The usual norm for Stalin to read literature was about 300 pages a day. He was constantly educating himself. For example, while being treated in the Caucasus, in 1931, in a letter to Nadezhda Aliluyeva, forgetting to inform about his health, he asks him to send textbooks on electrical engineering and ferrous metallurgy.
Stalin's level of education can be assessed by the number of books he read and studied. How much he read in his life, apparently, it will not be possible to establish. He was not a collector of books - he did not collect them, but selected them, i.e. in his library were only those books that he intended to somehow use in the future. But even those books that he selected are difficult to take into account. In his Kremlin apartment, the library contained, according to witnesses, several tens of thousands of volumes, but in 1941 this library was evacuated, and how many books were returned from it is unknown, since the library in the Kremlin did not recover. Subsequently, his books were in the dachas, and an outbuilding was built under the library in the Middle. Stalin collected 20,000 volumes for this library.
The range of education can be assessed from the following data: After his death, books with his marks were transferred from the library at the Middle Dacha to the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. There were 5.5 thousand of them! In addition to dictionaries and several geography courses, this list included books by both ancient and modern historians: Herodotus, Xenophon, P. Vinogradov, R. Winner, I. Velyaminov, D. Ilovaisky, K.A. Ivanova, Guerrero, N. Kareeva, 12 volumes of Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" and the second edition of the six-volume "History of Russia from Ancient Times" by S.M. Solovyov (St. Petersburg, 1896). And also: the fifth volume of the "History of the Russian Army and Navy" (St. Petersburg, 1912). “Essays on the history of natural science in extracts from the original works of Dr. F. Dannsman” (St. Petersburg, 1897), “Memoirs of Prince Bismarck. (Thoughts and memories)(St. Petersburg, 1899). About a dozen issues of the "Bulletin of Foreign Literature" for 1894, "Literary Notes" for 1892, "Scientific Review" for 1894, "Proceedings of the Public Library of the USSR. Lenin, vol. 3 (M., 1934) with materials about Pushkin, P.V. Annenkov, I.S. Turgenev and A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylin, two pre-revolutionary editions of A. Bogdanov's book "A Short Course in Economics", a novel IN AND. Kryzhanovskaya(Rochester) "Web" (St. Petersburg, 1908), G. Leonidze's book "Stalin. Childhood and adolescence” (Tbilisi, 1939. in Georgian), etc.
According to the current criteria, Stalin, according to the scientific results achieved, was a doctor of philosophy as early as 1920. His achievements in economics are even more brilliant and still unsurpassed by anyone.
Stalin's personal archive was destroyed shortly after his death.
Stalin always worked ahead of time, sometimes several decades ahead. His effectiveness as a leader was that he set very distant goals, and today's decisions became part of large-scale plans.
Under Stalin, the country was in the most difficult conditions, but in the shortest possible time it rushed forward sharply, and this means that at that time there were a lot of smart people in the country. And this is true, since Stalin attached great importance to the mind of the citizens of the USSR. He was the smartest person, and he was sick of being surrounded by fools, he wanted the whole country to be smart. The basis for the mind, for creativity is knowledge. Knowledge about everything. And so much has never been done to provide people with knowledge, to develop their minds, as under Stalin.
Stalin did not fight with vodka, he fought for people's free time. Amateur sports were developed extremely and precisely amateur. Each enterprise and institution had sports teams and athletes from its employees. More or less large enterprises were required to have and maintain stadiums. Everyone and everything played.
Stalin preferred only Tsinandali and Teliani wines. It happened that he drank cognac, but just vodka was not interested. From 1930 to 1953, the guards saw him “in zero gravity” only twice: at S.M. Shtemenko and at the wake of A.A. Zhdanov.
In all cities of the USSR, parks remained from Stalin's time. They were originally intended for mass recreation of people. They must have had a reading room and games rooms (chess, billiards), a beer and ice-cream shops, a dance floor and summer theaters.
Under Stalin, discussions were freely held on all the fundamental questions of life: on the foundations of the economy, social life, and science. Weismann's genetics, Einstein's theory of relativity, cybernetics, the organization of collective farms were criticized, any authorities of the country were criticized in the most severe way. It is enough to compare what satirists wrote about then and what they began to write about after the 20th Congress.
If the Stalinist planning system had been preserved and still reasonably improved, and I.V. Stalin understood the need to improve the socialist economy (after all, it was not for nothing that his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” appeared in 1952), if the task of further raising the standard of living of the people was put in the first place (and in 1953 there were no obstacles to this ), by 1970 we would have been in the top three countries with the highest standard of living.
