of those arrested in 1937-1938 were found not guilty.
They were not a "fifth column" at all.

My explanation makes it possible to understand not only why there was this wave and why it was precisely in 1937-1938.
It also explains well why Stalin and his experience have not yet been forgotten, but, moreover, they have not been realized.

The "Great Terror" of 1937-1938 took place in a period similar to ours.
In the USSR of 1933-1945 there was a question about the subject of power.
In the modern history of Russia, a similar issue is being resolved in 2005-2017.

The subject of power can be either the ruler or the elite.
At that time, the sole ruler had to win.

Stalin inherited a party in which this very elite existed - the heirs of Lenin, equal to Stalin or even more eminent than himself.
Stalin successfully fought for formal leadership, but he became the undisputed sole ruler only after the "Great Terror".
As long as the old leaders - recognized revolutionaries, Lenin's heirs - continued to live and work, the preconditions for challenging the authority of Stalin as the sole ruler remained.
The "Great Terror" of 1937-1938 was a means of destroying the elite and asserting the power of the sole ruler.

Why did the repressions touch people who caught a cold, and were not limited to the top?
You need to understand the ideological base, the Marxist paradigm.
Marxism does not recognize individuals and independent activities of the elite.
In Marxism, any leader expresses the ideas of a class or social group.

Why is the peasantry dangerous, for example?
Not at all because it can rebel and start a peasant war.
The peasants are dangerous because they are the petty bourgeoisie.
This means that they will always support and / or promote political leaders from among themselves who will fight against the dictatorship of the proletariat, the power of the workers and the Bolsheviks.
It is not enough to root out well-known leaders with dubious views.
It is necessary to destroy their social support, those very considered "hostile elements".
This explains why the terror touched ordinary people.

Why exactly in 1937-1938?
Because during the first four years of each period of social reorganization, a basic plan is formed and the leading force of the social process emerges.
This is such a law of cyclic development.

Why are we interested in this today?
And why do some dream of the return of the practices of Stalinism?
Because we are going through the same process.
But he:
- ends
- has opposite vector.

Stalin established his sole power, actually fulfilling the historical social order, albeit with very specific methods, even excessively.
He deprived the elite of subjectivity and approved the only subject of power - the elected ruler.
Such imperious subjectivity existed in our Fatherland right up to Putin.

However, Putin, more unconsciously than consciously, fulfilled a new historical social order.
In our country, the power of a single elected ruler is now being replaced by the power of an elected elite.
In 2008, just in the fourth year of the new period, Putin gave the presidency to Medvedev.
The sole ruler was desubjectivized, there were at least two rulers.
And you can't bring it all back.

Now it is clear why some part of the elite dreams of Stalinism?
They do not want to have many leaders, they do not want collective power, under which compromises must be sought and found, they want the restoration of one-man rule.
And this can be done only by unleashing a new "great terror", that is, by destroying the leaders of all other groups, from Zyuganov and Zhirinovsky to Navalny, Kasyanov, Yavlinsky and our modern Trotsky-Khodorkovsky (although it is possible that the Trotsky of new Russia was after all Berezovsky), and out of the habit of systemic thinking, their social base, at least some kreakles and protest-opposition intelligentsia).

But none of this will happen.
The current vector of development is the transition to power by the elected elite.
The elected elite is a set of leaders and power as their interaction.
If someone tries to return the sole power of the elected ruler, he will end his political career almost instantly.
Putin sometimes looks like the sole, sole ruler, but he is definitely not.

Practical Stalinism does not and will not have a place in the modern social life of Russia.
And that's great.

Portal for the student. Self-training

Now let's take into account the historical realities of that era, and they tell us that:

Therefore, if we want to prove that the USSR significantly exceeded the prisoner quota, we must admit the following:

How did such an inflated myth come about?

Summing up

How easy is it to arrange not just a big, but a gigantic terror today?

Evaluation of information

Origin of the term

Ideology

Case of lyceum students

Shakhty case

Causes of the "Great Terror"

Occasion

Trial of officers of the Red Army

Repressed scientists

Writers and poets

Vsevolod Meyerhold

During the war years

Amnesty 1953

1. Formation of the penitentiary system.

2. Post-revolutionary restoration

3. Militarism in society

4. Severing social ties

5. Implementation of universal literacy

6. The contingent of punitive bodies

7. Difficult economic situation

8. A huge number of factions

9. Rejection of the world revolution

Disappointed.

10. Politicized society

11. Geographic coverage

12. Hostile environment

13. The rise of Nazism

14. Pre-war collaborationism

15. High level of freedom

Now let's take into account the historical realities of that era, and they tell us that:

Therefore, if we want to prove that the USSR significantly exceeded the prisoner quota, we must admit the following:

How did such an inflated myth come about?

Summing up

How easy is it to arrange not just a big, but a gigantic terror today?

1. What is political repression?

2. Why, speaking of political repressions, are they limited to the period of 1917-1953? There were no repressions after 1953?

3. Victims of Soviet political repression - who are they?

4. Who cannot be considered a victim of political repression?

5. How were the repressions legally formalized?

6. How many people were repressed?

7. What is rehabilitation?

8. What is being said about political repressions now?

9. How should Christians perceive political repression?

What are the conclusions?

RELATED ARTICLES