The backlog of the economy that Stalin created, his plans, the people prepared by him (both technically and morally) were so outstanding that neither Khrushchev's fool, nor Brezhnev's apathy could waste this resource.
During the first 10 years of being in the first echelons of power in the USSR, Stalin submitted his resignation three times.
Stalin looked like Lenin, but his fanaticism did not extend to Marx, but to the specific Soviet people - Stalin fanatically served him.
In the ideological struggle against Stalin, the Trotskyists simply had no chance. When Stalin proposed to Trotsky in 1927 to hold an all-party discussion, the results of the final all-party referendum were stunning for the Trotskyists. Of the 854,000 party members, 730,000 voted, of which 724,000 voted for Stalin's position and 6,000 for Trotsky.
Not the last role in the creation of the State of Israel was played by Stalin's support in the voting on the UN resolution.
Stalin severed diplomatic relations with Israel only because something like a grenade was blown up on the territory of the USSR mission in Israel. Mission members were injured by this explosion. The Israeli government rushed to the USSR with an apology, but the Stalinist USSR did not forgive anyone for such an attitude towards itself.
Despite the rupture of diplomatic relations, national mourning was declared in Israel on the day of Stalin's death.
In 1927, Stalin passed a decree that the dachas of party workers could not be more than 3-4 rooms.
Stalin treated the guards very well, and to the attendant staff. Quite often he invited them to the table, and once he saw that the sentry at the post was getting wet in the rain, he ordered to immediately build a fungus at this post. But it had nothing to do with their service. Here Stalin did not tolerate any concessions.
Stalin was very frugal with himself - he didn’t have anything superfluous from clothes, but he wore out what he had.
During the war, Stalin, as expected, sent his sons to the front.
In the Battle of Kursk, Stalin found a way out of a hopeless situation: the Germans were going to use a "technical novelty" - the Tiger and Panther tanks, against which our artillery was powerless. Stalin recalled his support for the development of A-IX-2 explosives and new experimental PTAB bombs, and gave the task: by May 15, i.e. by the time the roads are dry, make 800,000 of these bombs. 150 factories of the Soviet Union rushed to fulfill this order and did it. As a result, near Kursk, the German army was deprived of striking power by Stalin's tactical novelty - the PTAB-2.5–1.5 bomb.
After the war, Stalin gradually reduced the role of the Politburo only to the level of an organ for the leadership of the party. And at the XIX Congress of the CPSU (b) this abolition of the Politburo was recorded in the new charter.
Stalin said that he sees the party as an order of swordsmen, numbering 50 thousand people.
Stalin wanted to remove the party from power altogether, leaving only two things in the care of the party: agitation and propaganda and participation in the selection of personnel.
Stalin uttered his famous phrase “cadres decide everything” in 1935 at a reception in honor of graduates of military academies: “We talk too much about the merits of leaders, about the merits of leaders. They are credited with everything, almost all of our achievements. This is, of course, false and wrong. It's not just the leaders. ... In order to set technology in motion and use it to the bottom, we need people who have mastered technology, we need cadres capable of mastering and using this technique according to all the rules of art ... That is why the old slogan<техника решает все>... must now be replaced by a new slogan, the slogan that<кадры решают все>».
Please name the pros and cons of Stalin's rule and got the best answer
Answer from Ўriy Maksimov[guru]
In reality, Stalin did the following: 1) finally formed the entire Soviet social system with its political, social, economic institutions and principles (socialist statism, state ownership, directive-planned economy, etc.); 2) radically changed the doctrinaire ideology of Bolshevism, abandoning the course of "world revolution" and turning the international revolutionary movement into an instrument of real defense of the interests of the USSR; 3) curtailed the NEP and carried out a forced industrial modernization of the country, using the mobilization of all internal resources in the absence of external ones; 4) in the situation of an imminent new world war, he prevented the formation of a united front of the Western powers against the USSR; 5) provided fundamental (industrialization) and situational (political strategy, gaining allies, military-political leadership) conditions for victory in World War II; 6) laid the foundation for the transformation of the USSR into a superpower (post-war world order, possession of a high scientific, technical, military, nuclear potential). The speaker emphasized that there are no moral justifications for Stalin's repressions, but they should be understood as a product of the era and a continuation of the methods of the Civil War. Russia in this was not something unique, since the 20th century is the apogee of violence in world history. Collectivization became an alternative to agrarian "Stolypin-style modernization." The latter did not work out in Russia, but led to an aggravation of social hatred, which manifested itself in the revolution of 1917 and in the Civil War. Stalin carried out this modernization, ensuring industrialization at the expense of the countryside, but retaining as his support the social matrices of peasant communal traditionalism. The success of industrialization, for all its incompleteness, allowed the USSR almost single-handedly to resist the military and economic potential of not only fascist Germany, but almost all of Western Europe.
Under Stalin, the USSR became a world power, one of the two leaders of opposing social systems, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a country that controlled the center of Europe, many countries of the disintegrating colonial world, the world communist, labor and, to a large extent, national liberation movement. The borders of the USSR were reliably protected by both geopolitical acquisitions and a powerful army. The main result of Stalin's rule is that Russia has become a modern power. No wonder W. Churchill said: Stalin took Russia with a plow, and left it with a nuclear bomb and missiles. But something else is also important: the Soviet system preserved the "civilizational genotype" of Russia, providing the modernization potential for further development on its own socio-cultural basis. How it will be used depends both on the system created by Stalin and on the activities of his heirs.
Vasily Solovyov
Sage
(17614)
Would you both like to live under Stalin?
Answer from Maximyss[guru]
Almost nothing but cons!!!
Answer from Vasily Solovyov[guru]
What other advantages can a cannibal have??!
Answer from Chinese miner[guru]
well, except for tens of millions you rot in the camps, then he is a lamb
Answer from VadiK[active]
"+" - Won the war, raised the economy....
"-" - For the sake of all this, repressions had to be carried out
Answer from Alexander Chuzhinov[newbie]
-During World War II, he killed a lot of people, not believing intelligence. Even when attacked already. + was cruel and strict control over everything.
Answer from Vlad Shtrafbat[guru]
It's complicated! Everyone has their own point of view, their own sources of knowledge about those times! But there are indisputable advantages that even his enemies cannot but recognize! This is the Great War won! Create a superpower! The best education in the world! And the most powerful army!
Answer from Valery Shipitsyn[guru]
In short, he carried out industrialization, and minus mass repression!
Answer from .Unknown Unknown[guru]
there are no cons, only pros, there are so many of them that it’s impossible to list them all
Answer from Mitrich[guru]
The result of Stalin's rule is that we now live, no matter what
Answer from Ђ@nice@[guru]
Plus one - he could keep everyone in his fist. And there are too many downsides to such a fist.
Answer from Daria (DFH)[guru]
Plus - that in the end Stalin died. Minus - this did not happen about twenty years earlier.
Answer from Alena Vern[guru]
He brought the country to its knees, it still will not rise ... Through fear, he absorbed slavery and apathy into the peoples for centuries ...
Answer from Alisa Svetloyarova[guru]
+ country - a great economically strong power
- Thousands of lost lives.
Everything is simple.
Answer from OleSlav[guru]
One big plus - created a superpower. There has never been a more effective ruler in Russia, even Peter the Loshok.
Everything that is said about repressions is greatly exaggerated, the population of the country grew at a tremendous pace, despite the loss of 20 million in the war against the background of growth, it was unnoticeable
And repression is sometimes necessary, if you look at the current elite
Answer from GALINA GRIDASOV[guru]
It is more correct to speak not about the rule of Stalin, but about the period of development of the state (USSR) from 1922 to 1953. This period is divided into 2 stages (if I may say so). 1922 - 37, 39 - this period is actively Russian-hating, and the period 1939-41 to 1953 is national-Bolshevik. After the collapse of their hopes for a world revolution, the radical Western revolutionaries who came to power had to deal with the economy and development of a separate state (Russia). This discussion is long and rather complex. In short: Cons - (in the 1st period) - a low economic level, a drop in population, a drop in the level of defense capability (in the presence of a huge army that needs to be maintained), terror and the destruction of the national identity of the state-forming Russian people. The 2nd period is about the same, with a change in the vocabulary of the authorities, towards national patriotism. Pluses - the creation of plantation agriculture, which allows, with sin in half, to feed the country. The development of modern industry and energy (more or less meeting the requirements of the time. Creation and maintenance of a more or less combat-ready army. In general, the conversation is long and difficult. And not on the Internet.
Answer from imsky[guru]
he was one of the best apparatchiks
minus these are his anti-people laws
Answer from Armen Ghezalyan[newbie]
Pros:
1) fight against illiteracy (construction of new schools)
2) the country's nuclear missile shield was created (after the war)
3) space exploration
4) great attention to the development and education of children (clubs, children's camps, circles, sections, houses of pioneers, etc.)
5) before the Second World War, under the leadership of Stalin, the "industrial revolution" (the country took 2nd place in the world in terms of industrial production)
6) prevented the unification of Western countries against the USSR
7) laid the foundations for the future power of the USSR in various sectors of the economy (industry in the first place)
8) one of the lowest prices for consumer goods, utilities
Minuses:
1) policy of great terror:
- destruction of intelligence
- destruction of the leadership of the army
- the destruction of scientific thought (if ideas were put forward that differed from the official policy and guidelines of the party)
Since Stalin gave birth to a mother, had courage, gave birth to God's boy, Joseph, now we can say that Stalin, whatever he may be, is in history, where to go - he staked out a page, was and will be, however, for the edification of many.
I don’t like you to read multi-volume, wordy treatises, studies, novels, epics, all this is boring, therefore I will reasonably limit myself to a small but accurate description, disclosure of the issue, and this is the carefully squeezed out essence, so our all aspirations are for such a brief truth, or I'm wrong?
In view of the fact that Stalin has only one plus in his political life-career, and everything else goes to the minus, then this plus, we will show you what is the point of stirring up blood and dirt once again, can you drown in Stalin's minuses?
So, this plus can be understood, accepted only from the point of view of Stalin's benefit precisely for the functioning of the state.
And what is useful for the state?
What was a plus for the state under Stalin?
Somewhere so...
Strict discipline, diligence and responsibility throughout the power vertical, and therefore the absence of theft and corruption at any level.
But this does not mean that there were no violations of the law in favor of the inhuman, bloody ideology of purges for the sake of purges, it was enough for the eyes, and this is the destruction of justice, which is clearly a minus.
But we agreed that we would not talk about the minuses of Stalin's totalitarian rule, but only about the pluses, and, alas, there was only one plus, I spoke about it above, drew a line.
And what, for the sake of this only plus, do we need to pray for Stalin?
I don't think.
I made an unequivocal conclusion for myself on the insignificant personality of Stalin, it is he who is the gravedigger (murderer - ed.) of normal, fair, democratic, non-dogmatic, human socialism, without caste, corrupting the privileges of party bureaucrats and general violation of laws, crushed by the swaggering higher authorities in the person of the party and economic asset, the aspirations of the people were broken through the knee.
Lack of justice (established by Stalin's rule), necessary through the real power of the people, namely: local councils, rejection of rationality, thoughtfulness and scientific development of the economy, and not stupid, completely formalized implementation of the plan at any cost with medals, orders on the chest for opportunistic officials , and ruined the most advanced system on the planet - scientific socialism!
It always surprises me that we are afraid to point the finger at a person who has seized upon power, who can safely be called a nonentity?
If, in fact, the "gray mouse" is chosen by all means to power, then we should bow our knees in front of his high chair?
Do we not have eyes, ears, brains to evaluate the one who has reached the pinnacle of power?
Lenin is a great, highly educated person.
Marx and Engels are in the same line of geniuses of mankind.
Sheer stupidity, narrow-mindedness; poor education, empty, unfounded ambitions; cowardice, and therefore cruelty, a soul without pity; lack of modesty; swaggering arrogance, inner depravity; craving for alcohol; greed; selfishness; narcissism; overestimation of their average abilities; lack of talent, insightful mind and therefore wisdom; far from true science and therefore the lack of a scientific, dialectical view of the world, of society in all its manifestations, up to culture and art - these are the qualities of these micro-personalities of our close history ... and now thanks to them we are where we are now .. and they could have turned the whole world towards peace and justice ... but they lost ... our nonentities helped in this ...
How can you have a great socialism, even more, a system of socialism in your hands and lose to capitalism?
Is it necessary to manage to have all the advantages of people's public property and surrender socialism so shamefully and cowardly?
The economy of socialism (if it was approached with soul and mind - author) was supposed to trample on capitalism, leave no living place on it, in terms of its strength and justice, socialism is a priori higher than capitalism, but has it been blown away?
How could this be allowed, if not through one's insignificance in power?
To whom do we entrust the future?
They screwed him up!
Now we are sitting and trembling, waiting for a nuclear catastrophe... international capitals are locked in a deadly fight... and when the eyes are filled with greed, and then with hatred, the brains do not work...
Why did I keep silent about Putin?
Its time has not yet come ... but the pros and cons are still piling up ... what
outweigh?
It so happened that today our society in its attitude to I. V. Stalin- split in two.
Some demonize this historical figure and hate her fiercely, while others, on the contrary, deify Stalin's personality and almost pray to him.
There are many reasons for such a strange split of the nation! ..
But the main one, in my opinion, is a huge deficit OBJECTIVE and UNPARTIAL historical information about the life and work of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin and the entire party environment of that era (the first half of the twentieth century). Moreover, the deficit of this OBJECTIVE INFORMATION
we observe against the backdrop of an emotionally colored propaganda both on the part of Stalin's opponents and on the part of his defenders ...
- Stalin, this is a murderer of his own people, a bloody tyrant and a murderer! - yelling alone, splashing with saliva.
- Stalin, this is the best ruler of Russia for the entire time of its existence! - foaming at the mouth object their opponents. - Stalin is the savior of the Russian people! ..
The hatred of the former is understandable - indeed, mass repressions and purges took place (which few families in Russia did not touch).
But let's ask clarifying questions:
- Is it only Stalin who is to blame for these repressions?
- By what year did Stalin have real power over the country?
- What is the real number of repressed and dead, and what is their social composition? ..
The list of questions can go on and on!
The deification of his idol by the second is also understandable - he accepted the country with a plow, passed it with an atomic bomb; he was not noticed in acquisitiveness, after death only an overcoat and boots remained; moreover, if in the end it was not Stalin who won, but Trotsky, there would be hundreds of times more repressed and destroyed, and Russia would no longer exist on the world map as a country ...
WHERE IS THE TRUTH?!
It seems to me that the truth here, as always, lies somewhere ...
Personally, I see many pluses from Stalin's activities, but there are also enough minuses. Pluses, nevertheless, more - and tangibly!
I am opposed to hasty conclusions (all the more so based not on facts, but on propaganda and emotions) and I believe that the personality of Stalin and his role in history must be carefully studied and cleared of that huge amount of mythological layers that have piled up since Khrushchev and beyond. the entire subsequent period.
In any case, I DEFINITELY AGAINST - both the deification of Stalin and his demonization!
At the moment, I am inclined to the point of view that Stalin brought much more benefits to the country as a whole than he made mistakes.
It is impossible not to take into account the fact that the policy itself, the situation itself was then such that either - rigidity and strength, dictatorship, or - the destruction of the country.
If "Dima Medvedev" had been in Stalin's place, the country would have been instantly torn to shreds! (And the dead people, in the end, would be many times more).
But portraying Stalin as "pink and fluffy" is also not worth it, I think (there are a lot of undeniable facts of his rigidity and even cruelty).
In a word - quite an adequate politician of his time!
And of course - by no means a demon, not a murderer, not a bloodsucker, as the liberals and the West are trying to portray ...
By the way, I really liked the book for its objectivity. Nikolai Starikov "Stalin. Let's remember together" .
Also a six part movie. Vladimir Chernyshev "Stalin with us" :
Part - I. Series 1-2.
Part - II. Series 3-4.
Part - III. Series 5-6.
This (film) is already for real OBJECTIVE and UNPARTIAL view of Stalin, I think. Neither a plus nor a minus, everything is objective, reasonable and without emotions / propaganda. I strongly recommend viewing to anyone who is interested in historical truth, and not embedded in consciousness from childhood STAMPS...
Immediately, as soon as Stalin was in power, he set about creating a unique image around his political figure. Despite all the contradictory actions of the general secretary regarding the execution and exile of everyone who was not pleasing to the new leader, Stalin was adored and loved by the people.
After, under the leadership of the communist leader, the USSR was able to win the Great Patriotic War, Stalin's personality cult increased significantly. Of course, it was quite difficult for Khrushchev to compete with such an image of his predecessor, so he began to debunk the personality cult that had been created over the years.
That is why Khrushchev began to cancel the reforms of the old government, to return public figures objectionable to Stalin from exile, to work on creating his own positive image among the people. All the actions carried out by Khrushchev to debunk the personality cult of Stalin were accepted by the people ambiguously, and later were completely condemned by historians. In pursuit of their goals, party leaders embellished history and blatantly lied in media reports and textbooks.
What measures did Khrushchev use to debunk the cult of Stalin, and did they bear fruit?
Pros and cons in the table
The announcement of the facts about Stalin's abuses, the condemnation of repressions was of great positive significance. | |
It caused the approval of millions of people and became the impetus for the revival of public life. | People refused to believe the information discrediting Stalin. |
Rehabilitation of the repressed began | The resolution of the Central Committee established the limits of criticism of the cult of personality. |
The process of eliminating the most negative aspects of the totalitarian regime has begun. | Destruction of student circles. |
Brutal suppression of the uprising in Hungary. |
|
Indicate the name of the leader of the USSR, to which the statement of the writer A. Solzhenitssh refers: “It was given to Khrushchev three times and five times harder and longer to draw the liberation of the country — he left it as fun, not understanding his task, left it for space, for culture, for Cuban missiles, Berlin ultimatums, for the persecution of the church, for the division of regional committees, for fight against abstractionists" |
